Saskatchewan
Weyburn Pro-Life President, Thomas Schuck, continues to demand clarification on the 1984 CRTC ruling that TV stations showing pro-life programs must give “equal time” to pro-abortion programming.
Recently the group received a letter from Mr. Marcel Masse, the Minister of Communications, in which the following paragraph occurs:
However, the CRTC did not rule that any particular program should or should not be carried, or that free “equal time” must be provided for opposing views. While the CRTC will consider significant issues arising from public complaints in assessing the overall performance of its licensees at the time of application for licence renewal, the program schedule to be adopted to ensure balanced presentation is left to the licensees’ discretion.
Weyburn Pro-Life sent the following reply to the Minister on April 22 :
“In your letter you state that the CRTC did not rule that equal time must be provided for opposing views. I am enclosing a photocopy of a letter written to CKTV (following our sponsorship of Assignment Life) by the CRTC. Paragraphs 4 and 7 do indeed appear to require that equal time must be provided. Paragraph 4 in the letter reads as follows:
After reviewing the program, the Commission is of the opinion that the storyline and selection of interviews and events clearly favoured certain views on abortion and that there was a clear need for balance through the airing of other relevant views on the question.
Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
The Commission notes that there is apparently no objection on the part of CKCK-TV to balance sponsored programming at its own expense. This is consistent with the Commission’s policy that, in respect of matters of public concern, the absence of sponsors for certain of the relevant views does not free the station under its responsibility as a user of the public air-waves, to ensure that they are aired. The station is, of course, free to try and find sponsors for these views, but if they fail to materialize, CKCK-TV must ensure their presentation out of its own resources.
I fail to see any difference between “balancing” a sponsored program and providing “equal time.” Certainly the CRTC saw fit to chastise these stations for “imbalance,” notwithstanding the fact that it was the one and only time CKCK-TV sold us any time. Given that response to our one hour broadcast, how could anyone reach any other conclusion but that any station accepting our sponsored programming will be required to provide time to the other side in order to balance our program.
Secondly, you will note that the CRTC requires stations to “warn” audiences that the program Assignment Life is biased, prior to any rebroadcasts of the film. All programming has a bias. Yet I have never heard of any station warning an audience prior to any program of the bias. Audiences do not presently receive warnings prior to Sunday morning Christian programs, that they may be watching a program with a bias to the Christian way of life or an evening program that their bias is towards secular humanism. Why are pro-life groups singled out? Obviously, when sponsored by a pro-life group no one would expect a pro-abortion viewpoint.
To comply with the CRTC order for “balance,” CFZC-TV of Saskatoon televised Abortion: Stories from North and South, a film produced by the National Film Board (your department) and rejected by the CBC for bias. No warning was given to the viewers that this film report was biased. It appears you have one set of rules for pro-life groups – and another for the pro-abortion viewpoint.
We note that a new Bill has already received second reading which will give you as the Minister of Communications, power to over-ride rulings made by CRTC Commissioners. Once that Act is proclaimed, you could clarify these matters simply by advising the three stations that were reprimanded by the CRTC for accepting our programming that further sponsored programs by Pro-Life organizations are not required to be “balanced” by the station, nor are warnings required that the programming is biased toward life. As the matter now stands stations are required to provide free or subsidized time to opposing viewpoints on this issue and are doing so.
While we appreciate the fact that you may not wish to become directly involved in programming matters, it is your duty to do so when your bureaucracy tramples upon the free speech of citizens. We would be grateful if you would advise whether you would be prepared to make such a ruling once the Bill before Parliament has been proclaimed.
