The CRTC, basic cable and Christian coverage on Canadian TV

By Don Hutchinson

In April, Canada’s telecom regulator started hearings as the battle over basic cable heats up.

The advantage of being on basic cable (called “mandatory carriage” in the telecom world) is that every cable subscriber in the jurisdiction where you broadcast will get your station. Not on basic cable? People have to pay extra to see what you produce.

Cable providers pay most basic cable channels a matter of pennies per subscriber. This is used to develop Canadian programming. It’s not a government subsidy.

As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) holds hearings to assess whether select stations should have the privilege of being on basic cable, the competitors are jockeying for position. It can resemble a collection of Davids and Goliaths in hand-to-hand combat on an open field (of course, inside a locked stadium controlled by the CRTC).

Sun News Network (SUN TV) was bumped from basic cable in the deal that secured their license in 2010 and their projected viewership declined accordingly, to the point where they are losing money. A return to the basic cable universe – with a reasonably anticipated recovery of viewers – would likely propel “the little station that could” out of the red and into the black. SUN certainly provides a readily observable alternative perspective on the day’s events to that of CTV News Channel and CBC News Network; and, features all-Canadian primetime content. CTV News Channel and CBC News Network had 21 and 13 years respectively on basic cable across the country to develop their audiences (while piggybacking their parent networks). SUN has evidenced the type of viewership they have the potential to draw on basic. Seems to me this combination makes SUN worthy of consideration for the basic spectrum. On top of that however, SUN has demonstrated that it is the news channel most interested in faith viewpoints on the news that interests Canadians.

VISION TV, now part of Moses Znaimer’s Zoomer Media, is a uniquely Canadian invention that provides multi-faith and multi-cultural programming – a television tribute to Canada’s constitutional religious freedom and multiculturalism. Whatever one thinks of Znaimer’s previous efforts at CITY, SEX, MuchMusic or Bravo, the production standards, community engagement and Canadian content were innovative and progressively high as he honed his skills; and, all opinions were welcome by the management – who didn’t necessarily agree with them, and neither necessarily did we. Znaimer’s now mature production and management skills, along with continuing open invitation to on-air conversation, are becoming increasingly evident at VISION too. The Canadian multi-faith and multi-cultural content combined with the Znaimer touch make VISION a legitimate contender to remain on Canadian basic cable.

Throw in CPAC (jointly owned by cable providers that cover the nation; Rogers, Shaw, Videotron, Cogeco, EastLink and Access) , the Weather Network, Crossroads (primarily Christian but hosting other faith-based programming), APTN, public broadcasters like TVO and national coverage of French networks and one can see Canadian content is key.

Then we have the CBC family of stations , recipient of over $1 billion annually from the federal government – which is a taxpayer subsidy – in addition to advertising and basic cable payments, and Bell Media (CTV, CTV Two, CTV NewsChannel, TSN, Comedy, etc along with Bell satellite TV). The field is further confused by the cable providers who also own multiple stations – the aforementioned Bell, Shaw (Global, TVTropolis, SHOW CASE, etc), Rogers (CITY, Omni, Sportsnet, etc), etc – who clearly want the stations they own as part of their basic cable packages.

How will this settle out? Well, in the modern world of Canadian communications several of the major players also own print and digital media outlets. The average Canadian reads their Globe and Mail without making the connection to Bell Media in the same way that reading a SUN newspaper – once described as “the little paper that could” – draws the obvious connection to SUN TV; the little station that’s getting kicked around by the big media players. The print media competitors tend to cast their television competitors in a less favourable light, but with SUN the shared name makes it a little more obvious who they’re rooting (writing) for.

I can’t tell you how the CRTC hearings will settle out on this one. I can tell you that Canada’s religious communities are well served by having Crossroads, VISION and SUN available because, well, those are stations that regularly invite and feature the participation of various religious communities on the “airwaves” in Canada’s constitutionally “free and democratic society,” where our first fundamental freedom is “freedom of religion” and over ¾ of Canadians identify religion as significant in their lives. CBC, CTV, Global and others accept Christian programming and have occasional news interest, but I wouldn’t say they invite or feature it.

Crossroads, VISION and SUN present Canadian Christian (and other religious) voices with the opportunity to engage routinely as part of the diverse Canadian community – whether Crossroads’ longstanding “100 Huntley Street” or feature Canadian historical documentaries such as “Goal of the Century: The Paul Henderson Story,” VISION’s 25 years of original Canadian multi-faith and multi-cultural programming or SUN TV regularly inviting religious and non-religious voices together into conversations about news stories of the day. These are three Canadian originals that balance out the generally secular expression of Canadian cable and deserve space on basic cable for viewer consideration in every living room of the nation.

Undercutting an Anti-religious Undercurrent

We can contribute to a better Canada by patiently speaking the truth.

This article was originally published in Faith Today, March/April 2013.

By Don Hutchinson

Canadians are told in the media – almost daily it seems – that Canada is no longer Christian, Canada is less religious, Canada is secular, and Canada has no place for religion in public life. These statements used to make my blood boil.

But a better response – for all of us – is to find in such comments the inspiration to speak the truth. When we do so together, we undercut this anti-religious undercurrent.

Constructive response has long been evident in the EFC’s work. Consider, for example, how we responded to allegations that the biblically based position on marriage is “homophobic” and unacceptable in contemporary Canada under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The campaign to keep the pre-2005 Parliamentary definition of marriage was a fight “for” not a fight “against,” and the EFC made that clear.

One result of our intervention was the Supreme Court of Canada affirmation that if the government changed the definition it could not require religious officials to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. The court noted that “religious freedom is broad and jealously guarded in Canadian law.”

When Parliament changed the definition of marriage by passing the Civil Marriage Act in 2005 it declared in the legislation that “Nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs,” and “It is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage.”

More recently, in EFC presentations on proposed anti-bullying legislation in Ontario, we expressed interest for all students, concerned that the emphasis on gay and lesbian students detracted from the needs of more than 90 per cent of those who experience bullying in Canadian schools.

We directly confronted the continuing improper use of the word “homophobic” as a slur in public debate, including in the media and political speeches. We did so before government as well as in the media, including my article “Is It Homophobic in Here or Is It Just Me?” that was linked to a National Post homepage story in May 2012.

Good news! We have contributed to a righting of this bias. In December 2012 the Associated Press, one of the world’s oldest (est. 1846) and most respected standard setters in journalism, changed its style guide. The AP states the word “homophobia” is not to be used in political or social contexts because its use has been imprecise and inaccurate.

Another oft-repeated misstatement concerns “the separation of church and state,” a legal doctrine in the United States of America that is based on the U.S. constitution. This concept was intended to protect churches from interference by the state. Ironically, most of the people who raise the subject in Canada today want to suggest just the opposite – that the government needs to somehow be protected from the influence of churches!

In Canadian legal history, our churches too were protected from the interference of government.  This protection was affirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which lists “freedom of conscience and religion” as the first of the fundamental freedoms Canadians enjoy. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted this constitutional guarantee to apply both to individuals and to religious communities including educational and service institutions as well as congregations.

The court has also affirmed that Canadians can’t be disqualified from participation in developing public policy because of our religious beliefs. Canadian religious individuals and organizations are welcome to engage in Canadian politics and public policy, as well as work co-operatively with government as appropriate to accomplish its purposes.

It’s up to all Christians to ensure that anti-religious undercurrents are not permitted to cut away at truth. We need to be attentive to and engaged in the world around us, or such undercurrents may undermine our very presence.

Baby Girls and the Economic Action Plan

By Don Hutchinson

This week in Ottawa has been a roller coaster for social conservatives (socons) and theological conservatives (theocons). While people who fit in those camps often find alignment with capital “C” political Conservatives, the upper case and lower case “c” distinctions are significant as many also align with Liberals and New Democrats.

For me, the week started with the first time opportunity to attend a hearing in the British Columbia Court of Appeal live from Ottawa! Ah, the “miracle” of the internet. The 3 hour time difference means this week’s Ottawa mornings seem earlier; lunch break is at 3:30 pm (Eastern Daylight Savings Time); and, this week the end of my days is at night!

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s brief presentation to the court in support of maintaining Canada’s current prohibition against physician assisted suicide was made by local counsel, Geoffrey Trotter. You can read it here (with links to our written submission, as well). As Geoffrey stated, “The English word for suicide is derived from the Latin which literally means ‘self-killing.’  The term ‘physician-assisted suicide’, then, can only mean the killing of patients by their doctors.”

My Tuesday morning included an exciting meeting as the steering committee puts the final touches on the Bridging the Secular Divide: Religion and Canadian Public Discourse conference to be hosted at McGill University on May 27 and 28. Registration is now open and seating is limited.

Thursday, whether socon or theocon, was met with the surprising news that MPs from the Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties voted unanimously at the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business to prevent Motion M-408 (sponsored by Mark Warawa, MP Langley) from proceeding for consideration by the House of Commons. The motion reads simply, “That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.” The only witness called by the committee was from the Library of Parliament and testified that the motion satisfied all criteria for being considered by the House. Here are our thoughts on the matter.

Thursday was also budget day, or as it’s referred to by Canada’s Government, Economic Action Plan 2013. While the opposition leaders oppose (that’s why they’re called opposition) there are some positive things in the budget for Evangelicals; whether we can accurately be labeled as socons and theocons or not.

Chapter 3.5 is where we find initiatives such as:

• Encouragement for adoption through the Adoption Expense Tax Credit

• Tariff relief on baby clothing and sports and athletic equipment

Money in the pockets of Canadian families is a good thing.  Here’s a bit of an explanation why, as found in our brief commentary on the EFC’s pre-budget submission from last year.

Other positive initiatives include:

• Continuation of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (focusing on Housing First) for 5 more years
• Investment in affordable housing for Canadians in need (more than 300,000 are homeless) over the next 5 years
• New incentive for charitable donations by first time givers (see our comments on strengthening Canada’s charitable sector)
• Proposals to invest in addressing some of the unique needs of Canada’s aboriginal peoples, particularly those in the far North

Of course, we’ll have to see how some of the proposals work out in their implementation as partnerships are required between provincial, territorial and/or aboriginal governments as well as non-governmental organizations and the private sector. But, there is much opportunity to work with.

Another set of partnerships will also have new relationships to work out as the Economic Action Plan 2013 realigns the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) into the super-department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Again, time will tell how this new arrangement will benefit those organizations partnering with government (sometimes the expenditures more accurately are government partnering with aid and development organizations) to assist those most in need outside our borders. Government assurances are that the objective of poverty alleviation and reduction will remain central to Canada’s aid program. Hopefully, there will also be consultation with the organizations delivering the services to ensure there is no disruption in Canadian humanitarian assistance overseas. We comment on the importance of Canadian compassion overseas here.

When engagement on public policy is based in biblical principles, the politics that play out can result in the occasional fast-paced roller coaster ride of a week! We are disturbed that “It’s a girl” can be a death sentence in Canada; heartened that religiously informed voices are as entitled to engage in public policy as are any other voices; and, appreciative that those in need are not forgotten by our government, just as we know they are not forgotten by the Church.

Mr. Warawa has filed an appeal of the Subcommittee’s decision on M-408 and the Economic Action Plan 2013 will require time for the “action” part to unfold. You can expect more on both from the EFC and the bloggers at the EFC’s ActivateCFPL. Even though the week has flown by, the ride’s not over.

Well, Friday morning’s gone and it’s almost 10 am in BC, so I’m off to court!

The EFC at the BC Court of Appeal in Carter (assisted suicide challenge)

Guest blogger: Geoffrey Trotter, lawyer for the EFC in Carter v. Canada

Following is the text of the presentation made by Geoffrey Trotter on behalf of The EFC before the BC Court of Appeal on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 in the case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) – [with clarification comment in square parentheses]

*****

My submissions will respond to your Lordship’s [Chief Justice Finch] point yesterday that given the Court’s duty to give meaning to all of the language in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the word “life” in s. 7, you “would like to know what life means”; and to respond to your Ladyship’s [Justice Saunders] questions from this morning as to whether the prohibition against assisted suicide, in addition to being a pragmatic one, is also value-driven.   I will first address those questions on the authorities, and then circle back to your Lordship’s related question about whether a pulse or a brain wave is “life” in the Charter sense.

A - In the submission of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the fulcrum of analysis in this case needs to be that the sanctity of human life is itself a core Charter value which rightly informs the criminal law.  It is by upholding the sanctity of life that the complementary Charter value of human dignity is enhanced and protected.  In this regard I am drawing primarily from paragraphs 3-19 of the EFC’s factum.

1. The English word for suicide is derived from the Latin which literally means “self-killing.”  The term ‘physician-assisted suicide’, then, can only mean the killing of patients by their doctors.  Our criminal law has always prohibited people from consenting to their own killing; and prohibited people from taking the lives of others.  The EFC submits that the Charter is entirely supportive of, not contradictory to, the prohibitions which are attacked in this case.

2. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in the Rodriguez decision at paragraph 125 that “the sanctity of life … is one of the three Charter values protected by s. 7”, and affirmed at paragraph 129 that in Canadian law, “human life is sacred or inviolable” in, as the court stated, a “non-religious sense”.  Similarly, the court described the objective at paragraph 186 as “the desire to protect human life, a fundamental Charter value." 

3. It is legally and ethically sound for this court to affirm the non-sectarian consensus articulated by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in the quotations in the the EFC’s factum – that is,

i. that the sanctity of human life means that life merits special protection,

ii. that life is a sacred trust rather than a mere right to be contracted away or waived, and

iii. that the Criminal Code should continue to prohibit people from consenting to being killed.

That is what the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in Rodriguez after undertaking a comprehensive historical, legislative, and policy analysis.

The consensus regarding the sanctity of human life has been repeatedly affirmed since Rodriguez by the only elected representatives with constitutional jurisdiction over the matter – that is, by Parliament.  The majority committee opinion in the June 1995 Senate report recommended that the prohibition remain in place because “They feel that legalizing assisted suicide could undermine respect for life which they believe is the most universally accepted value in society … that transcends individual, religious or diverse cultural values...”

Various Parliamentary committees and government departments have been working on suicide prevention initiatives in recent years.  Last year, the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 285 in favour and only three opposed.

B – It is in light of the bedrock principle of the sanctity of human life that a related Charter value, human dignity, must be understood (and here I am drawing from paragraphs 20-24 of the EFC’s factum).  Canadian and international law understands human dignity not to mean an absolute right to do as one wishes.  Rather, as cited in our factum, the legal concept of human dignity has been elucidated in accordance with the historical and philosophical context of the Charter and means “inherent dignity” (indeed, the SCC reiterated this phrase in last month’s Whatcott decision at paragraph 66).  Similarly, the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights directly links the terms “inherent dignity” with “inalienable rights.”  Inherent dignity, by definition, is shared by all Canadians, disabled and able-bodied alike, simply by virtue of each of us having life.  Intentional killing is a direct affront to that life.

C – Section 7 of the Charter is on its face a life-affirming right.  In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “liberty and security of the person … cannot be divorced from the sanctity of life”, and at paragraph 129 that “security of the person, by its nature, cannot encompass a right to take action that will end one's life as security of the person is intrinsically concerned with the well-being of the living person.

In the Polygamy Reference, the court held that there is no such thing as “good polygamy.” Similarly, EFC submits that there is no such thing as a ‘good killing’.  No Canadian is better off dead than alive.

Thus, ‘death with dignity,’ properly understood, means to live one’s remaining life with the inherent dignity of a human person, with such assistance as modern medicine can provide, and the option to decline unwanted ‘heroic measures’.  The path to death may at times be very difficult, but the EFC rejects the notion that anyone’s inherent human dignity is ever enhanced by having their life cut short.

And that is the nettle which the Respondents [Carter, et al.] fail to grasp in this case.  There can be no ‘assisted suicide’ without another moral agent – another person – committing the act of killing, and the state being complicit in that act. As the Law Reform Commission succinctly stated, this would “indirectly condone murder…” 

No Canadian has the right to be killed.  There is no such right because it runs headlong into the Charter values of the sanctity of human life and inherent human dignity. 

To return to your Lordship’s question about whether a brain wave or a pulse is a “life” in this sense, I make two points:

i. First, the issue does not arise in this appeal.  The relief sought by the Respondents is only in respect of competent adults who personally request physician-assisted death. These are not people in a persistent vegetative state.  They are people aware of themselves and their situation; with ongoing relationships with their loved ones and communities; their own interests and passions.

ii. And, more fundamentally, no matter how many of their former abilities a person has lost, they remain a human being with the same inherent dignity as able-bodied Canadians; and, their life has the same sanctity.

Ms. Nygard [legal counsel for the Attorney General of Canada] quoted earlier from the Latimer decision at paragraph 40 to the effect that, “It is difficult, at the conceptual level, to imagine a circumstance in which the proportionality requirement could be met for a homicide,” even for someone like Tracey Latimer with incurable chronic pain.  In the immediately preceding paragraph, the Court stated that Robert Latimer “had at least one reasonable legal alternative (to killing his daughter): he could have struggled on, with what was unquestionably a difficult situation, by helping Tracy to live and by minimizing her pain as much as possible.” 

That is the promise and the challenge before us as a society: not to try to make the problem disappear by making the person disappear, but to respond to the unquestionably difficult realities of both disability and dying by caring for these people to minimize their physical, and psychological, suffering as much as possible, and to help them live full, satisfying, and meaningful lives.  If one of us feels a loss of dignity, the rest of us, and the State, need to affirm through our words, our actions, and our laws that we see in that person the same inherent dignity as resides in all human beings.  We need to help them live.

The EFC submits that killing is never the antidote for what is difficult about dying, and asks this court to affirm the Charter values of the sanctity of human life and inherent human dignity, and to allow the Appeal.

Votability Decision on M-408 and Sex-selection Lamentable

The following media release has today been issued by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

March 21, 2013

OTTAWA – “The decision made today to declare Motion M-408 as non-votable by Parliament is lamentable,” explains Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “The motion calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of sex-selection pregnancy termination was simple, straight-forward and non-confrontational. As a lawyer who follows Parliamentary business, I was quite surprised that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business unanimously found that the motion didn’t satisfy the votability criteria for private members’ bills.”

On September 27, 2012, Member of Parliament Mark Warawa introduced Motion M-408. The motion reads simply, "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination." Today, the Subcommittee met to determine whether the Motion was votable, which would have permitted it to proceed for debate in the House of Commons.

“The criteria for votability is quite simple,” explains Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel. “House motions must address federal jurisdiction, they cannot clearly violate constitutional documents, they cannot concern questions that are ‘substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current Parliamentary session’ and they must not concern issues already on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business. In our estimation and according to our research, Motion M-408 clearly and easily met these requirements.”

“Committee members noted that the subject matter has already been dealt with in this session of Parliament in Motion M-312. M-312 proposed a committee to study the legal definition of ‘human being’ in Canada’s Criminal Code, an unrelated matter potentially connected to M-408 only by the consideration of human life before birth. Curiously, the same committee did not conclude Randall Garrison’s proposal to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act through private members’ Bill C-279 was non-votable when Brian Storseth already had private members’ Bill C-304 before Parliament proposing an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Quite simply, those two bills were on different subject matter as were the two motions cited by the committee,” continues Hutchinson.

“The other objection noted was that ultrasounds are medical treatment and therefore under provincial jurisdiction,” says Hutchinson. “Non-binding motions of the House have historically covered a wide range because they are not a legislative initiative but speak to a concern of national proportion. In the past, that has included such things as a declaration to end child poverty in Canada.  Recently, private members’ Bill C-300 was passed to implement a national suicide prevention strategy, even though suicide is no longer a criminal matter under the Criminal Code; legislation to deal with a national crisis. Canada is similarly facing a nation-wide crisis with girls being aborted in hopes that a future pregnancy will result in a boy being conceived. This motion is entirely appropriate in that context.”

“This was a non-binding motion, which simply asked that the House condemn a deplorable practice – that of sex-selection abortion,” explains Sonier. “Representatives from all political parties have condemned gendercide as well as 92% of Canadians, in a recent poll. And let’s be clear – this motion could not have, in anyway, criminalized the act itself. The motion offered Parliament the opportunity to collectively condemn a deplorable practice that several Parliamentary leaders have already spoken out against.”

“If any decision warrants review in the process available within Parliamentary procedure on private members’ business, this is one such decision. Otherwise, this will be a lost opportunity to have a debate and a national discussion on a tragic practice that’s taking place in our country,” explains Hutchinson. “We hope, going forward, that we can have a democratic and respectful dialogue on this non-partisan issue. We pray for civility and we urge Parliamentarians to address critical issues of the day, such as gender discrimination. It is to address issues such as these that Parliament exists.”