Original Doc taken from the CRTC Web Site:



http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc%5Fbr/transcripts/1998/c120698.html



TRANSCRIPT - Campus Radio Review Discussion

DISCUSSION HELD AT:

University of Victoria

Victoria, British Columbia

12 June 1998

CRTC



BEFORE:  Joan Pennefather  Commissioner

         Morag York        Policy Analyst

         Michelle Edge     Senior Regional Officer



Victoria, British Columbia



--- Upon commencing on Friday, June 12, 1998 at 0930



1 MS YORK: My name is Morag York, I'm a policy analyst at the CRTC, for

those who haven't been in sessions with me so far.



2 And on my left here is Commissioner Joan Pennefather. She's one of our

newest commissioners. She has an extensive background in film and

television. She worked for seventeen years at the National Film Board. She

worked with the NAC, she's been a consultant with broadcasting and

telecommunications. She's one of our newest commissioners. She's going to

be -- well, she'll talk herself in a couple of minutes.



3 And on my far left is Michelle Edge. She's an officer at the Vancouver

regional office. She's here to help out.



4 I've invited Caroline Cote to sit up here with us, you guys all know.

She's just going to be here so that she has access to a mic and she can put

comments in more easily any time.



5 Okay?



6 And on my extreme left, we have a reporter, Barbara, who's transcribing

this session, and I just want to explain that for everybody who may not be

familiar with this. The consultation here today is part of the Commission's

public process, so we're transcribing it, and the transcription is going to

be on the public record.



7 So this is part of the public process, and it's available for anybody who

has any interest to access it later, so don't be intimidated, but this is

part of our open public process. And because we're transcribing it, we're

going to ask people, when they talk, to preferably come up to a microphone,

and when you say something, if you can give your name and the station

you're with at the beginning when you start talking, then we can put it

properly in the record of the proceeding. I say record of the proceeding,

but it's very informal. I don't want anybody to think that this makes it

more formal.



8 You know, yesterday when you were having your plenary session, I heard

the facilitator, she kept trying to say, "We don't want to have any cross-

debate here. We have to cut off the cross-debate." I want cross-debate

today. I'd like people to talk back and forth and have some discussion, so

we'd like it to be informal. We just ask that you try to use the mic and

you try to identify yourself at the beginning for the purposes of the

transcription.



9 Okay?



10 I'm just going to talk a little bit about the context of the review. The

Commission has been sort of reviewing all of its policies lately. There has

been a recognition that the broadcasting environment has changed, that

times are changing, communications are changing, and it's time for the

Commission to sort of stand back and have a look at the policies and

regulations it has, and make sure that they're still relevant in the kind

of emerging global communications environment.



11 We started off in 1996 looking at our cable regulations, and that came

out with the broadcast distribution regulations in 1997. In 1997 we

announced our agenda for the review of radio. This fall we're going to have

a review of television programming. There's going to be a review of ethnic

programming. What else do we have here -- ethnic programming coming up this

year, and the CBC license renewal next year, to talk about the CBC's role

and mandate of the broadcasting system, so we're really looking at all of

the elements of the broadcasting system, and this is just one element

within that.



12 What we said in the agenda for radio review -- for the review of radio

policies, is that we would look at all the different sectors of radio. We

started off with the commercial radio review, which is already done. We had

a hearing. We put out a decision earlier this year. That commercial radio

policy doesn't apply to campus radio unless or until we choose to apply it

to you, so all of the things that we announced in that commercial radio

policy, there are things that we should talk about but they're not

necessarily applying to you in exactly the same way, and we have to talk

about what parts of that are relevant to the campus radio sector.



13 We've had a slight small review of Native broadcasting, we've got a

review of community radio going on sort of parallel to this, and the CBC

will be reviewed in the mandate hearing next year, so this is one element

within the radio review in general.



14 And I just have a couple of administrative announcements, which is that

English language community broadcasters, we're going to have a separate

session this afternoon to talk with you separately, because you're

technically a different sector than the campus radio people, so we'll have

a different discussion with you -- with anybody who's interested in that

this afternoon.



15 And also we've brought a few documents with us. They're on the side

table if anybody wants them. We have the -- a copy of the radio regulations

and a copy of the "Promise of Performance." That's the second part of your

application, because those things might come up in discussion so they might

help.



16 Another thing on the side table is the "Glossary of Terms," and I just

want to give a word of warning about the glossary of terms, which is that

it's almost completely out of date, so please don't rely on that. The

reason I have it is because it has a description of the musical categories

and subcategories, Category 2, 22, 23, Category 3, those are still

accurate, and I think they might be discussed today, so I wanted to have

something with that, so please only use the Glossary of Terms for that and

not for anything else.



17 And I think that's all I have to say. I'm going to let Joan say a few

words and then we'll --I'll come back and talk about how we're going to do

this discussion.



18 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thanks, Morag. Good morning everybody. As

Morag said, I'm a Commissioner. I'm a national Commissioner based in

Ottawa, and she described to you very well the numbers of policy reviews

the CRTC is undertaking over the course of the next what seems long but is

actually a very short time period, and a very important part of that

process, which you probably already know, is that this is a commission

interested in hearing your views, and we've embarked on different ways of

doing that.



19 In the television programming review, for example, in Canadian content

regulations, we're meeting with people across the country. I was just in

Calgary, and we'll be in Halifax next Saturday, and my fellow Commissioners

are also in different parts of the country.



20 We're meeting people across the country on telecom issues dealing with

high cost serving areas. We're engaging in town hall discussions on these

various areas of broadcasting in our country, and it's in that context that

I'm here today. I'm here to listen. I'm not here to present a pre-

disposition on anything. I'm looking for your ideas, for your thoughts, for

imaginative approaches. Obviously the context, as Morag has described, is

our existing policy and regulations, and a review thereof in the coming

months, and so this is a chance for you to fill us in your concerns, your

ideas and your thoughts.



21 We don't have a fixed agenda as such, although from Morag's instruction

in listening and actually knowing your dossier very very well, there are

obviously some areas that have come up quite often, and we could certainly

focus on those if you wish, but the floor is open to any ideas that you

want to bring forward -- any concerns, comments, et cetera. That's the

nature of the session.



22 And again, if you could identify yourselves, not only for Barbara, but

for me so I know which parts of the country you're from. That would be

terrific. And we'll ask questions for clarification. But as I said, I'm not

here to pre-dispose the decisions of the future, but to look at all the

alternatives. "Alternative," I think, being an excellent word, I think, to

describe this discussion.



23 So it's now time to get going. We can open the floor to discussion,

unless you have any other --



24 MS YORK: One administrative thing I forgot to mention is that the NCRA

has been holding regional meetings. I don't know how many of you have been

involved in those regional meetings over the last year or so. Magnus -- I

don't know if you realize, but Magnus did a summary of the issues that were

raised at those regional meetings, and he provided me with a copy of that

summary. I think I'll ask him to post it to the list afterwards, because I

don't know how many people have seen it, but that --



25 MS COTE: It's been put on the list already.



26 MS YORK: It has been already? And that's part of the public process as

well, and that's what I'm using sort of as my basis for -- for trying to

understand what the issues are.



27 I have a list of what the issues have come up, but I don't want you to

feel that we have to stick to that list. I'm going to read off the topics

and you guys can follow those or bring up anything else that you want,

whatever is best for you.



28 Is that okay? Okay.



29 So the topics that I've heard that people have talked about are -- or

that we've raised are the role of campus/community stations. I'm talking

about the description in the policy where we've talked about your role. I

want to -- or I thought you might want to have some discussion about what

that means and what it means in practice, and whether that's still a good

reflection of what your role is.



30 Canadian content in music, that was raised in the commercial radio

review. The very very low power or training license, that issue has been

raised in a number of the regional meetings, that categories of these,

subcategories of these -- the question of the boards of directors and who's

on them, which I heard you talk about yesterday in the plenary session,

advertising levels, spoken word, block programming, news program hits were

key factors, all those things that are in the programming, rules that are

in the promise of performance, the complaints process, the application

forms, sort of general Commission assistance, you guys making ourselves

available and making our policies available and clear to you, and

employment equity, if that's a topic that anyone has anything to say about,

so those are some of the issues that have been raised.



31 Caroline has just suggested that before we throw open the discussion

that maybe we go around the room and people just talk -- just briefly name

the station they're from. Would that -- or give their names and the station

they're from. Would that help? It would help Joan, I think. So is that all

right? We'll start over here and just sort of go around and people can call

out their name and where they're from.



32 Mopa Dean, CIUT FM Toronto.



33 I'm Andy Posthumus from C101.5 in Mohawk College in Hamilton, and we're

an instructional station.



34 I'm Clint Lalonde, CKMO in Victoria here, and we're also an

instructional station.



35 I'm Alan from CFUV. (Off mic)



36 Sophia from (off mic) Radio.



37 John Leacock from CFRU in Guelph, Ontario.



38 Carole Barbeau from CHUO.



39 Angela Christopher from CHUO.



40 Robert from CFRO in Vancouver.



41 Sonya from CFBU in St. Catherines.



42 Sean from CFU in St. Catherines.



43 Anthony from CJSF in Burnaby.



44 Trevor from CJSF in Burnaby.



45 Farah from CJSF in Burnaby.



46 Larry from CKDU in Halifax.



47 Evan from CKUT in Montreal.



48 Rob from what will soon be CKUW in Winnipeg.



49 Keith from CKUV here in Victoria.



50 Trevor, CORS in Oakville.



51 Maizun from CJSW in Calgary.



52 Kevin from CQBU in Brandon.



53 Brant from Radio Cariboo in Kamloops.



54 Chris from OTC Radio in Kelowna.



55 Donna Gulley, (off mic) CICR, Sault St. Marie, Ontario.



56 Tristis from CHSR, Fredericton.



57 Heather from CJAM in Windsor.



58 Helena Katz from CKUT, Montreal.



59 Ted from CFUV Radio here in Victoria.



60 Chad from CJSW, Calgary.



61 Mike, CJSW, Calgary.



62 Carole Barbeau.



63 MS YORK: We've got two floor mics, so we'd prefer if people come up to

the mic and speak into the mic, although if we're going to have cross-

debate, obviously there'll be some calling out from the seats. If anybody

wants to just come up and start the discussion or tell us anything else

they want added to the agenda or anything, we're just going to throw it

open right now, and if we don't get any talk, we'll try to focus a little

bit more. Does anybody have anything they want to say?



64 MR. HORLUCK: I guess to get the ball rolling here a little bit --



65 MS YORK: Your name?



66 MR. HORLUCK: Ted Horluck, CFUV Radio.



67 MS YORK: Thanks, Ted.



68 MR. HORLUCK: I'm the lunchtime news guy, and basically I have a fifteen-

minute program five days out of the week. One of my major questions is, how

in the heck am I supposed to do my job as a news person? First off, there

is no requirement for news in our license; but the second, most

importantly, is funds. There's absolutely no access for me to any type of

funds. I can neither compete or even follow the pack of reporters around

town here, let alone get over to Vancouver to cover some of the important

events or anywhere else in the country. An internet website obviously costs

money out of my own pocket. The majority of news volunteers go through a

heck of a lot of expense in order to do their job.



69 My real question is, is not so much why news isn't part of -- of what we

do, but how in the heck am I supposed to do a job like this if there are no

funds available to us? Do I -- do I, you know, what part of my broadcast,

my fifteen-minutes a day, what part of my day do I devote to commercial

advertising?



70 MS COTE: Can I respond?



71 MS YORK: Sure.



72 MS COTE: That really sounds like an internal station thing with

resources, and it's a problem that we all face at our stations is a lack of

resources and a lack of funds because of -- you know, a lot of us are

dependant on -- on the students, and there's been, you know, smaller

amounts of students at our universities or colleges or in the institutions

where we are, so it is a problem, but it is very much an internal problem,

and news was lifted the last time that we went through the review of

policy, because we didn't want to get tied down to any -- any commitments

of news because of a lack of resources but we are -- we do always encourage

the stations to do news, and I think most of us do news, but we call all of

it spoken word now.



73 And in terms of commercial advertising, that's -- that's incredibly

internal, so -- but we do have a maximum of four minutes per hour of

advertising, so if it's your fifteen minutes, then you have, you could say,

a maximum of one minute per your fifteen minutes of advertising.



74 MR. HORLUCK: And what, about thirty-five dollars for the ad is hardly

enough. Anyways, according to your sheets here, page number five of this

document, what is called Chapter 948 Broadcast Act.



75 MS YORK: The radio regulations?



76 MR. HORLUCK: Yeah, page five, number 6. Political Broadcasts. And what

you have here is: "... equitable basis to all accredited political

parties." And if you recall from the debates, we have a Reform Natural Law

Party. Some of the other parties weren't allowed to even participate in the

CBC debates because they obviously didn't represent enough people.



77 Here locally in Victoria, my -- in terms of the news, my coverage of the

political scene is -- is very limited, simply because natural law parties -

- some of the fringe parties never get real media coverage, so we are by

default the only type of political coverage that they will get, so if I was

to maybe carry a message from the Natural law Party, then certainly the

Liberals and Progressive Conservatives and all the mainstream parties would

also -- I would have to be equitable in -- in my time for them, so again,

just -- that particular policy is -- is, you know, kind of restrictive to a

degree in terms of the type of radio station we are. We are the mainstream

--78 MS YORK: So you're suggesting that campus radio should be exempted

from the regulation that requires them to -- to provide equitable time to

political broadcasts?



79 MR. HORLUCK: I -- in terms of equitable, yeah. Maybe just scratch the

word "equitable" even, because, you know, it does create quite a problem,

like I say, and --



80 MS YORK: Has anybody else had an experience with that?



81 MS BARBEAU: Can I ask a question?



82 MS YORK: Sure. Sorry? Could you introduce yourself?



83 MS BARBEAU: Oh, I'm Carole Barbeau from CHUO. Are you talking about the

unpaid -- the free time that political parties get on broadcasters, or are

you talking about coverage in your show of --



84 MR. HORLUCK: Well, like the Liberals could afford to pay, but Natural

Law Party couldn't afford to pay.



85 MS BARBEAU: No, but there are regulations for unpaid advertising for

political parties in times of campaigns and out of campaigns. Are you

talking about that, or are you talking about the balancing programming that

you have to have in your program?



86 MR. HORLUCK: Well, yeah, during --during the campaigns is mainly what

I'm talking about, and it's unpaid. It's all unpaid on my show.



87 MS BARBEAU: Okay. So that's your own coverage of -- like, just used for

the people, you're talking about?



88 MR. HORLUCK: That's correct, you know, what party are you running, you

know, who are you, why should we vote for you, that kind of stuff. So it is

certainly --



89 MS BARBEAU: So that's not the unpaid advertising from the parties that

they are entitled to in the law. That's not --



90 MS YORK: Right, I think you're talking about the balance requirements,

and -- and the balance requirements say that, you know, there's a clause in

the Broadcasting Act that says that -- that programming on -- on

broadcasting services should be balanced, and we've interpreted that to

mean that it should be balanced within a station, so each individual

station so should provide a balanced news service -- or not news, but

spoken word service, not necessarily across the system as a whole. We've

had this debate in the past. I don't know how many people are familiar with

it, but some people have said, well, you know, if commercial broadcasters

or mainstream broadcasters present one point of view, our mandate is to

provide a non-mainstream point of view, so we should be able to provide

balance to the other services, but the Commission has not taken that

approach.



91 The Commission's approach is that each station has an obligation to

provide a range of views and a balanced programming service. Does anybody

else have any comments on that issue?



92 MR. HORLUCK: I'd just like to cite one example, which is the British

Columbia government spends one point five million dollars a year in

advertising new programs and -- and stuff like that, and not one single

penny has ever been offered to any of us.



93 MS YORK: Okay, I'd like to --



94 MR. HORLUCK: Is there any reason why -- that I should give them any time

of the day, especially during political issues?



95 MS YORK: Okay, I'd like to let somebody else talk now.



96 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean from CIUT FM in Toronto. Although I don't have --

actually have a problem with the campus sector actually having to attain a

balance in its programming, the first station, because I also feel that it

also alleviates to a better level and standard of broadcasting on a whole.



97 What I'm concerned about, and when I look at it, though, is that when

you look at the admission statement for campus/community radio, the

politically, socially disadvantaged groups wording of it, although that is

great, that the government, the CRTC takes -- saying, look, there is a

group of people usually working or -- or from this sector of society who

don't have access to the mainstream of radio broadcasting, yet you still

require people from this part of society to have a sort of non-polarized

point of view, but they're coming from a various polarized society.



98 And let's face it, people on the right, the affluent people who have

access to media, people who have access to education and money and funds

are not socially, politically and economically usually disadvantaged, so my

question is, or what I'm looking at, is that I see a contradiction in

automatically polarizing a section of the -- or part of the -- a sector of

broadcasting where they're coming from distinct positions, and yet then

asking them to be unbiased, particularly when they open up the newspapers,

when they turn onto commercial radio, when they turn on the T.V. and

they're getting a lot of different sort of views in the context that it's

actually not unbiased or it's coming from a particular point of view

because this person owns all these newspapers or owns all these T.V.'s.



99 So I'm really wondering if the CRTC is considering at looking at that

re-vamping that, because when you look at the commercial sector, it doesn't

say that, you know, this sector is set up for the non-politically, socially

and economically disadvantaged, right? Anybody can go -- go out there, but

as we all know, not too many people who are coming from sort of a less

affluent point of view or a different point of view are actually getting

access to the commercial radio stations, and that's where I see that a lot

of confusion is set up within the campus sector, that while the commercial

media maintains the right, the campus/community media maintains the left or

left of centre, and that that's why people come with the context that

campus/community radio is to "voice" -- voice, and as we know, the argument

that went down and was challenged, I think it was from out here. I forget

what station it was.



100 MS YORK: COOP.



101 MR. DEAN: COOP. And the CRTC challenged it, and then made their point

of view, so I understand it, but I'd like to know if -- if the CRTC is

going to look at that and -- and how they see that -- or position on it,

because a lot of people really do find it hard that you're asking these

people who are in this form of media in a reactionary form to what they

see, what they hear, what they read, for the government to their place of

society, yet you're asking them to do something that even the commercial

sector in a lot of times isn't doing, so if someone could provide some

comment or idea on that.



102 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, I just want to make sure I understand

the point, and I think it's a really crucial one. Number one on the list is

definition of campus radio, which uses the word "alternative programming."

So to be clear, I want to just be sure I understand your point very

clearly. In the sense that it's recognized that what one will hear on

campus radio or alternative points of view, correct, are you feeling that

that is restrictive by the definition? That's point number one, because I

don't see that in and of itself the expression of a different point of view

is necessarily restricted.



103 The second part of that is, though, the numbers of different points of

view, all be they alternative, also have access, so it's -- it's the

question of balance and the balance of alternative voices.



104 MR. DEAN: I just think that it's really hard to sort of polarize an

area of -- of broadcasting in the country, but then ask them to be

unbiased. I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive for balance or high

standard, but particularly when a lot of people -- and the fact is that a

lot of people are here for a social activist point of view or in reaction

to the mainstream, and yet they can see, you know, the mass buying up of

newspapers, the mass buying up of the media, or radio stations, or even to

move into the commercial sector for multiple ownership, and -- and seeing

that, well, you know, they don't have to do that, or they do it in

particular because they can hide behind the regulations because they're

very well trained, right, and so they can make it seem like it, but in

reality that is all coming from a particular point of view.



105 So what I'm looking at is, how can you polarize a section of broad -- a

sector of broadcasting or start it from a very polarized position and then

ask them to not maintain that throughout their broadcasting. I think that's

contradictory.



106 MS YORK: All right, I follow you. I just wanted to be sure I understood

your point. I won't argue the point at this stage, obviously, but are you

on the same topic, sort of, or -- okay, so we'll come back to it.



107 Actually, just to maybe clarify the discussion, maybe I -- is everybody

familiar with the -- with the definition of campus radio that's in the

policy right now, so we really know what we're talking about here? Do you

want me to read it to you? Okay, I'll just read -- this is the definition

of campus/community radio that's included in the policy as it stands right

now. I'll just read it so you know.



108 "The primary role of these stations is to provide alternative

programming such as music, especially Canadian music, not generally heard

on commercial stations. In-depth spoken word programming, and programming

targeted to specialized groups within the community and programming serving

the needs of socially, culturally, politically and economically

disadvantaged groups within the community."



109 I'll just leave it like that.



110 So that's the issue we're talking about here. You have that mandate on

the one hand, and on the other hand you have mandate to be balanced within

your stations, so --



111 MR. LEACOCK: I'm John Leacock from CFRU in Guelph. My question to the

CRTC is with regards to license renewals. We are due to be -- like, for

license renewal in 1999. What sort of steps does the CRTC provide in terms

of assistance, possibly legal assistance, to assist community radio

stations, since community radio stations usually doesn't have a budget to

possibly have a lawyer to represent and to make sure that -- and to make

sure that we're, you know, going by the letter of the requirements for the

CRTC, like, what sort of changes do you have planned -- in your plans to

assist that? Simply, because, like, in terms of content, we had a couple of

complaints with regards to hip hop music where what is construed as being

obscene language used on -- within a particular time of the day, you know,

we just want to know what we could do prior to a license renewal to assure

that certain steps were taken so that we don't end up like other community

radio station like CKDU in Halifax where sometimes it was -- might have

been construed as a lack of understanding on the part of the CRTC with

regards to alternative music types and music styles that, you know --



112 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, well, first of all, being here and

hearing you say that is really important. Thank you for raising it. And

Morag, could you comment on what exists now in terms of assistance?



113 MS YORK: It's sort of hard to know where to start. A standard license

renewal is not usually considered particularly difficult. Usually a station

doesn't go to a hearing. The fact that CKDU was called to a hearing in

1994, whenever it was, was very rare. Generally speaking, if there's not a

huge issue, stations don't come to a hearing at a license renewal. It's a

pretty standard straightforward process.



114 And one thing we have done recently is we -- we changed the forms, so

the renewal form, and I -- they're not actually ready yet. I was trying to

get them ready for this meeting, but -- they've been re-done but they're

not quite out yet, but I just wanted to show you that the new renewal form

is like two pages now. It's very very simple. If you're not changing

anything from your last renewal, all you have to do is basically say, "We

want to renew on the same terms and conditions as before," and you sign it

and it makes a public process, if anybody wants to raise issues or -- or

make interventions against you, they can do that, but if you don't get

interventions, if there's no issues, it's a very straightforward process

for the renewal.



115 Now, in your case, I think you're talking about where there has been

some issues, where there has been some complaints?



116 MR. LEACOCK: Yeah, just a couple. It was pretty naive complaints to be

honest.



117 MS YORK: Oh, here's the new form, it looks like this -- the new form.

That's how big it is.



118 MR. LEACOCK: So basically, do we just have to send that in and --

119 MS YORK: Oh, actually, you have to do that and the promise of

performance, I forgot, but it can be exactly the same as the last one you

did if you're not changing anything. If the complaints were resolved

satisfactorily, and I assume -- do you know if they were, I mean, when we

got complaints we asked you to respond. You never heard again?



120 MR. LEACOCK: Yeah, we -- yeah, we never heard again. It was just --it's

kind of intimidating from the standpoint of a community radio station that

you have a lawyer on the other side responding to your --

121 MS YORK: Yeah.



122 MR. LEACOCK: You know, you don't have legal training, and you're

basically trying to explain what your interpretation of your abidance to

your promise of performance.



123 MS YORK: Sure.



124 MR. LEACOCK: And then you have to respond back to a completely legal

document, you know, there's no -- there's no access, there's no ombuds

person or anybody that you could go to to assist you with that.



125 MS YORK: Well, you can certainly contact anybody at the Commission,

anybody on staff anytime.



126 MR. LEACOCK: Okay.



127 MS YORK: You can call me if --



128 MR. LEACOCK: Okay, I'm -- I'm going to get some business cards, that's

cool.



129 MS YORK: Yeah, anytime, but I just wanted to say that in terms of

complaints, if they're resolved -- if you haven't heard back from us,

they're considered -- they're probably resolved satisfactorily. If they

weren't, we would have contacted you again.



130 Yeah, because I'm sort of intimidated, and I'm thinking --



131 MS YORK: Yeah.



132 MR. LEACOCK: -- maybe I should take some pro-active measures and send

information in to your --



133 MS YORK: Yeah.



134 MR. LEACOCK: -- saying this is the steps that we have taken to --



135 MS YORK: Yes, but it doesn't hurt. You can send in anything you want

with the renewal, and we like things like internal policies --



136 MR. LEACOCK: No, I want to send it before the renewal because I don't

want -- when the renewal come, you end up like CKDU.



137 MS YORK: I think if you send it before the renewal we won't really know

what to do with -- if you send it in with your renewal form, it's probably

a good idea. We do --



138 MR. LEACOCK: Okay, that's cool.



139 MS YORK: We do like to see that you have internal policies, guidelines

in place, it helps us, but if the complaints were resolved, you know,

they're on the public file. We would look through them. If it didn't look

like there was a big problem or a big history, you know, it's not usually a

big deal.



140 MR. LEACOCK: Okay, thank you very much.



141 MR. CLARK: Hi. My name is John Clark from CJSF in Burnaby.



142 And speaking of the balanced programming, well, I kind of have a bug up

my ass about the way that the system works.



143 The advertiser-oriented radio doesn't provide balance programming, and

we do. We provide a balance to their programming, and we provide several

viewpoints on a lot of issues rather than one or two.



144 The way that I see it is that it's ways that are to kick our ass into

line, right, because we're powerless, like Conrad Black -- and, well, it's

something that -- that I feel the need to, you know, point out as being the

way that I see it. I'm not necessarily saying the CRTC, but the government

in general and the way the political system works.



145 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Sorry, Morag, I want to understand. Could you

explain a little further what you mean?



146 MR. CLARK: Well, actually, I sort of have this view of CRTC maybe being

realistic about their own future and people like us would never threaten

your existence, but the people in the right wing of the political spectrum

in the Canadian establishment might very well do that -- somebody like

Conrad Black, and it's -- it's a crime that the government lets this

happen, that in Vancouver, the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the

Globe and Mail are all owned by the same man who sets his editorial

policies very strictly, and other viewpoints are completely shut out of the

system.



147 So when you come to us and tell us that we have to provide balanced

programming, there's going to be a lot of resistance to that, and you can

understand that, and -- and I see it as a -- as I was saying about Conrad

Black has a lot more power and influence politically than we do, it's much

easier to say, okay, campus radio, you guys get into line. We have a

certain set of rules for you, and -- but -- and we do for mainstream

advertier-oriented media, too, but those aren't really applied. There's

really not a lot of pressure for those people to provide balanced

programming, whereas we sort of, you know, with the Voice of Palestine

thing, it's all a matter of who has the biggest lobby to get the political

job done, right?



148 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. Okay, I am --



149 MR. CLARK: I don't know if -- I don't know if I'm looking for a

response from that or that was just a comment, but --



150 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I'm taking it as a comment, obviously, and --



151 MR. CLARK: Okay, that's fine.



152 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And that's what this form is for, to express

what you think. Obviously my one response is that the CRTC is an

independent body, but this process, I think, demonstrates that we're here

to listen to different points of view.



153 The other point you're raising is balance within the system, and you're

also underlining what your interpretation of the role of campus radio, if I

understand you correctly, as per the description.



154 MR. CLARK: Well, I'd like to call it --



155 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And bringing back the point of alternative

programming.



156 MR. CLARK: I like to call it advertiser-oriented media and --



157 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Versus --



158 MR. CLARK: -- listener-oriented or consumer-oriented media.



159 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Got it. Thanks for the comment.



160 MR. CLARK: Thank you very much.



161 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



[producer oriented]



162 MS MAJAURY: I guess I'll just continue on with this.



163 MS YORK: Your name?



164 MS MAJAURY: My name is Heather Majaury, and I'm with CJAM in Windsor.



165 The issue of balance is particularly important, I believe, at our

station, and I deal with the spoken word department, and it has to do with

microcausim's reflecting macrocausm's, and it has to do with the fact that

when we only look at the microcosm, we fail to see the big picture, and

right now I'm extremely limited with that big picture.



166 I have a large, very aggressive country to my north, and -- Detroit is

north of Windsor, and it's very large, and we are the only city on a border

that has that size of a city beside us, and we have, I believe, a

responsibility to Canada as well as our community to be representing our

points of view, and the macrocosm is such that if I provide violence within

my own station, then I am incapable of providing balance to in the larger

picture. That doesn't mean that you can't have good journalism, and I think

that the idea of balance is very based in a mythology of non-biased

broadcasting. It does not exist. There may be ethics that many reporters

individually try to follow, but if we -- if we do look at commercial media,

there is no such thing as a bias. Editorials are changed, people do

internally sensor themselves, given to the power structure that is in

place, and so I think that we have some -- we have policies right now that

are based on mytho's already, and we need to really re-evaluate those

mytho's.



167 I believe that there can be good journalism that comes from a point of

view, and it has to do with context, and I'm concerned that only the

marginalized groups must always be contextualizing and the dominant group

does not. I don't believe that we should not contextualize. I believe that

there should be regulations in place in the commercial sector that states

who they are. I think that the general reading public -- this is just

something about Conrad Black's Southam News chain should know that Barbara

Amy Ellis is his wife, and they should know that there's editorial policies

where a word can't be changed from her copy. Then we can make a real

decision. And that's just an example. And we try to do that in our station,

and I don't see commercial stations doing that, so it's not balanced within

the regulations.



168 MS YORK: Thanks.



[balance]



169 MS WARD: Tristis Ward from CHSR. I'm not talking about balance, because

I've got something that's a real thing for me. It came out of one of the

conferences, in fact, it was the Atlantic conference, and I guess the first

thing that I want to start off by saying is that was a big brainstorming

session, so we may not have had all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. We

were really trying to achieve something there, so while I realize that some

of this doesn't actually apply to the CRTC, it's industry Canada stuff, it

is still important to us.



170 In Atlantic Canada, we have a lot of small centres. We have a lot of

availability on the FM -- we have a lot of poor, dedicated radio people who

want to make radio happen and who are running into brick walls, and what

we'd like to see get started is an allowance for a very very low power

radio. It's just -- well, we had to have a name, so we put that on there --

very very low-powered radio license, which would be like a temporary

license, a lot like a really long event license, much -- not the same as

very low power, not the same as low-powered licenses that would be a little

bit cheaper so a little bit easier to accomplish for these stations that

are trying to get their act together, that if they were able to get on the

FM dial at all, they would be able to draw to them more volunteers, a

little bit more support in the way of -- of directors and funding and

policy development, and more support from -- if they're on campus, their

student unions, more support from their community if they can prove

themselves even for one year on the FM band.



171 Now, again, I realize that Industry Canada is the one that we have to

talk to about things like the engineering study and stuff like that, and,

of course, we're willing to work on that end of it, but we'd also like to -

- I don't see any reason not to discuss or open discussion about this, what

the CRTC can do to assist stations who are dedicated. They definitely mean

to do radio. They're not talking --they're not fly-by-night. These are not

people with a whim and they're not -- they really want to do radio, and

they just need to have something a little bit more within their range in

the way of licenses.



172 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay, thank you for tabling that. I think

it's actually come up in other consultations as a proposal, but it's on the

public record now, and will be considered among many different

alternatives. Do you have any comment, Morag?



173 MS YORK: Yeah, I have a couple of questions I'd just like to ask about

it.



174 Are you talking about a sort of lighter regulatory regime for these

stations, or are you talking about an exemption so they wouldn't need a

license at all? What do you have in mind here?



175 MS WARD: I'm talking about a -- this is really difficult once you take

the engineering study out of there to -- to put the rest of it altogether.

I'm talking about a temporary license, no more than a year. That would

still require the same amount of commitment, still require a promise of

performance and some other things, not require a paid staff person, maybe a

-- well, I don't know if you allow for half time now for low power, but not

require you to have paid staff, but you can do this all with volunteers on

a volunteer board.



176 MS YORK: Okay. I don't think there is a requirement, actually, in our

policy --



177 MS WARD: Oh, really?



178 MS YORK: -- for paid staff, but paid staff does come up. It is

something we look at in the new -- when we get an application for a new

license, but that's just based on the experience that -- I mean, it does

say in the Broadcasting Act that persons who are licensed have to be

responsible for everything they broadcast. And experience just shows that

if you want to hold somebody responsible, it's usually a paid staff is who

you can hold responsible and, you know, but --but it's not a hard and fast

rule. It's based on our experience that it's something we would look for.



179 I wanted to point out that in the public notice that set out the

existing policy in 1992 that's in place now, we did say that -- oh, here's

what we said:



180 "The campus radio policy will generally apply to all campus stations

regardless of their power on a case by case basis, however, the Commission

is willing to exercise flexibility when dealing with applications for

stations of low power, whose signals would only serve the campus of the

associated university or college."



[paid staff]



181 So it seems to me that in that there's -- there's some room for

flexibility for things like all volunteer staff, for example. So I'm

wondering what -- what you would need to add to that?



182 MS WARD: Well, then, perhaps what we really need, then, is a better

explanation or a better method of communication so that people don't think

they have to bend over backwards and climb mountains in order to -- to get

going. If they had the knowledge at their disposal to put something

together faster, then they would -- and I mean faster as in cut-off, like

the five-year plan down to a -- down to a two-year plan just trying to even

make a start at broadcasting, then maybe, you know, we -- we would have

more community radio stations starting up in these smaller centres.



183 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thanks a lot, Tristis.



184 MS JAYOUSSI: My name is Maizun Jayoussi. I'm from CJSW in Calgary.



185 I must say, it's nice to see a table full of women at the front.

Whenever I think of the CRTC I think of a bunch of old guys in suits

staring down at me from a podium, so --



186 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, I just have to tell you, when we were

in Banff doing a television, we were four women as well. The chair, my

fellow Commissioner, Cindy Grauer and Susan Baldwin, who is executive

director of broadcasting, so --



187 MS JAYOUSSI: That's great. My comment isn't about balance, but I did

want to just comment quickly on that.



188 I think that one of the problems with the issue of balance relates to

the Broadcast Act and its vague reference to community standards, because I

think that's -- that's a very subjective type of thing. Whose community are

we talking about and whose standards?



189 I think, for example, in the case of CKDU and the complaints that they

had around Gay Pride, if you had gone to the gay and lesbian community,

there wouldn't have been a problem, I think, and as far as I'm aware, there

were no complaints received from that community, and seeing as the

programming or any gay and lesbian program is broadcast to that community,

then there is a different set of standards as -- than there would be with

the, you know, right-wing Christian fundamentalist community or -- but I do

think that there is still an assumption in our society that there is a

standard -- an actual homogeneous standard which, of course, there isn't;

and certainly not in our sector where we represent a diverse number of

communities, so I just wanted to mention that as part of that debate.



190 My question, though, actually goes back to where we started with the

agenda on defining campus radio, so if I can take it back to -- to that

section where we begin with campus radio and the -- I don't know if we can

talk about mandate for campus radio before we talk about ownership of

campus radio. It says that a campus station, and this is 92-38 for anyone

who's looking at that.



191 "A campus station is a station owned or controlled by a not for profit

organization associated with a post-secondary educational institution.

There are two types of campus stations." And then it goes on to define

campus/community versus instructional stations.



192 I think one concerns as far as I can tell that we've all come up with

in our meetings, is that we feel strongly that our station should be owned

by an independent not for profit organization. It should not be the

students' union, for example, that we feel that that is a great conflict of

interest for a students' union to own the media on campus. It would be the

equivalent of the students' union owning the newspaper, which I think would

be outrageous.



193 I think that the -- the definition here is perhaps not clear enough,

that a situation, for example, in Winnipeg where I believe CJUM had their

license approved, and the license is owned by the students' union and not

by the station itself sets a dangerous precedent, one that we're all

concerned about, and I think we would like to see the definition clarified

to make it very clear, that you have to be an independent not for profit

organization whose main purpose is to obtain a broadcast license, or to

broadcast as a campus/community radio station.



194 MS YORK: Are you suggesting that that would be added to the existing

requirement that says -- somewhere in the policy we say that the majority

of the board of directors should be formed by people associated with the

university? Are you saying that that should be replaced by this other one,

or just this new one should be added to that?



195 MS JAYOUSSI: I think it should be added. I think structural board of

directors is a separate issue, and I think -- I think that the definition

of who the license -- who holds the license is the issue.



196 MS YORK: So it's not contradictory with that other requirement?



197 MS JAYOUSSI: No.



198 MS YORK: You could have a separate organization that still is -- the

majority is borne by people --



199 MS JAYOUSSI: Absolutely, and within our definition of campus/community,

we recognize that we have to have campus involvement and that that's

crucial to our survival, because our funding comes from students for the

most part, so I think in terms of direction, that's not a problem at all,

it's just that we don't want the students' union to hold the license.



200 MS YORK: Okay, I think we understand that.



201 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you very much.



[ownship and direction associated]



202 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean, CIUT FM, Toronto.



203 I -- I'm looking -- what I'm about to talk about briefly from two

points of view, from the point of view of being on the board of directors

for the NCRA where I see it as a national sort of point of view, and a

point of view from -- as being part of the staff and management of the

station and -- and a campus broadcaster within a city. I'm quite concerned,

particularly for the future in the next little while, between the next five

and ten years of actually -- sort of what is really going to happen with

campus radio, and what I mean by that is not so much in terms of the

regulatory changes, although it is an important factor we've got to look

at, but even just merely its existence.



204 With that, what I mean is that I know directly the CRTC isn't involved

in funding and stuff like that, however, the CRTC is concerned whether the

stations aren't going to be able to sustain themselves, and if there's

funding available through them, whether it's through student unions,

through granting, through fund raising, and I'm just wondering if -- if the

CRTC is cognizant of the fact that these are really serious challenges that

are facing campus and community radio.



205 When I look at the role and the mandate for campus and community radio,

it's very large, it's very complex, particularly what I see towards the --

the homogony of what's happening in the commercial sector, and it's -- you

know, to me it seems for them quite a lot easier to -- you know, we make

our Can con. We get as much advertising we can, whereas with our sector

we're asked to go quite in-depth in our spoken program, quite in-depth in

our explorations of music, yet that requires research and training and

funding well beyond what a lot of commercial sector people are. If they've

got the funds, they don't have to do it; and I'm not saying that, "Why do

we have to do it and they don't?"



206 What I'm saying is that I really see that through instability within

stations through funding, that that becomes more and more difficult, and

what I'm looking at, even with the question of even funding, where I'm

saying that although it's not your responsibility, and you will be

concerned, though, if it gets to the point where stations are closing down.



207 Where I see it coming from is, for an example, about two years ago, all

three stations in Toronto came very close to getting shut down, whether it

was through referendums or as in the case where my colleague before was

talking about through problems with the student union.



208 Very simply, one case could come up in a legal matter, and because off

either the ongoing time that would take or a lack of funding or something

could literally shut a station down, and I see it as a very unprotected and

vulnerable sector, and I really think some sort of regulation or some sort

of funding from somewhere or something has to come from somewhere if this

sector is going to be able to sustain itself and sustain itself as a sector

for the future.



209 I really see it just as the granting dries up, as student tuitions get

cut, as student funds get cut, as people don't have jobs, or particularly

when we're working with -- in the area of society that we're working with

where people don't have jobs, where they can no longer afford on an ongoing

measure to sustain their community side of it. Where does the money come

from? Where does the support come from? Where does the ability to sustain

the station come from? I just wanted to comment on that.



210 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



211 MR. POSTHUMUS: Hi. My name is Andy Posthumus. I'm the station manager 

of CIOI Radio, which is C1015, Mohawk College in Hamilton. 



212 We were just recently licensed in the last year and went on the air 

officially actually last week, but I wanted to -- just a couple of things I 

needed to address in the regulations that are quite specific to 

instructional radio more so than campus/ community. 



213 There are some overtones. It's --when I started out this process, and

when instructional stations got included in the regulations when they were

finally recognized by the Commission in the last re-write. That was quite

helpful, and actually, being part of campus/community means that we do have

to challenge ourselves a little bit to program. Even though our mandate is

to train people for careers, it's still nice to be able to have to, and I

don't mind the burden of -- or I wouldn't call it a burden, just the

challenge of creating and putting community on the air and stuff like that.

That's actually a good thing.



214 However, one little problem. When I applied for the license, I asked

for an exemption. I have to train people for careers in broadcasters.

There's a couple of fairly specific things that we need to be able to do.



215 One of them is train people to sell advertising, and right now the

commercial restriction is four minutes per hour, one minute of unrestricted

advertising, and three minutes of restricted advertising. I asked for an

exemption from that for my specific case. It was denied. But in talking

with other instructional station managers, it's a specific case to us. At

this point we don't have a problem with the maximum of four minutes, but

we'd like to see it all unrestricted advertising, just so we can, you know,

if we do reach that four minutes. Restricted advertising messages isn't

really relevant if you're trying to teach someone how to write and produce

and sell an advertising message.



216 The subject of perhaps even increasing that limit from four to five or

six minutes an hour, I'd like to see that happen if it's within the -- you

know, within -- if possible, but again, it's specifically to an

instructional license I'd like to see all advertising allowed to be

unrestricted.



[restricted advertising]



217 Another thing that's a little bit more vague is the subject of Canadian

talent development. I think Mopa was sort of hinting at it, but I had in my

license application a specific request that the Commission not only

recognize Canadian talent development as the development of musical talent

where a number of the commercial radio stations are required to contribute

to various organizations factor in that sort of thing for a development of

the Canadian music industry, but I also see the development of broadcasters

as Canadian talent development as well.



218 There are some people who are putting together programming that focus

on a lot of the collectic types of music that are being produced, and I

think their efforts in bringing that to the air is as valid a talent

development initiative as the music itself being created.



219 And now there's also something that's come up specifically at this

conference that I hadn't really thought about before. This business of

someone being on the air taking someone else's work and actually creating a

new musical work while they're on the air itself. That to me is musical --

it's Canadian talent, it's a radio broadcaster but doing something creative

on the air. So, to me, the -- to get it formally recognized that broadcast

training or broadcasters on the air are Canadian talent -- spoken word

programming takes a great deal of time and effort to produce. To do it well

is extremely difficult, and that's part of the broadcast spectrum. It's all

part of the -- the broadcast picture, and to me, that's Canadian talent on

the air.



220 A news talk radio station in a commercial area, I mean, there are some

who actually do some very innovative programming, and to me, that's --those

people on the air are very talented. If you're going to use the word

"talent" -- I've used it in the context of the broadcaster as well as a

musician whose music is being played.



221 One quick thing. Please update the glossary, because that thing is --

is -- we're not even in there as an instructional station, so on the

record, please get that thing changed.



222 The ownership issue was an interesting one, because for the

instructional stations, that solved itself. One government body can't

license another, so we had to actually set up an arm's length corporation

anyway, but our particular situation, our -- the station that I -- I work

for is actually funded by the student union primarily.



[su is a political organisation]



223 It's a long story how that happened, but it was recognized early on

that the most practical solution to operating the station was an arm's

length corporation whose specific purpose was to hold the radio broadcast

license. The composition of that board of directors is, in my opinion,

quite equitably divided between the student representation and the -- the

college with community representation there as well. And I think it makes a

pretty good model, actually, but that's -- that's an important issue no

matter what, whether it's campus/community or the instructional stations, I

think it works -- it's something -- it's very important to be considered.



[independant ... primary aim]



224 Anyway, that's it for now. Thank you.



225 MS YORK: Thank you very much.



226 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I did have a question. Actually, when you

were talking about the broadcasters or certain of broadcasters and their

activities acting as Canadian talent themselves, did you have any thoughts

about how we would be able to differentiate between what would be

considered as developing Canadian talent as opposed to say run-of-the-mill?



227 MR. POSTHUMUS: I don't know what you mean by run-of-the-mill.



228 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, would you consider, I mean, to someone

who is playing records and not adding any extra commentary or anything?



229 MR. POSTHUMUS: Well, see, I would never expect that anyone on the air

isn't adding any extra commentary, like, again, a student who's -- who's

being trained -- this is a grey area. I haven't hashed it out totally, but

in my opinion, I mean, I would never put a student on the air and just say

the time, weather, this, that and the other thing. I'll put them in front

of the microphone and expect them to do something that different to

contribute to the overall program, I mean, in campus/community radio, with

many of the focus programs, and I do a lot of focused specialty programs as

well.



230 Those on-air announcers have a lot to contribute to the enjoyment of

that particular program for a listener. Someone who is a real fan of, you

know, hard rock heavy metal, knows lots about the bands. Some of the bands

he's playing -- probably friends of his are in it, and they have things

that they can contribute that you're never going to know, and it's going to

give you a greater appreciation of the music you're hearing. You can go

down the whole spectrum, all the different music types. The people who are

really enthusiastic about those music types are those that are educating

the listening audiences to not just the music itself, but why they like it

so much and why the audience would probably appreciate it a great deal

more, and to me that's a significant contribution to the -- to the

promotion of Canadian music, to the promotion of music, and the development

of that talent.



231 MS YORK: So you're talking about students training, not -- not

commercial --



232 MR. POSTHUMUS: No. I think --



233 MS YORK: You're not talking about some commercial station that hires an

on-air announcer and then claims that is Canadian talent development?

That's not what you're talking about?



234 MR. POSTHUMUS: No, I'm talking about student's training, but I think it

applies to campus/community as well.



235 MS YORK: Okay.



236 MR. POSTHUMUS: Like I said, there are people in the campus/community

area that are as talented in their ability to do radio. It's not totally

clearly defined, but I think that that's an area that needs to be

recognized as talent development for on-air broadcast.



237 MS YORK: Do you think that could extend to some of the commercial

broadcasters as well, or would you see that strictly being limited to

campus/community stations?



238 MR. POSTHUMUS: Well, the commercial broadcasters have an ability to

interpret regulations and make them work to their advantage. There's no

doubt about that. That's just good business, I suppose.



239 To me, from a purely idealistic point of view, I suppose, is someone

who is training people for careers in broadcast. Quite frankly, there are -

-even if it is funding for specific program initiatives, which there aren't

very -- it's not very clear within any of the organizations -- government

organizations that there is funding available for development of radio

broadcasting programs. A factor is very vague in whether they'll fund a

radio broadcast, you know, they'll fund the artist, but say, for instance,

someone wants to put together a program that highlights a bunch of unique

artists, they could make a requirement it would be all Canadian, but then I

don't think that they even consider that a -- a request for funding to put

together specialty types of programming like that. They just simply want to

fund the artists and their videos and that sort of thing. And then as --

there's the topic of DJ's as an -- or turntables as an instrument is going

to come up. That's a whole --that's where the -- the radio performer

becomes the artist themselves, so there's some room for that kind of -- for

the possibility of recognizing that as Canadian talent as well.



240 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay, great, thank you.



241 MS YORK: I think Caroline had something she wanted to add.



242 MS COTE: I just wanted to put on the record that in the Montreal caucus

that we had, and also that with the Ontario meeting that was held this

week, that we seem to all agree, at least from Montreal, I'm sure that we

all agreed that we would --that that area, those stations would like

advertising to simply be unrestricted for administrative purposes, that we

just do ads, we highlight things. We don't often say they're the best and

things like that, but just for administrative purposes that we would like

all of our advertising to be unrestricted.



[advertising influences content]



243 MS MAJAURY: Heather Majaury at CJAM in Windsor. These are just comments

basically and a suggestion, I guess.



244 With regards to funding of campus community radio and with regards to

that talent development that results.



245 There's a growing trend politically in the entire country, and it's

felt very keenly in Ontario at this moment, is socializing of costs and

privatizing of profit, and that is being addressed in the commercial sector

through regulations, which is allowing radio stations in areas to purchase

more stations, and that allows for privatizing of profits, which is fine.

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with that, but I have a concern in the

campus/community sector where we are providing service and we are providing

opportunity, and we are providing training, and that the standard awards --

I believe on Tuesday night the representative of that organization fully

admitted to all of us that we contribute to their sector quite effectively

by providing talent, and what I find interesting is that they don't pay for

any of that. And it's very interesting that that's happening in our

universities.



246 We are linked to the university funds, and money is being spent in

massive amounts in -- in transfer payments and such to certain programs and

not to others, and many of our marginalized people that are involved in our

radio stations are part of those marginalized programs at the universities

as well, so it's across the board, and I would like to see something -- and

it will only come from regulation. You will never see a commercial sector

saying, you know, "We're making too much money this year. I think we will

put some into training and development in that campus/community sector."

They're never going to say that because they are driven by profit, and if

they can get something free, they're going to do it, and we absorb the

cost, so it's a direct relation. Our funding is actually dropping because

of student enrollment. We don't necessarily have diversified funding

possibilities. Advertising -- increased advertising revenues, though

helpful, are not a solution, because they run contrary to our mandates. And

it's a really really serious sector, and I think that responsibility on the

part of -- of commercial radio is extremely important to the development of

our sector.



[keep commercial radio as far away from c/c as possible]



247 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thanks.



248 MR. SAUNDERS: Chad Saunders, CJSW in Calgary.



249 A few years ago, and not too long ago, the big buzz word was digital

radio, and there's a lot of stations here that have trouble enough just

making sure their lightning towers don't get struck down by lightning or

records are stolen or whatever. It's a two-part thing, I guess. I'm sure

the NCRA and other stations might not be part of our union of solidarity,

but I'm sure we'd like to be part of the consultation process for that day,

whenever it comes. It's kind of been subdued somewhat, I know, with a lot

of changes and such like that, but I think we'd like to be consulted,

because in the Calgary situation, Shaw Cable owns the only digital

transmitter, and I'm sure they'd probably charge quite the fee for rental

of a certain channel of that, and bigger stations would probably be able to

have no problem meeting those probably yearly rental agreements, but as far

as the C & C station it would be very difficult, and I'm sure we'd like to

be part of that process in deciding what the fees are, who has access to

the transmitter and stuff like that.



250 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



251 MS YORK: Thank you. And as you know, we have a two-part -- we've had a

-- we've introduced a two-part policy with digital radio. We've had a

transition period and eventually we'll have a broader public process to

consider the sort of permanent regime for digital radio, and that will be a

public process, and you're obviously welcome to participate, and I'll make

a note to ask the NCRA if they want to be involved in --



252 MS WARD: Really, this is just about some of the things that have

already been talked about in the beginning, for example, to a commercial

station's -- to have our commercial sisters and brothers -- towards our

sector, because I think --it's -- it's a very important thing for us to

again --student enrollment is down on -- on campus and community radio

stations. We're feeling a lot of crunch all the way across. Obviously

community radio stations have been very hurt, and community content on

these commercial radio broadcasters and that, every so often if I'm

scanning through, I might hear one of the FM stations that are commercial

say, you know, "We believe in community content. Bring us your ideas."

That's lip service. Everybody knows it's lip service. They're not really

doing it.



253 I think that rather than have that kind of lip service, it would be

much better, and I think would probably get a kick out of it, look, we

don't even have to put that advertisement on there, and actually risk

someone walking in the door with a real community program. They would much

prefer to have a little cash outlay that could go toward a community radio

in our area.



[commercial radio should not be relieved from their obligation to provide

community access by paying an "indulgence" fee]



254 I forget what the other thing was. Oh, yeah, it had to do with -- my

programmers would not forgive me if I didn't at least bring it up. I

thought that Andy Posthumus was -- the discussion about talent on the air

and the fact that people are creating art is -- is fundamentally true,

particularly when people are doing mixing and stuff like that, and I've

come to them and said, you know, "How's your Can Con for your show?" He

said, "I'm Can Con." And, I mean, it's true. These people are making art,

and while I don't think that every single radio program that -- I can't say

that every single radio program at CHSR that's on the air would necessarily

be art on the air. I'd say that a heck of a lot of it is. A radio program

is an audio essay. It's a -- it is a piece of creativity that really should

get some recognition and, no, I don't think commercial radio stations are

doing that --actually, they draw quite a line there. So, really, that's all

I had to say.



[radio artist in residence]



255 I think that -- speaking of funding, that could -- that there -- there

are ways to help out radio stations and the ways to get funding that have -

-that are alternative sources that we haven't even been able to -- to nail

down yet, I mean, this is just off the top of my head, so there might be a

big hole in it, but things like Canada counsel grants for performances and

stuff like that, you know, if what we're doing is creating art on the air

and if we can, you know, nail down a certain performance time for -- for an

audio art show, perhaps Canada counsel will look into kicking in some money

for that, I mean, I haven't even thought of applying in that direction

before, so --



[Canada Council supports artists and not radio stations]



256 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thanks.



257 MR. CLARK: John Clark, CJSF Radio. I've been involved in various

different roles. I've been a music director since 1990. I have some issues

with the CRTC and media.



258 I'm very concerned about the disappearance of Canadian television

public access. I'm concerned about the concentration of media and the

political influence it brings to bear on popular culture. I'm concerned

with issues of advertising revenue funding community media. I would like to

see a tax on advertising revenue to fund our sector, but what I'm going to

present now is my opinion on Canadian content and campus/community radio.

This opinion is not necessarily a prevailing one with NCRA or even within

my station.



259 We now have the requirement of thirty per cent Canadian content within

the music Category 2. Advertiser-oriented media may have their quotas

increased and they may whine and bitch about how campus/community radio

should do. This is my understanding about -- the fundamental difference in

the ways we work. Advertiser- oriented radio get their use of the limited

public resource of radio -- without giving very much back to the community.



260 With the exception of jobs and economic activity, they should indeed

support the Canadian music industry, but they don't support Canadian

culture. They present local copies of successful American culture,

something that is culturally pointless at best, the worst type of

subversion at worst.



261 Unlike advertiser-oriented media, the campus/community actually

delivers in the area of Canadian culture -- healthy, diverse grass-roots

Canadian culture.



262 And I'd like to talk about music. Canadian music programming is another

area that we excel in, especially in comparison to advertiser-oriented

media. We don't have what you saw in play lists with opportunities for

Canadian artists. We have ten thousand stock play lists -- material with

almost unlimited access to local artists. What I wish the CRTC would do is

say, okay, CAB, okay, Teddy --okay, Ted Rogers, don't be giving us this

whine about campus/community radio or Can con -- they're unrelated to your

sector and the same rules do not apply. Thank you.



263 MS YORK: Thank you.



264 MR. HORLUCK: Okay, Ted Horluck, CFUB Radio again.



265 Back to this regulations here.



266 Number 7(1) reads:



267 "The licensee of an ethnic station shall devote not less than 60 per

cent of its broadcast week to ethnic programs."



268 Number (2):



269 "The licensee of a station other than an ethnic station shall not

devote more than 15 per cent of its broadcast week..."



270 In December, 15th through the 18th on our station, we turned over our

station to the First Nations people to go ahead and broadcast basically as

they pleased. That was a three-day sort of focus. The hope is next year

maybe to expand that out to a week and I'm kind of wondering how that would

jive with this, or whether we have to take advantage of special event

programming and that type of thing?



271 MS YORK: I would just comment that I don't think aboriginal programming

people --



272 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It isn't.



273 MS YORK: Programming for aboriginal people is considered ethnic

programming in our policy. Ethnic programming is considered anything other

than English, French or --



274 MR. HORLUCK: Because part of their broadcasts obviously was in

aboriginal languages.



275 MS COTE: Can I --



276 MS YORK: Certainly.



277 MS COTE: It says in type A of the definition of ethnic programs:



278 "A program the spoken word content and not production content of which

are in a language other than French, English, or a language of the

aboriginal peoples of Canada."



279 MR. HORLUCK: And I guess the last question that I'd like to address is,

it's quite easy for Ted Rogers and other similar types of individuals to

put up a national network. How does our station, CFUB play in this game of

the national network? Certainly there wouldn't be any funds available to

us. We'd have to obviously raise our own funds, but again, in terms of the

national network, our owning more than one license may be a 2 FM licenses,

that kind of stuff. Any possibility of restricting on that?



280 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Are you talking about an ethnic network?



281 MR. HORLUCK: That's correct. Well, stations owned by us mainly.



282 MS YORK: I think that -- I'll let Carole do this, but we're having a

review of ethnic programming coming up in the next year and, you know, we

can talk about that now, too, but I think there was some discussion about

maybe -- maybe having the NCRA involved in the consultations on ethnic

programming policy, so we sort of talk about those issues more in the

context of the overall policy of ethnic programming.



283 MR. HORLUCK: Yeah, I didn't mean just specifically ethnic, I meant just

like our station itself -- university station. We're a college community.

How could we, you know, wind up becoming part of a national network?



284 MS COTE: Again, I feel it's an internal thing, and it hasn't been at

all common practice for us to look around to buy other stations and we're

trying to break even at the end of the year, so I don't see that as even

being feasible of -- you know, I can't imagine any of our stations deciding

to buy another station or to be -- to share our facilities and things like

that when we're all very separate.



285 MS YORK: I don't think it would meet the ownership requirements and the

board of ethnic requirements if we did that.



286 We've been thinking about having a break here now. Would you guys like

to go ahead first and then break or would you like to -- I know you've been

waiting for awhile.



287 MR. LEACOCK: John Leacock, CFRU Guelph. My question is in regards to

the Can Con thirty per cent requirement.



288 I'm just wondering if any research or consultations of alternatives to

thirty per cent because you're running the risk of community stations just

making their thirty per cent in terms of Canadian content rather than

trying to promote local talent, which they're going to do either way.



289 I don't know if you understand what I'm trying to say -- maybe

establishing quotas on what kind of music is played might be construed as

possibly being -- I don't know how to say it, but to be construed as being

"colonistic" in terms of creating what is assumed to be a Canadian culture

from the standpoint of -- on this separation of ethnic programming from

what is considered -- I don't know what is the mainstream Canadian culture

from what is --I don't know what Canadian culture is, but I would love to

get a definition of what Canadian culture is.



290 So that's my concern, and I'm just wondering if there is any

consultations to youth, an alternative for community radio stations in

terms of this thirty per cent quota. It could lead to tokenism. It's

happening a lot in a commercial radio, which I don't really care about

much, but for -- radio we have a standard mandate to promote local talent,

and we have been doing that, I can pretty much say accidentally, and we'll

continue to do that regardless of Can con, so I don't know.



291 I think we need to talk about that a little bit.



292 MS YORK: I think this is what we --



293 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Absolutely.



294 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean from CIUT FM again.



295 I'm continuing along the same sort of -- preservation and protection of

our sector as I hear more people talk about and think about those things.



296 There are a few things I just want to quickly touch on. One of them I

find a little bit odd and strange that -- from my understanding there are a

number of campus/community stations, I don't know, twenty watts, thirty

watts, fifty watts, and once you get over fifty watts also you're

protected. I find it a little odd and contradictory that just because a

station has under fifty watts it has no protection, but the license -- and

I was hoping that something could be put in place that once a

campus/community station, its license is protected. It only makes sense to

me. I'm sure there's probably a number of reasons why or not, but I would

like to see that.



297 MS YORK: I'd just like to respond briefly, but the unprotected status

is really an Industry Canada thing, it's not really us. Then when they

administer frequencies, they do say that low power ones are unprotected,

and it means that at least they are guaranteed to be totally protected from

interference -- technical interference from other stations. It's sort of a

good thing and a bad thing because it makes it easier for you to get a low

power service, this is less guaranteed, and I don't know of any case where

a low power station has ever been --during a thing like that, I mean, you

have slightly less protection but -- doesn't really result as far as I know

in -- in very much in --



298 MR. DEAN: I was somewhat cognizant in the fact that it is an Industry

Canada thing, but again it goes back -- impacting or potentially on the

funding, and again the station can't maintain itself. You're at a risk of

losing a license, NCRTC thing.



299 One example in reference to this, that particularly when you get larger

wattage stations, and then they go through their sort of -- where they are

protected or unprotected, where they get totally no protection sort of

thing, each area that we go from our initial market area is still potential

funding, so if that area is unprotected or if somebody put up a transmitter

and it interferes with our section, our --our ability to transmit sort of

our unprotected areas, then we are potentially losing funding in those

areas, particularly when your station that is reaching out into a larger

area, or if you try to diversify your funding, or if you're big enough that

you're trying to work with communities outside of your main essential area.

So that is something I would like to see put in place, if that is possible,

and hopefully it is.



[definition of market area]



300 The other sort of thing I just want to briefly touch on, and again, I'm

sure this isn't --anyways, again, I know this isn't exactly a related CRTC

thing, and -- but it is in due part with our sector, and as we look at more

and new alternatives --alternative forms of broadcasting, internet and

terrestrial broadcasting, satellite stuff, whatever, I would like to see

some sort of protection in reference to that, you know, there's either flat

fees, whether it's through setting them up or royalties collected, or for

that -- no fees, because again, we're -- you know, we are a limited funded,

limited resource sector, and we're trying to do a lot more than everyone

else with a lot less than everyone else, and so I think the less we have to

pay out, the more we can do better broadcasting and training.



301 That's it. Thanks.



302 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



303 MS COTE: We started this discussion in talking about balancing

programming, and I just wanted everything to be clear with all of us and

all of the CRTC people of -- with balancing program.



304 I've always been under the impression, and a lot of our stations, I

believe, have been under the impression that if you can defend what you're

doing, if you're following your mandate, then you are doing balancing

programming, meaning that when people are talking about -- that we're

representing, like using the parties that -- that some of our stations do

put on the air, the Green Party, the -- you know, the parties that are not

on the air on commercial stations, and yet we do not necessarily give a

voice to the -- the big -- you don't get to the PC's, whatever the --

Conservatives and the Liberals, and that's because that in our mandate,

that we do give a voice --the voice to the voiceless, our internal

mandates, NCRA's mandate, and in the definition, and I -- I have a concern

that if that isn't balancing programming, that we're not -- you know, I'm

not being very clear, but that -- that is giving a voice to the voiceless.

They do not have a voice on commercial radio. We are the alternative. It is

stated. And so I would just want to get that clarified. Can we still defend

that, like, if somebody says, "Oh, if the Liberals say you didn't give us a

voice." Can we still say, well, in our mandate we are the alternative and

you have a large voice on TV and on the commercial stations, and these

parties do not?



305 MS YORK: We really will break. As far as I know, the balance -- you

know, our balance policy, as far as I know that's still in effect. I don't

know if we've started to look at that again in light of the mandate that

was put out in 1992, I don't know, because as far as I know, the balancing

programming policy is still in effect. It still says that each individual

station is supposed to be balanced.



306 MS COTE: Okay. So that --



307 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just really briefly. I think really what we're

saying here is that the Broadcast Act is being fulfilled and maybe the

policy is not really as good as it could be.



308 MS COTE: Yeah.



309 MS YORK: Well, maybe we need to look again at that policy. I'm not --

I'm not suggesting we should, but I'm just wondering where Caroline has got

the idea that it's already been changed or something. You might know

something I don't know.



310 MS COTE: I felt, and from what I've been told, is that if you can

defend what you're doing, if you could back it up, it's -- that's good, and

I feel that with our mandate, we are justified to give that voice to voices

that are not on commercial radio, and that even the political parties would

fall within that, so I see that we are very much backed up and we explain

and we are following our mandate, and that it isn't a program -- a

balancing programming issue, it's that we are alternative radio. This is

what we're here to do.



311 MS YORK: I think the definition of -- campus radio was modified since

the balancing programming policy was out, so we had the balance programming

policy, then we modified the definition of campus radio, so maybe we've

sort of taken another look at how those two work together, and I'm not

exactly sure of the --



[modified definition of campus radio]



312 MS COTE: So it would be good for us to look at that and get those

nuances out of there.



313 MS YORK: Yeah, for sure.



314 MS COTE: Okay.



[balanced programming]



315 MS YORK: So we'll break for fifteen minutes. We'll take ten minutes. --

- Recessed at 1110/Suspension `a 1110 --- Resumed at 1120/Reprise `a 1120



316 MS YORK: In terms of the issue of what is sort of going on the record

here and how you guys -- we recognize that you have some proposals but you

haven't established amongst yourselves. You haven't come up with a unified

NCRA position on, and I understand that at the Plenary you will be

discussing some issues and you -- on Saturday, and you may have a more

unified position after that.



317 I want to make it really clear that what we're hearing now -- this is

not your official position, this is just some discussion. We're not going

to take this away and say, "What we've heard today is an official

position." We understand there's different points of view here.



318 We'd like you -- if you announce specific proposals, we'd like you to

throw them out here just so we can hear it, so we can understand it so

other people that might have different points of view can make their

comments too, but we understand that what we hear today is not a final NCRA

proposal or the final position of any individual stations. You've all got

to line up and we put out the public notice to provide your official

position. Does that --



319 MS COTE: Yes, I think that would be great. Would that be okay with

everyone?



320 And I would have a request, that at a regional meeting in Montreal --at

the Montreal regional meeting, and I heard this from other CRTC people,

that there were things that they expected would be brought up, and I was

hoping that maybe you could bring to us those things that you're expecting

to be brought up, just like with Lucille in Montreal, she said, "Oh, we

expect that campus/community radio will ask to have six minutes of

advertising." And we were, like, going -- and I wasn't expecting us to be

agreeing on going up and advertising, so I mean, I would like to hear what

the CRTC is expecting to be brought up.



321 MS YORK: Okay. I'd like to say that the specific thing like advertising

-- I've been on the list served. I've been listening to the discussions

that have been going on. I've talked to Richard Frith, who's been -- NCRA

conferences, you know, I've had the NCRA report, so I've heard the issues

that come up time and time again, and I know that sometimes there's debate

about advertising. I know that recently there's been discussion about the

very low power training licenses. I know there have been discussions about

the boards of directors, you know. I don't know exactly what position

you're going to come with, I don't know what you're going to say, I'm just

aware that these are issues that have been discussed, and in order to brief

ourselves and provide some background to ourselves, you know, I've tried to

look at what you've been saying in the past and provide some information to

Joan for her background and to Michelle, but that's not -- it's not a

specific thing. I'm not looking at specific proposals, I'm just sort of

trying to provide some areas that have come up in the past and that we can

expect some discussion, just so that we can have some background so that

we're sure that we're all aware what the current policy is, what people

might have to say about it.



322 Okay?



323 Does that answer your question?



324 The areas that I listed at the beginning, did you want more specific

areas that I'm aware of, that we talked -- because I looked at them at the

beginning when I talked about, you know, very low power training licenses,

categories of music, boards of directors, hits and reviews, advertising,

spoken word, complaints process, the application form, providing assistance

to the campus/community sector. Those are the areas that I'm aware that

there's been some discussion about, but that's not a comprehensive list,

it's not an agenda. You can talk about anything you want. It's only for our

own information to try to make sure that we're informed about these areas,

but we can discuss the policies with you.



325 It's not a -- it's not something that's -- is that what you want to

hear Carole?



326 MS COTE: So I feel that you're saying that no one should have said to

me, "We expect you guys to be talking about -- or we are expect anything.



327 MS YORK: No, absolutely not. I don't know where that came from



328 MS COTE: Okay.



329 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I'd like to make it very clear, too, that I

am a Commissioner, and as such, I came with no expectations, and I'm open

to all discussion. There are no preconceived decisions or notices here, so

-- we play different roles in this process, both of which come together to

have what we hope is an open forum today, so no -- no preconceived agenda

at all.



330 There are some areas that I've heard this morning which certainly seem

to be coming up from a number of people here. I don't know much about the

process, so I'm not predisposing to your agenda, so I just wanted to be

very clear on the public record that this is a very open discussion, but it

is very important for us to hear on the public record everything that you

want to be sure that the CRTC considers as we go forward with this process.

Okay? It's a very important occasion for me on behalf of my fellow

Commissioners, including the Commission as a whole, to meet with you today

and to hear what you have to say.



331 With that, too, though, there are some areas that we want to be sure

we've covered the bases, and I'm going to ask also that Morag have a little

time to make sure she's got some points --questions that maybe you could

help us with, and at the end, I'd like to wrap and make sure that

everybody's had a chance to say what they want to say before I go. I have

until around -- what time did we have till today?



332 MS YORK: I think we've got the room booked till one, but I don't think

you can -- okay, I'll leave it --



333 MS COTE: We eat lunch at twelve, actually so --



334 MS YORK: What --



335 MS COTE: We eat lunch at twelve. It's supposed to be --



336 MS YORK: We'll go to twelve, which as you can see, kind of -- we should

get serious now about keeping things on time, so let's go.



337 MME BARBEAU: Carole Barbeau et je suis de CHUO `a Ottawa. Je vais

commencer par une presentation en francais et apres ca, je vais parler

anglais pour les (inaudible)...



338 On en a beaucoup parle, cette annee, `a CHUO. Apres ca, on en a parle

`a la conference de Montreal. Puis, on en a reparle cette semaine egalement

(inaudible)...



339 Donc, on parlait l`a-dessus... on trouvait que les categories etaient

mal adaptees `a notre situation et qu'ils nous aident pas (inaudible).

C'etait des choses qui avaient ete faites pour (inaudible) radio

commerciale. Donc, nous en pensait (inaudible). Donc, c'est juste pour vous

dire c'est une des questions qu'on avait, qu'on aurait travaille, puis on a

discute cette semaine.



340 So the first thing is a music category. I wanted to tell the CRTC that

we will -- we were discussing that this year, and that we were thinking

that this -- the categories are not adapted to our situation, and the types

of music that we play are not -- are not represented in these categories,

and that the breakdown of the categories and percentages that are in -- our

licenses is not very -- it's not manageable. It's -- it has no logic

compared to what our programming is, and that one of the things that

license is supposed to do or the promise of performance is supposed to do

is help you achieve your goal, and if our goal is to the alternative, and

that -- we can't manage these categories and we can't understand them and

can calculate them. If it's too hard, and nobody calculates their

percentages and nobody is at the levels they're supposed to be at, that

there is no use for those categories, so we will be discussing that

further, I guess, this week or in the months ahead.



341 MS YORK: Are you talking about --specifically about the subcategories

within Category 2 and 3, or are you speaking also of the distinction

between Category 2 and Category 3?



342 MS BARBEAU: Both.



343 MS YORK: Both.



344 MS BARBEAU: L'autre chose que je vais mentionner c'est `a propos du

facteur (inaudible). On en a discute ca au (inaudible) regional cette

semaine, et il y a des gens qui voulaient qu'on elimine tous les

(inaudible)... Donc, les gens qui voulaient eliminer tous les (inaudible)

de sur les ondes (inaudible)... un consensus de dire que c'etait necessaire

parce que ca nous aidait `a faire les preparations speciales, et puis, ca

(inaudible) francophone, ou c'etait assez difficile d'arriver `a ca. Et

puis, il y avait aussi la notion de...



345 So that -- the hit factor we wanted to keep and -- oh, yeah, the thing

was, we -- the consensus that we wanted it at ten per cent and no

exceptions, because you told us earlier this week that we could have

exemptions from certain regulations, but that we would want to keep close

at ten per cent. That was the Ontario caucus, and that it was important

that we keep a hit factor because -- to do special programming and for the

French content percentages, so --



346 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Merci.



347 MR. SCHMIDT: I'm Rob Schmidt from CKUW at the University of Winnipeg.



348 First, I'd like to thank everyone for just making this opportunity

possible. This is really refreshing.



349 I'd sort of like to add to what Carole was saying with respect to music

categories. One of the largest problems that -- that programmers face is

that more and more of the programs that we wanted doing, don't fit into any

specific category. It means creating logs very difficult. It -- it makes

achieving content quotas very difficult -- not impossible, but very

difficult, and I think that although there isn't a consensus between all

the stations with respect to these sort of issues, it is something that

really has to be addressed, especially with new forms of music being --

having come into popularity since these definitions were introduced.



350 I think that it may make a lot of sense to create a different glossary

of terms that relate to campus community stations because of the way we

program our entire broadcast week. It may make a lot of sense to streamline

the regulations and the requirements a great deal. It would give us more

flexibility in programming new types of music and in helping to -- to

create awareness for new types of music and things like that.



351 I'd also like to address what Carole said, the hit factor; and again,

although there isn't a consensus abut this, this does cause a great deal of

problem. It makes -- it can make -- just the fact that we even think about

hits, makes people think that we are in some way similar to commercial

radio, and I think that any new definition of what campus radio is and any

revision of glossary of terms should make it very clear how we are a

distinct and entirely different medium with a different focus, and

different goals. Thank you.



352 MS YORK: Thank you.



353 MS COTE: If I could just read the definition what applies to us right

now, that the level of hit broadcast each week should not exceed fifteen

per cent. That's what it says right now, and what Kevin was mentioning was

a -- should not exceed ten per cent without any exceptions, and that with

instructional stations they're allowed thirty per cent right now.



354 MS YORK: So that's what Carole was proposing, was a change --



355 MS COTE: Yeah.



356 MS YORK: -- of production.



357 MS COTE: That it would be a ten per cent maximum, coming from the

Ontario caucus.



358 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay, just a quick question on that, though,

if I may. Carole referred to -- correct, me if I'm wrong, ten per cent

relating to the specificity of the marche francophone. Est-ce que j'ai bien

entendu?



359 MME BARBEAU: Oui.



360 CONSEILLERE PENNEFATHER: Tres bien.



361 MME BARBEAU: Mais c'etait pour tout le monde aussi l`a. C'etait pas

juste pour...



362 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: (Inaudible)... pour tout le monde. Elle a

ajoute --she added that point that the Francophone market is the first I

hear it this morning of the differences, if any, Anglophone, Francophone

market, so I just wanted to note that I did note that there are different

things, but I take your point, ten per cent is the recommendation for

everyone.



363 Thanks.



364 MS MAJAURY: Heather Majaury, CJAM, Windsor.



365 This is a little off topic from this. We are all, including the CRTC,

in a culture that finds itself as its priority being communication, and I

would like to see some effort put in to creating documents that are very

friendly and speak to the spirit of communication rather than completely

legalese. Thank you.



366 MS YORK: Thank you very much.



367 MS COTE: I just wanted to -- just to mention that the Atlantic meeting

had come up with a suggestion of having a pamphlet saying, "So you've been

called to a hearing," you know, and I think that's --that's really

important to mention at this -- right now.



368 MS PENNFATHER: Thank you for saying that. I've noticed that. It

shouldn't be -- John used the word "intimidating," and even these sessions,

a couple of people came to me in Banff and said even that's intimidating,

so we're hoping to change a bit of the intimidation factor, but I agree

with you, there's some rules, things that have to be done for hearings and

we're happy to look at all ideas you have to make it more efficient.



369 MR. LALONDE: My name is Clint Lalonde. I'm with CKMO FM in Victoria.

We're a campus instructional station, and if I could just speak to the hit

not, hit ratio for a moment.



370 The -- we would like to see the --the distinction still made between

perhaps campus community and instructional stations. The instruction -- the

focus of the instructional stations is to train broadcasters. Most of them

go on to careers in commercial radio, and we like to try to keep the

regulations as close to commercial radio as possible.



371 I understand the hits and not hit ratio and the commercial radio has

been dropped. We're not recommending that it be dropped, but to reduce it

to ten per cent for campus instructional stations might hamper our ability

to train broadcasters who go on to working in the commercial industry, so

we'd like to see a distinction be maintained between campus instructional

and campus/community stations.



[there are no job in commercial radio & even if there were, providing for a 

high repeat factor doesn't enhance the trainees ability to land a job]





372 Thank you.



373 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



374 MR. CHUNG: Hi. My name is Anthony from CJSF.



375 Not really anything new, but I just wanted to stress how important a

lot of us feel that mixing and everything be looked at and accepted as

Canadian content, because it -- I don't know how many people I've tried

here, but if you tried mixing and everything, it is an acquired skill, and

what I want to see when you guys do go into consultation with this, I want

-- I want complete involvement with all the community/campus radio stations

so that they can have input into it, because if you don't do it, you can't

understand it, and those that do it will be able to provide input into

what's going on with it.



376 That's all I've got to say.



377 MS YORK: Thank you.



378 MS COTE: And again, I would like to add that the NCTA with all of its

stations is working right now on getting consensus on a document which says

that when you're the producer and the artist, when you are mixing, and with

explaining and how much time and how much mixing manipulation and the radio

art, all of that, that it is accepted as Canadian content.



379 MR. CLARK: John Clark, CJSF. I have a question.



380 Why is -- I think it's Subcategory 34, music, subcategory 34, non-

traditional religious music. Why is that in Category 3 and not in Category?



381 MS YORK: Good question.



382 MR. CLARK: Category 2.



383 MS YORK: You're talking about the popular gospel music and how anything

with a religious theme now has to go into a traditional and special

interest music? You know, you could argue that specifically religious music

is a special interest, and I think that was the logic at the beginning, but

I do agree that a lot of it -- pop music is much more like Category 2 

than 3.



384 MS COTE: At our station we don't put gospel in the same place as we put

Christian rock. We don't actually put Christian rock in the library period,

but I mean, it would be -- for us -- sorry. Sorry, that was a personal

thing, because we don't --we don't have any Christian rock programming at

our station, and there's actually in Ottawa a Christian rock station, so

that's a totally different thing for us, but that we do have gospel and we

put that in traditional; whereas anything that is rock gets put in rock,

whether it would be any kind of rock.



385 MR. CLARK: Well, you know, that's cool, but I'm speaking to the

regulations.



386 MS YORK: Yeah, it's an interesting question. This isn't -- specifically

look at the different categories, but I'm -- I'm starting to think that one

of the things that come out of this might be a separate -- I don't know,

I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but I think the questions about

categories are fairly detailed, and I'm wondering if we can really include

that as part of this campus radio review, or whether that might need a

separate working group or a separate kind of process. I have no idea. I'm

just sort of thinking that there are a lot of other issues about the

categorization of music that maybe are not related for campus radio review.



387 MR. CLARK: For sure, and I won't --campus radio, maybe the whole

categories of music don't relate to us as they relate to commercial radio

at all, so --



388 MS YORK: I understand that.



389 MR. CLARK: -- constructed and built from scratch.



390 MS YORK: Well, you know, I'm just not exactly sure how much of that we

can do during this campus review. I don't know if the NCRA will be in a

position to come up with a specific proposal about what category, you know,

we should use for campus radio, if they're in a position to come back with

a completely new plan or whether that's too big a job and --



391 MR. CLARK: I'm willing to wait a little longer.



392 MS COTE: I have a question, actually, for the CRTC having to do with

this. Would it be accepted if we were so minimalist as to say that we are

playing music, and that ten per cent of that can be hits and then maybe

squeeze in are what we consider Canadian content, like, would it be so

simple as to say that we follow our mandate in the music that we play, and

that's music, and --



393 MS YORK: Well, I -- I can't tell you what would be acceptable. I can

tell you what would be an acceptable topic to put out for discussion.



394 One argument that I've heard sort of in response to that is that in 

some cases, campus radio needs a sort of regulation they can point to or 

policy they can point to if they're getting perhaps pressure from the 

students' association or whatever for saying, "Why don't you just play more 

hits?  Why don't you play more music that people want to hear? Maybe you'd 

get more advertising. You wouldn't be coming back for money or whatever," 

and I -- I've sort of understood that having some specific requirements in 

the policy was helpful to campus stations in order to protect them from 

that kind of pressure, so it's kind of a balance between how much you want 

to simplify the regulations and policy that you're operating under, and how 

much protection you need. And really, that's up to you guys to discuss and 

to decide and to let us know when you're --



395 MS COTE: So it is possible for us to offer -- to suggest something that 

is incredibly simple? 



396 MS YORK: It's certainly possible.



397 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean from CIUT FM in Toronto.



398 The same answer again, looking at the sort of preservation of our 

sector. In our ongoing involvement in what I see as congested radio dial in 

Toronto, campus and community radio, there is having to work more and more 

and hopefully -- I was hoping to see willingly with the CBC, however, as we 

all know, the CBC, I think in my opinion, that their programming and their 

mandate is really skewed from the multi-cultural clinical, social, artistic 

face of Canada, and I -- I'm pretty sure they're aware of it, however, 

within that, they -- I'm getting the sense that they are looking, as the 

campus/community radios do, and saying, "Gee, that works particularly at a 

local level." And I've been given the impression from people at CBC that 

they are going more and more that way. To quote someone that --he told me 

that we can expect to see them at more and more community level events. 



399 My concern around that is that if it gets to the point where we end up

at a run to run battle against the CBC when we get into duplication of

service, my concerns is due to monies and lawyers and governor-in-council,

and them being the national broadcaster for Canada, that campus/community

radio would lose.



400 Now, I know we're under an ongoing mandate to sort of reinvent and

become fresh and stuff like that, however, there's also the point that it's

very easy for them to copy us where stuff works, and again working with the

limited resources, it is very difficult to constantly reinvest,

particularly when it gets to the level that they're working in the same

sort of areas at the same time, doing the same things, so I have some

concerns about that.



401 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



402 MS YORK: I just would add -- I think I've said this before, but just so

that you know the next step in this process would be a cross-sectoral

meeting where we will be meeting -- having a space for members of the NCRA

to meet with members from the CBC and from community radio, from commercial

radio, and so it will be a chance to talk about the various complimentary

kind of rules that people can play, and there's also a CBC renewal hearing

coming up next year. It's an opportunity for us to talk to CBC about their

mandate and their broader kind of relationship with other sectors of

broadcasting; and again, that's an open public process, and if the NCRA or

individual stations have comments to make to the CBC at that time would be

a good time for --



403 MS YORK: Okay, I would like to ask some questions. First of all, a

couple of people have suggested that unrestricted advertising should be

increased. Some people have sort of put that on the table. Is there anybody

who wants to give an opposite side of that? Is there anybody who would like

to argue against --



[yes ... look to the CRTC Policy on Restricted Advertising which formed 

part of the licence approval for CKCU & CJUM in 1975.  It still applies]



404 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to say that all the advertising be

removed from campus/community radio -- all advertising.



405 MS WARD: Tristis from CHSR in Fredericton.



406 Our student union is forever trying to push more and more ads on us and

-- and drive us in that direction. I, too, worry about that. I like having

the -- okay sorry. John doesn't do it. Okay. I like having the -- the

restrictions because it's a little bit of protection against having to run

some of the ads that we find to be truly abhorrent. We don't have -- our

board is pretty much controlled by the student union, and financial

decisions, like, for example, the kind of contracts to enter into with whom

are being made by student union representatives, not by people who actually

are concerned with campus and community radio.



407 I like the protection that we have that keeps us from -- from going

down that slippery slope, although I do understand that it also has to do

with finances, and I -- I sympathize with my fellow radio stations in -- in

our sector. I -- I still like the restrictions.



408 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



409 MR. LEACOCK: I'm John Leacock from CFRU in Guelph. I'm the advertising

and music co-ordinator at CFRU.



410 And my approach to community radio about the stations advertising is

that the CRTC has given us four minutes that we could use as an opportunity

to have local businesses, especially with Canada changing now with a lot of

home-based businesses, what we do at CFRU is try to make advertising a form

of accessibility to people that would not usually get mainstream

advertising. It's also an important part of radio creative to have

programmers have an opportunity to express an art form of creating ads for

the local barber shop or the local home-based esthetics business or

whatever, and I think that is really important that we should maintain

advertising contrary to John's views on advertising.



411 I think sometimes the non-profit organizations like radio and people

tend to feel that non-profit means that you have to be poor. I think we

could use -- a community radio station should use advertising as an

opportunity to bring in income to help them get updated with equipment,

rather than being fifteen years behind the CBC in terms of equipment and

not -- without being capitalistic or being greedy, but as an opportunity to

bring in funds that is much needed.



412 That's my --



413 MS YORK: Thanks.



414 MS COTE: And I'd like to add that most of us are in debt, and that it

isn't a profit, it's money that we're reinvesting in ourselves to keep

afloat.



415 MS YORK: Okay. Maybe we can turn the conversation now a little bit to

Canadian content, which is an issue that came up in the commercial radio

reviews. As most of you know that for commercial radio stations we proposed

-- we're requiring commercial stations to increase our Canadian content in

Category , popular music, to 35 per cent.



416 We've also -- I'll just sort of run through what we said with them. We

said 35 per cent for Category 2. We said that for those stations that do

Category 3, we -- we think that there's room for an improvement there --for

an increase there, but we would discuss it with individual stations when

they come up for renewal, and we recognized at that time that there's not

very many commercial stations who do a lot of Category 3 programming. We

recognized that the campus radio sector, the community sector, the public

sector are the ones who tend to do a lot of Category 3 music, so --and

right now there's a requirement for ten per cent Canadian content. We've

said that we thought that could go up. You know, I'm curious to know how

you feel that would work in the campus radio sector.



417 And a third requirement that we introduced for the commercial sector is

that we put a distribution requirement. We said that you have to make 35

per cent Canadian content over the broadcast which -- which is six to

midnight from Monday -- or seven days a week, and we also said you have to

reach 35 per cent from six o'clock in the morning to six p.m. at night,

between Monday and Friday.



418 So your five days, six a.m. to six p.m. averaged together has to also

reach 35 per cent. I'm wondering if that kind of a requirement that

requires that certain level of Canadian content during the day is relevant

to the campus radio sector or if it's not, then what your views are on

that.



[distribution requirements work against block & foreground programming and 

favour rolling and gramaphone format.  This is a problem]



419 So if anybody wants to talk about any of those three issues, the level

of Category 3 in popular music, the level of Category 3 in traditional

music, and the level of -- or the distribution requirement, I just wonder

if there's something we can --



420 MS COTE: Thanks, Morag, for bringing that up.



421 But I'd just like to say that in the session on the broadcast week,

there was a consensus amongst the stations that were represented there that

we don't need special percentages for special times of the day because at

our drive to work and drive from work home, shows are not the shows or the

times where we have peak listenership, that we all have different peak

listenership in different shows that are the most listened to, and that

that's really for -- that we saw that regulation as a strictly for

commercial regulation, and that it was easier for the stations present at

this session to simply regulate -- for administrative purposes, to just

think in -- of percentages of just within the broadcast week of six a.m. to

midnight.



422 MR. SCHMIDT: Rob Schmidt, CKUW.



423 Except for instructional stations, which I imagine Andy's going to

address, I think that any changes to regulations with respect to quotas of

all kinds should differentiate use more from commercial radio rather than

bringing us closer in line, and I'm not suggesting that we become different

by having 50 per cent Canadian content or more like that. I think the fact

that campus radio exists to represent a diversity means that we need to be

given the flexibility to have that diversity, and so I think that those

sort of issues need to be considered. Because one of the problems that a

lot of people have is that because our regulations are even thought of in

the same way that commercial stations are regulated, people think that we

in some way are like commercial radio stations, and that is obviously not

true. Not everyone sees our definition in the -- in the campus radio

policy, but everyone knows our hit percentage, everyone knows our Canadian

content percentage, and I think that in some ways some of those terms don't

even really apply to what we do, and -- and I just think those sort of

things should be considered.



424 Thanks.



425 MR. POSTHUMUS: Andy Posthumus from C1015, Mohawk College.



426 This is actually an area that -- that all of a sudden, because we're

still part of -- because instructional radio is still part of the

campus/community sector, the non-profit radio sector, this is an area

that's -- where the line starts to blur a little bit.



427 In a way, it's a distinction I like, actually. This is where we're

going to be a little bit unlike commercial radio. We're still required to

play Category 3 music, and that's a good thing for us. There may be some

station managers at instructional stations who might disagree with me, and

I'm hoping they'll express their opinion, but in a way, the -- the use of

Category 3 music in our -- for our purposes is actually to make a

programmer do some work and develop a really good program that's not what

they would normally hear on commercial radio, because it's a challenge to

that particular programmer, and it's a challenge that I like giving them,

and -- and for my own personal sake, some of them have risen to that

challenge and produced some exceptional programming as a result of it.



428 So if we're still required to play the Category 3 music, and if we're

still -- if the instructional stations are still part of the subcategory of

community radio, we do require community access, and there are special

interest musics that come from the community. Some students who come to the

college aren't necessarily versed, but I -- I am required, and I do welcome

participation from the community, so I'll still get those types of unique

programmers that have something to offer that a student from the college

won't have, so whatever -- however this flushes out as far as hit and non-

hit and -- or in the case of Can con requirements in a certain part of the

day, this is one point where I -- I divert away from the commercial radio

regulations and say that we're more like community radio, and whatever

applies to the community radio, as long as we play this, are still required

to play the special interest music in our -- the policy in this case as it

applies to instructional should reflect what is -- applies to

campus/community radio.



429 MS YORK: Thanks.



430 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean, CIUT FM, Toronto.



431 As we were having various discussions within our caucuses and -- and

collectively here, we --we did -- achieve some consensus in terms of what

we were looking at, what would be acceptable levels of Can con, and I'm not

going to speak on behalf of everyone at this point, because, you know,

we've reached something that I would think differently, although some

people would agree with me, and I know there's divided opinions among us.



432 I would actually like to see Can con go up, however, that's easy for me

to say, coming from a station that has resources to be able to facilitate

that. What I mean by that -- again, going back to look at actually how this

sector operates is that the bigger the stations are, the more wattage they

have, the more ability they are to generate potential, the more they can

get their outreach and listings and charts and stuff, obviously the more

attracted they are to people who receive these charts or bands in other

places, and when you're an independent band and you're looking at who's

reporting to what and -- and where, you're going to obviously, thinking as

an artist, how can I diversity and get my maximum effect for distributing

my music, my produce, my art?



433 Within that, I see that it would be a direct challenge to smaller

stations, even as it presently is with a 30 per cent Can con to reach that

goal, and -- and I really am, I feel, of the opinion that our sector really

does have a feeling to help develop Canadian talent, and really wants to,

and just even on the basic fact that we see the commercial sector treating

it with a pettiness and a sort of letter of the law versus spirit of the

law and the idea of it, that we feel we have a commitment and would like to

continue that. However, again, it's a question of resources. The bigger

stations can do it much easier than the small stations. And we all know

that even when it comes away from even local talent development but more

established labels or bigger labels, it may have a roster that may be

appropriate for campus and community radio.



434 There is a -- a different way that smaller labels are treated. Bigger

labels are treated, of course, in a more preferential way because like

them, they're working at it in a business aspect, where we're working in a

different sort of fence, so I find that, again, smaller stations are going

to be challenged to the fact that when people are giving out distribution,

you know, they're going to have their A list or B list or C list, so I find

that there's a very large challenge for smaller stations, low wattage

stations, cable FM stations to meet these requirements and goals.



435 In reference to Category 3, I'm very very much for Category 3. I -- I

think I've --everyone knows my diatribe on this. If it was up to me,

Category 3 would be 80 per cent; however, in reference to that, we -- we

also know that as music gets more sort of defined and closer to look at,

and that's definitely -- the 20th Century classical --acoustic, and we're

looking at that, where it becomes sort of smaller appealing groups,

whatever you want to look at, smaller groups who work within these musics.



436 When we again relate back to either advertising potential or fund-

raising potential, the ability to do that gets less, and that's not in all

cases of music, but in the majority of the Category 3 music, that if we

increase it again, we're looking at another challenge, funding the ability,

funding the ability to attract -- advertise. Now maybe increasing it may

work for us because as we see the commercial sector go more homogeneous,

people want to diversify more. I don't know, I'm not a statistician, but

what I see particularly in the fund-raising that goes along is that

Category 2 shows that it's easier for them to fund-raising, it's easier for

them to get advertising, and not all, but a lot of Category 3 shows it's

the reverse.



437 So I think again, you would find that perhaps a lot of people in our

sector would be interested in increasing Category 3, but at the same time,

there is the hand-to-hand challenge with that.



438 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



439 MS WARD: Tristis from CHSR.



440 And -- well, I have to get this in because John's about to speak about

Can con's.



441 I actually, I -- I -- you know, I think that -- that Can con is one of

our few protections against American invasion, and -- and I'm -- I'm

definitely concerned with people thinking that to reduce it, even in our

sector, even with the amount of work that we already do, because for -- for

places in smaller centres like us, or places also with a lot of pressure

from our student unions, it is difficult enough to provide alternative

programming and to provide a voice and -- and an outlet for new Canadian

talent. If we didn't have that 30 per cent Canadian content, our

programming decisions would be a lot harder to -- to maintain, just the

integrity of them, because there's always a challenge from the student

union for that every year.



442 But what I'm up here to speak about is actually about the time of day

things, simply because I'm constantly fighting ghettoization of our

programming.



443 We have -- our schedule gets filled basically when the person can do

the show, and we -- we tend to do a lot of shuffling around. Now, we have -

-I do know that our specialty programming and our cultural programming

comes in usually in the evening and weekends and stuff like that already,

so this Monday to Friday, six to six thing is not -- is not as big a deal

right now, it seems, but I wouldn't want it to become an issue in the

future for -- for -- to limit programmers who want to do a specialty music,

but they can't possibly maintain a Canadian content ratio that -- that you

-- particularly -- and I know we're not discussing necessarily category

changes, but particularly since a lot of things get into pop, rock and

dance that we wouldn't necessarily put into pop, rock and dance, and -- and

so the Can con requirements for that particular category can -- can really

tie us in knots.



444 So I -- I'm going to speak against having some kind of a -- five day

tie into this sort of thing just because I want to have that flexibility

for our programmers.



445 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



446 MR. CLARK: John Clark, CJSF.



447 I'm not going to go into how Canadian culture is really just a vestige

of British colonialism and the reason to not be American historically,

stems to a large part from a desire to keep the colonists British, but I

think the concerns of instructional that Andy and Clint represented can be

dismissed.



448 If the mechanism of instruction is to have advertiser-oriented radio

employees do what they are told, who cares what their percentages are

regarding new, recent past Category 2, 3, hits, non-hits, et cetera. They

just tell the monkey what to do and they do it.



449 I'd like the numbers for instructional to be the same as

campus/community radio in this way. Some culture and diversity can be

introduced to the people who are going to spend their lives squelching it.



450 Thanks.



451 MME BARBEAU: Carole Barbeau de CHUO. Donc, tout d'abord, je voudrais

dire que je suis d'accord avec Tristis au niveau de la flexibilite qu'on

devrait pouvoir garder au niveau de la programmation entre 6 h et 7 h, vue

la nature de notre programmation et comment on la... nos benevoles et tout

ca.



452 L'autre chose que je voulais mentionner c'est le 30 pour cent. Je

voudrais dire que je ne suis pas d'accord avec une proposition qui ferait

monter `a 35 pour cent le contenu canadien, notamment au niveau... bon

premierement, parce que on est toujours `a la recherche de nouvelle

musique, et vu qu'on sait pas d'ou elle peut venir... d'ou vont venir les

differents types de musique, les nouveaux styles, les choses nouvelles. Vu

qu'on sait pas d'ou elles vont venir, on peut etre appele `a avoir des

pourcentages de musique canadienne plus... de musique etrangere plus eleve

plutot.



453 Il y a aussi... du cote du marche francophone, ca peut etre beaucoup

plus difficile d'avoir acces `a ces nouvelles musiques-l`a, comme le hip-

hop, le punk, les differents types de nouvelles musiques. Ca peut etre

difficile d'en trouver beaucoup au niveau canadien. Donc, ce serait

important de garder ca, meme si on est... on peut etre... comme, je suis

tres d'accord avec un 30 pour cent qui est tres important de garder, mais

il ne faudrait pas trop l'elever parce que ca pourrait etre tres difficile

de trouver de la musique francophone dans ces categories-l`a.



454 So I'm going to repeat in English. For the first thing I said was that

I was agreeing with Tristis on the flexibility thing that we need to keep

because we are volunteer-based, and that we don't know exactly -- we don't

make our programming the way that commercial radio does, so -- and the

second thing was about the 30 per cent -- or 35 per cent Can con that I

would not be for, because we don't know where the new music types will come

from, and we're always looking for that. So we need to keep that

flexibility to be able to do our job on that field of music diversity.



455 And the other thing was that 35 per cent would be probably hard to

attain for -- on the French side of things with the new music types like

hip hop and punk, so a 30 per cent is possible, and we try hard to attain

it, but 35 per cent might be something really hard to attain.



456 MS COTE: I'd like to just make a friendly amendment to -- from punk to

maybe electronic-based, being that --



457 MS YORK: I'd just --



458 MS COTE: -- existed for a really long time -- well, as compared to --



459 MS YORK: I'd like to just sort of follow up on that point. Somebody had

sort of talked earlier about -- I think it was John, about the process of

putting labels on certain kinds of music, and does that create, I don't

know, certain stereotypes or something like that.



460 The main reason we have the distinction between Category 2, Category 3

and periods of ethnic programming is because we're trying to recognize that

certain kinds of music or certain kinds of programming periods, it's

difficult to reach the same level of Can con. So that's really the only

reason we have those distinctions -- or one of the main reasons we have

those distinctions.



461 We recognize the traditional and special interest music. It's harder to

find Can con in that, and if you're doing it at an ethnic programming

period, it may be more difficult to find Canadian content with that kind of

genre.



462 What I would like to ask is if anybody has put any thought into whether

those kind of -- the definitions, and I think that I've been hearing

something sort of along these lines. What we're trying to do is to

recognize the difficulty in finding Canadian content. Now, I'm hearing that

things like certain genres like electronica, hip hop and things like that,

it's hard to find Canadian content, but they're not captured by the

Category 3 or by, you know, the periods of ethnic programming, by the areas

where we have recognized that it's difficult to find Can con, so I'm

wondering if you guys have put any thought into changes to those

definitions that would be -- that would capture those kind of difficulties

better? Has anybody thought about that?



463 MS JAYOUSSI: Maizun Jayoussi, CJSW in Calgary.



464 We have thought about this, and I think we have to go back to why

Category 3 exists, which is -- basically it's a category that guarantees

non-rock, non-popular music based programming, and as it stands right now,

the categories that are highlighted are -- are mainly jazz and folk, and

Category 3 doesn't include hip hop, electronica, things that we wouldn't

consider in -- in -- sometimes I -- I don't really see that as being

suitable in Category 2 because those genres of music aren't covered by

commercial radio, and I think that the biggest one that we've been talking

about has been the issue of turntabling, because that in itself is also

very much like having a band in your studio. You have, you know, an artist

coming with a turntable, so we've been talking, and I think Caroline Cote

has an excellent definition of that as well. Who was that drafted by?



465 MS COTE: It was drafted in conjunction with Joanne Miriam from CKDU.



466 MS JAYOUSSI: Right, and -- and I think a lot of us have -- have thought

about this as well as being something suitable to Category 3, and I think

that the -- the problem is, we don't want to make things more complicated

for us either, so in some ways I think maybe Category 3 could be expanded

to -- to saying that Category 3 includes these types of musics, the ones

that we currently find, maybe add a few more definitions such as

turntabling. I think especially also experimental types of compositions

that aren't covered in either category, and that we know will never be

placed on commercial radio; whereas with hip hop and electronica, I think

there's a bit of a fuzzy area there where we're not sure where that's

headed, but I think that maybe something needs to be included in Category 3

that allows for music that is not covered by Category 2, because we do have

these grey areas, so as long as Category 2 is very clear -- and again, for

us Category 2 has some -- some strange definitions that don't really apply

to us -- music mainly for dancing, I'm not quite sure what that means.



467 So I think if we can clean up Category 2 a little bit to make it clear

that Category is almost the easy category, the pop rock category, and

Category 3 is the stuff that commercial radio isn't going to touch very

often, and -- and that's maybe how it should be defined. So having a list

of music that could be considered Category 3 but not necessarily restricted

to those categories; that Category 3 have a sort of a greater definition of

other, that is, you know, relating to not included in Category 2. The same

way that spoken word says anything not covered by all these other

categories is spoken word.



468 MS YORK: Thank you.



469 MS JAYOUSSI: Does that make sense?



470 MS YORK: Yeah, I follow you.



471 MR. DEAN: Mopa Dean, CIUT, Toronto.



472 I'm really curious actually when referring to music categories with the

CRTC based, whether they use some sort of basis of how they came about

these categories, because I think where a lot of the confusion and sort of

ambiguity comes from it.



473 In a lot of cases when I talk to people at the CRTC, I -- I get the

sense that a lot of times the ideas of the regulation of categories are

purposely left vague, and -- and they like -- they like us to make self-

determination, what we are and aren't going to do and how we're going to do

things and categoric -- and categorize stuff in sort of a larger sense but

even in the context of music.



474 However, the problem that we run into constantly time and time again

when we're talking about categories of music is that it also involves an

industry in sales, and so people will come in with different perceptions

but no mark to base it by. I'll have someone come in and say, "Well, I'm

doing a punk rock show," and in my opinion it's definitely not punk rock,

or they'll come in and say, "Well, I'm doing a Goth industrial show, and

it's nothing that -- then when you refer to the categories, you know, it --

it's vague about it, but then they're going on the basis that because they

were tuned to mass media or their version of street-wise pop culture, to

them in their idea of what they've assimilated, what this is, is punk rock.

Someone at Sony or whatever said, "Well, this is punk rock," so it's punk

rock. How can you challenge that?



475 So this is something that I'd really like to diffuse because, again, in

our relationship with the commercial sector, which we have to unfortunately

exist with, it constantly becomes a barrier and a problem. Someone will

say, "Well, this is -- world," you know, and they just love to throw these

categories in the air, but from my understanding with even my limited

knowledge what I would consider in music or someone who's even an

"ethnicmusicologist", there's nothing that remotely -- sort of anything

related to a world of traditional, you know, of music or dance indigenous

to people from a geographic area.



476 So I'm just wondering if there's a --an idea or preferably even an

explanation that someone can give out how the CRTC comes up with their

categories, and maybe that would also help us to maybe give you more

feedback in determination of what is or isn't acceptable what -- under the

present terms as Category 2 versus Category 3 versus special interest

versus one minute over three minutes, or what is or isn't music versus

noise and/or cacophony.



477 MS YORK: Are you actually expecting an answer right now, because -- you

know, I don't know how the categories were developed. They were developed

quite awhile ago before I was there. I wasn't part of the process and I

just personally don't -- don't know. I could go back and ask and try to get

more of the history.



478 I think that Category 3 was intended to reflect the areas -- I think it

was intended to reflect the areas that mainstream stations don't play, and

where it's more difficult to find Canadian content. I think that was the

rationale for making the distinction between 2 and 3, and -- and it was

based very much on the situation at that time. And as everybody here has

noticed -- noted, music evolves, it changes. What was relevant at that time

is not necessarily what's relevant anymore, and that's why we need to

review these things, you know, so I do take everybody's point that the

categories and the definitions that are used in the definitions are not

necessarily relevant now, and -- and the question is what we should do

about that.



479 MR. CLARK: John Clark, CJSF.



480 I appreciate having a voice here, and I appreciate how the NCRA

tolerates dissent and diverse opinions, and as evidence of lack of

consensus, I think that the 2, 3 is pretty good, and -- and --481 MS YORK:

I'm amazed.



482 MR. CLARK: Now, the turntabling issue being completely separate and

myself seeing the experimental thing pretty much covered in 3 already. , 3

seems to work pretty well if you're going -- if you're going to do that,

that's probably the best way to have it done.



483 MS YORK: Thank you.



484 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thanks.



485 MR. CHUNG: Anthony from CJSF.



486 As far as hip hop and electronica interim base goes, I don't think we

necessarily need a different category for that, but I think there should be

some sort of recognition that, yes, Can con is hard at this moment to

fulfill, which, I mean, who knows, maybe five years, ten years, maybe two

years it'll be extremely easy, but as it stands, it's very difficult. And

as far as turntablism goes, I don't want to see that categorized at all at

this point -- maybe not even until five years later, even six or seven or

eight years later, because as it stands, in order to do a show you've got

to be extremely creative, you have to have a lot of stamina, and I don't

think people could do a show every week being different, doing it for an

hour or everything, and there's not enough of that material out there, so I

don't want it to be categorized at all until a couple of years down the

line.



487 MS COTE: But how about having it recognized as Canadian content?



488 MR. CHUNG: Oh, yes, recognized as Canadian content.



489 MS COTE: But not like a subcategory?



490 MR. CHUNG: Yeah, not -- not -- not placed into any specific category

where it's got to be, you know, 35 per cent or 30 or 10 per cent.



491 MS YORK: Okay, thanks.



492 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.



493 MS WARD: Tristis again from CJSR, Fredericton.



494 I want to start off by saying I'm really lucky that my music director

is not currently in the room, but what I have to say is this. It's -- it's

just a brainstorming thing, and I don't mean to --to -- I think that the --

the ideas expressed about --about changing the categories, you know, we

should --we definitely need to look into those, but I was thinking this.



495 You see, for the Goth show -- what I say to the Goth show as a -- as a

program director when they say they can't find enough Canadian content to

meet the requirements that I expected them, is try harder. What I say to

you is, it's really hard to find Canadian Goth, so -- so what -- just as an

idea, what I'd like to -- for the CRTC to be open to is rather than trying

to categorize all the music, because I think we already know, there's

already a lot of -- of dissent as to what goes into what category. We

already know that emerging music is going to be changing these categories,

and they will be out of date as soon as you print a new glossary of terms.

I would like to see the CRTC be open to explanation.



496 We're in the communication business. If -- if a show can't -- can't

make 30 per cent Canadian without playing the same songs over and over

again, if a show can't make that and -- and still be a quality program in

the particular genre that they are playing in, can they just explain that

and just let it be acceptable? The CRTC doesn't have to go by just numbers

and figures and -- and balanced lines, I mean, it can simply be, you know,

okay, we didn't meet -- we didn't meet 30 per cent in this window that you

looked at because we had these shows and these performers performed this

way with this material, because that is what they have to work with, and we

are fully capable of explaining ourselves and -- and why we couldn't make

the Canadian content there, and if you are capable of accepting that, I

think that we could all live with each other.



497 MS YORK: Thanks.



498 MS COTE: As an addition to what Tristis just said, I'd like to just

point out that, you know, that's -- we have French percentages, and imagine

my sitting down and saying, "Well, you've got to look harder to find French

language Canadian Goth, okay? And -- it's crazy.



499 MS YORK: Go ahead.



500 MR. WRIGHT: Evan Wright, CKUT in Montreal.



501 Maybe it's a bit drastic, but I --I'm wondering what these categories

are doing in campus/community radio, I mean, we -- we're a distinct

community. We know who we are and it -- I don't really understand what --

why the categories are there, kind of like in an outside body, kind of

dictating the kind of things we do, because it needs to be in this block,

this block. These are the categories of music that exist for you. I guess

I'm wondering why they're even there, why we -- why we can't design

programming based on programming instead of based on categories, and why --

I mean, for me I -- I see it more as just an administrative thing, just

something else to keep you from really doing radio and running a station.



502 MS YORK: Well, I would like to say that I don't think the CRTC is

trying to tell you to base your programming on the categories at all. I

don't think that's what we're trying to do.



503 MS COTE: And that we are here to decide how and what we want, how we

wanted it phrased, do we want it there at all, you know, I think -- this is

the place where we can say, "Let's scrap it." We can come to the CRTC with

that as long as we back it up, and then --



504 MR. WRIGHT: I guess I'm wondering why they are there to begin with.



505 MS YORK: I would say that they're there. I think I've said this a

couple of times, but I'll just say again, I think they're there to ensure

that we recognize areas where it's harder to reach Canadian content, (a);

and (b), to try to put some kind of quantitative description of what

distinguishes a campus station from a mainstream alternative station, and

that's not entirely something that we -- we imposed on the campus radio

sector. We understood that the campus sector also liked to have those

mechanisms built in, because it provided some protection to them in dealing

with their association or their boards of directors, but again, all of

these things are up for discussion now. If -- if the same reasons are not

applied or you don't think they apply, or you think that they could be

achieved in some better way, this is the time to say it.



506 MR. KIERNANDER: Trevor from CORS in Oakville.



507 Just a quick question. With the DJ as the artist with like, hip hop,

electronica, how would Canadian content be class -- like, be counted for

that? Because when you have a normal show and they play, say three Can con

tracks, it's easy to keep track of, you know, but when the DJ's playing who

knows how many songs in the entire, like time allotted, how would --



508 MS COTE: Well, we'll be duking it out with the -- with the proposal on

Saturday, but that what the proposal is as is, is that when you are doing

manipulation within one minute, that you're changing, altering the piece

within one minute, then it is your piece. Once that that piece ends, once

that you go to a commercial, you say what songs you played or that you had

gotten lazy and you've played something for more than a minute, then that's

ended, it's changed. So --and we can -- we can more discuss this on

Saturday.



509 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If we are going to still work with the ideas of

categories, I --I think there probably still will be until there's some

sort of standard that you can look and base stuff by.



510 I'm just wondering if there would be a consideration in working with

the idea of creating a new category that's neither a spoken word or a music

that's sort of in the reference of experimental radio. A lot of times, as

we understand, campus and community radio pushes the envelope in terms of

the type of broadcasting that we do, and a lot of it can be -- and there

are a lot of people that do unconventional radio. Because of that, whether

they're manipulating the technology in some way, shape or form or doing

something unconventional, they usually have to turn to things as audio art

or pirate radio or something, and I would like to see something along those

lines, I mean, if it's -- it's not music, but it's sound, but there's no

real dialogue in the sense of how it's being manipulated or looked at, but

you're putting it over the air and you're presenting it or you're using the

technology or something in a way that is different --distinctly different

than what is being looked at or understood now and maybe creating some

other category under that --



511 MS YORK: I think we're probably pretty close to out of time and things

seemed to have wound down.



512 I'd just like to sort of -- one last chance. Anybody else have anything

to add?



513 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've actually got kind of one more thing to add,

although it's not related to the categories thing, and I was wondering

about -- actually, I like this mic better. I was wondering about the idea

of actually getting more campus stations available through cable FM. I

understand that there is no requirement if a station is not broadcasting to

be cable -- to be carried on cable, but -- but there's a lot of people at

stations doing a lot of different things. They don't have the same access

through wattage or being licensed, and if there would be a possibility of

seeing more of these --



514 MS COTE: May we have some quiet in the room, please?



515 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. Thank you. If -- if there would be a

way to incorporate or insist or get more stations onto that medium via that

way.



516 MS COTE: And there is a new cable policy -- I don't know if you guys

want to go into that or if you guys have it with you.



517 MS YORK: I don't know what you mean. Caroline, if you'd like to just go

ahead. I don't know exactly what you mean.



518 MS COTE: Well, I don't -- I'm not a -- I'm not a cable only station.

It's just that at our Montreal meeting, because Montreal has quite a bit of

cable stations, Lucio had come with the new cable radio policy. That had

been in the works ever since I've been in radio, but that now it's done.

She was there to present it, so -- but she didn't present it because they

weren't there, so I don't know if that would be something that we can get

from the CRTC and distribute to the cable stations that there is a new

policy dealing with them.



519 MS YORK: I'm sorry, I'm really not up on it so I can't tell you right

now, but I could get back to you later if you want to know more about that.



520 MR. DEGRAFF: Hello, I'm Chris Degraff representing OEC Radio in

Kelowna.



521 Just concerning the -- the content issue and the categories.

Considering that campus college radio is sort of the -- the vehicle for new

up and coming genres basically is filtered through there before anywhere

else. I think perhaps -- granted that we have the resources available to us

to do this, that the onus should be on say the NCRC and -- and whatnot to

do -- have the majority of input on the formation of new categories and,

like, say on a yearly or bi-annually basis or whatnot. And in the same

vein, we must need the resources to do that, of course. We don't always

have time to do that or the money to -- to investigate that, and publish

it, and everybody -- you know, everybody has to get together and meet

somewhere and discuss this and hash it out.



522 What John was saying about say a royalty tax on advertising on

commercial radio, I think that's a very excellent idea, and it's -- we are

their -- their -- how would you say it, we're the farm and they harvest the

talent from there basically, and I think they should put a little bit more

effort into tending that farm.



523 Thanks.



524 MR. LEACOCK: John Leacock, CFRU, Guelph.



525 Just a short question. When could we get a copy of this discourse,

like, for our own reviews and to take back to our stations?



526 MS YORK: This transcript?



527 MR. LEACOCK: Yeah, of what's took place today.



528 MS YORK: I'll ask Barbara how long it takes usually to develop the

transcript.



529 MR. LEACOCK: No, like, how do you go about contacting to get a copy? I

don't want it tomorrow or --



530 MS YORK: Okay, if you want to know how it works. It'll be on the public

file which will be available in all the regional offices -- of course,

there's no regional office in Toronto now. I think you probably -- I don't

know if we put them on the internet. I'm going to maybe have to get back to

you about that. I don't know if we put transcripts on the internet. It

would probably be good in this case to do so, because I think a lot of

stations have access to the web, so I'll look into that. It goes on the

public file. I think you could probably write to us and ask us for a copy.



531 MR. LEACOCK: Does it cost money?



532 MS YORK: I don't know, I'm sorry.



533 MS COTE: Usually anything over fifty copies, you're charged.



534 MR. LEACOCK: Yeah, just a short comment.



535 MS COTE: Fifty pages.



536 MR. LEACOCK: A short comment on the levy of commercial stations.

Sometimes I -- like, it comes back to my whole point about advertising. I

think that if community stations really want to get themselves out of debt,

they could find equitable ways to raise funds, rather than having to levy

commercial stations. I don't see myself as being a farm to commercial

radio. I see myself as being a distinct entity from commercial radio that

gives voices to people that does not have an opportunity to be mainstream,

right? I don't want to be seen as being somebody that just in community

radio because I want to be in commercial, you know.



537 MS YORK: I understand. This will be the last comment.



538 MS MAJAURY: Heather Majaury from CJAM.



539 I just want to say that I think a tax system, I'm in support of that,

because then it can be a third party issuance, and commercial radio would

not have any say in exactly how that money is spent, that it's regulated;

and whereas, if we rely on commercial means to also gain funds, then we

create the same animal.



540 MS COTE: There's just one last thing that I wanted to get on the

record, which is in the spirit of what Rob from CKUW was saying to keep us

and get us more distinct and separate from commercial radio, that you might

not have noticed this, but on the second page, the -- the second side of

your front page that everyone has on their license, the last paragraph,

says, "Condition for commercial FM stations overviewing markets other than

single station markets," and it goes on to talk about that it's a condition

of license that the licensee refrain from soliciting or accepting local

advertising for broadcasting any broadcast week when less than one-third of

the programming aired is local." In the definition of local programming

shall be --anyways, it talks about how commercials stations have to have a

third of local programming to have advertising, that I would like this to

be taken off of our acceptance of license, because it has nothing to do

with us, that nothing has to do with commercial radio, and only commercial

radio shouldn't be on there, and that it should -- it could just bring

confusion to our own managers, board of directors, et cetera of why it's

there and our acceptance of our license.



541 MS YORK: Thanks, Caroline. I think that that'll be it. I don't know if

you want to add some closing words.



542 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, sure. Thank you very much for coming. I

really appreciate you taking the time of -- during your conference to

bringing your views forward to myself and to the Commission as a whole.

It's been fascinating, and I've learned a great deal this morning.



543 There are a number of areas that kept coming up from balance through to

categories of music, which I think will remain forever a difficult choice,

to the process ahead of us in access to materials, information, and support

in terms of moving forward with your licenses and so on. We certainly hope

that this is -- this session this morning was as helpful to you as it has

been for us, and that it reflects the way the Commission wants to approach

what are a number of really really important changes and decisions coming

up over the next couple of years.



544 So we're going to be very busy -- I know you're going to be very busy

over the next little while, and we look forward to hearing from you again,

either individually or through the association as we approach changes to

policy.



545 Thanks a lot.



546 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question about if we are making

submissions from our stations individually. Should we direct those to you

or to Morag?



547 MS YORK: It's best if you wait till we put out the call for comments,

which will be a public notice. It will probably come out in the fall, and

it will raise specific areas where we want input, although you're not

restricted to those areas. Anybody can comment on anything, but stations

can put in comments individually -- call for comments -- can put one in for

the association.



548 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And there is always information of where to

send it and a deadline in the notice. Sorry, Tristis?



549 MS WARD: Do you buy ad space in the newspapers for those public

notices?



550 MS YORK: Yes, we're supposed to in local -- in -- in --



551 MS WARD: Would you like to buy some radio ads? --- Laughter/Rires



552 MS YORK: I just wanted to say that one thing Caroline raised was the

issue of a mailing list that would go out with relevant radio notices to

all interested radio stations, and I think we can work on that, even apart

from the -- from the review we could maybe start working with that fairly

quickly. So if you want to talk to Caroline about whether you want to be on

a mailing list for all relevant notices, please go ahead, because I think

we can go ahead with that fairly quickly. Mopa?



553 MR. DEAN: I'm just concerned about stations that are going to have

license renewals happening in between the termination stations where you

take the calls and start being on the regulations, a station gets its

license renewal, and then after its license renewal which is based on the

old system, these new rules come up, and how is that really --

554 MS YORK: I'd like to say that one thing we can do, and we sometimes do,

is administrative renewals. If there's a reason that -- for whatever reason

we don't want to consider all the issues about a renewal right now, we can

do an administrative renewal, so you just renew it for a year, and then,

you know, we have the real renewal process after a year, so if there's some

concern about how the new policy might affect stations in the meantime,

I'll try to suggest that we consider administrative renewals for campus

stations until this policy -- until this review is over.



555 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Just one last thing. Morag mentioned at the

beginning of today that there are a number of other public consultations

going on on television programming in this country on Canadian content

regulations for television programming which, of course, affects film

production. You're a thoughtful group. You've spent a lot of time worrying

about and promoting Canadian content in music, spoken word, and obviously

you're part and parcel of cultural environment in this country. I do hope

that we will hear from you in those processes as well.



556 Thanks.



--- Whereupon the hearing concluded at 1230/ L'audience se termine `a 1230