Phonothèque québécoise Musée du son Sauvegarder, documenter et diffuser le patrimoine sonore |
English Radio in Quebec |
by Melanie Fishbane and Mary Vipond
Microphone CHYC (91 K)
Canadian
Marconi Company aspires only to reasonable
freedom of action. We want no money from the public purse, not even
special
favours accorded older forms of publication.
We seek opportunity to serve Canada better in company with other
broadcasters and to do so in the light of knowledge of the needs and
wishes of
our community. (Finlayson 1956, 12)
Marconi portable set (135 K)
Canadian Wireless
By
the early 1950s, Canadian broadcasting was in a confused and
conflicted state. Tensions that had
been simmering since the 1930s between private broadcasters and the
CBC, which
was not only the public broadcaster but also the regulatory body for
all,
reached the boiling point in this crucial decade. Two important Royal
Commissions treated broadcasting issues during the 1950s, and came to
markedly
different conclusions. Although the
first, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts,
Letters and
Sciences (commonly called the Massey or Massey-Lévesque
Commission), examined a
number of cultural and scholarly fields, its section on broadcasting
was central
to its vision of the future of Canadian cultural life.
The second, the Royal Commission on Broadcasting or Fowler
Commission, focused exclusively on broadcasting in the context of the
issues
raised by the arrival of television. Both
commissions grappled with the same fundamental goal: to ensure that
Canadians
received the "best and most appropriate programmes from every point of
view."
(Massey 1949-51, 276)
But a number of questions
remained. Who was most capable of providing the most appropriate
programming for
the “average” Canadian - the public or the private broadcasters? Was broadcasting an industry as in the United
States, or a
public trust like in Great Britain? What
was the role of broadcasting in Canada in the face of the influx of
American
commercial culture?
Various scholars have examined how these commissions responded
to these
issues. (See Peers 1969, Peers
1979, Raboy 1990, Litt 1992)
Here we will look at the commissions from a narrower perspective
by
examining the representations made by S.M. Finlayson and other
officials of the
Canadian Marconi Co., the owners of CFCF, Canada's first radio station.
These men went before the two commissions to present the case of
the
private broadcasters for expansion of their role in the Canadian
broadcasting
system and against continued regulation by the CBC. The Marconi briefs
are
interesting because they reflect the concerns of a fairly typical
private
broadcaster in the fortunate position of having an unequalled history
of
broadcasting service to Canadians.
Cartoon (169 K)
Canadian Broadcaster & Telescreen, April 1950
The Massey Commission was
created by the federal
government in 1949 with the mandate to make recommendations about the
state of
Canadian culture. Vincent Massey
was the most prominent member of the wealthy Massey family and an
influential
member of the Liberal party. He had
been an early advisor to the organizers of the Canadian Radio League,
an active
proponent of the creation of the CBC, ambassador to the United States,
and high
commissioner to the Court of St. James. He
was later (in 1952) to became the first native-born Governor-General.
(Raboy
1990, 95) The other members of the
commission were Norman Mackenzie, President of the University of
British
Columbia; Hilda Neatby, a distinguished historian from the University
of
Saskatchewan; Arthur Surveyer, a civil engineer; and Father
Georges-Henri Lévesque,
the Dominican founder and Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at
Laval
University. (Raboy 1990, 95; Bird 1988, 209)
One of the central themes explored by the commission was how
radio
broadcasting could be used to encourage a Canadian identity. The
commissioners
began with the assumption that the airwaves are public property and
therefore
radio stations may only operate with the permission of the (federal)
state. But
that left open the question of what the state's policy should be.
According to
the commission, there were two dominant views about the use of radio.
The first argued that radio was a means of entertainment, “a
by-product
of the advertising business.” But
the commissioners discounted this view almost immediately by adding
that radio
"may be regarded as a social influence too potent and too perilous to
be
ignored by the state which, in modern times, increasingly has assumed
responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.” (Massey 1949-51,
276). They were clearly more
favourably inclined to the second view of radio, namely that it was a
public
trust and thus was to be used for the benefit of society “in the
education and
the enlightenment as well as for the entertainment of its members.”
(Massey
1949-51, 276) To fulfil this public trust,
therefore, the commission
recommended that the CBC must remain in control of a single
broadcasting system.
What then was to be the role of the private stations in this
"public
trust"? The commission
outlined in its report that the function of the private stations was to
provide
isolated areas of the country with programming, to provide a community
service
with local advertisers and to encourage and develop local talent.
(Massey
1949-1951, 281) Because the private stations had made a place for
themselves in
the community, the CBC had "allowed" them to remain in operation as
long as the CBC remained the ultimate authority over the whole system.
(Massey
1949-1951, 281)
The commission reached this conclusion despite the submissions
of the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters (representing most private
broadcasters)
and of individual station owners like Canadian Marconi's president S.M.
Finlayson, who presented a very different vision of broadcasting, one
closer to
the market-driven entertainment-oriented model.
Most interesting, however, was how Finlayson argued that this
approach to
broadcasting was also in the interest of the Canadian public, and a
service to
the Canadian people.
In his thirty-one page brief, presented at the hearings held in
Montreal,
Finlayson outlined what he considered to be the main popular
misconceptions
concerning the role of publicly and privately run radio stations.
He argued that there were five factors contributing to the slow
development of radio broadcasting since the commencement of the
publicly owned
national network in 1932. The first
factor was the misinterpretation of the idea of the “alienation of the
public
domain” which Finlayson claimed was used as an “excuse or reason for
restrictive legislation or regulation” (Finlayson 1949, 5) and based
upon the
premise that there were only a limited number of channels available.
Finlayson argued that this view was far from the truth, and that
the
limitations to channels and stations were not technical but only
economic. (
Finlayson 1949, 5) He claimed that the only way for the “alienation of
the
public domain” in AM and FM radio to occur would be if “the number of
channels were so severely restricted that only one station could be
used where
we now have many.” (Finlayson 1949, 5) He also pointed out that the
field of
FM radio had been “scarcely touched” which meant that there was a full
range
of channels to be used. He argued
that in the city of Montreal, for example, there were five channels
available,
two of which the CBC wanted, leaving three for the private broadcasters.
He also mentioned that the Ultra-High Frequency band had yet to
be even
considered. Thus, Finlayson urged
the public commission to re-examine this concept and to come to the
conclusion
that their fears were “without foundation.” (Finlayson 1949, 6)
The second factor Finlayson outlined concerned the terminology
used in
defining what were “Public” and “Private”
stations. The so-called
“Private Station”, he argued, was completely controlled by the
government
despite the fact that “its physical being is the result of investment
by a
group of ordinary citizens” because the licence of operation was issued
by the
federal government (Finlayson 1949, 7). He
went on to suggest, in an ironic play on words, that a so-called
"Private"
station could not survive if it did not "serve the public in its own
area."(Finlayson,
1949, 8) This was in sharp
contrast to the supposedly public network, he claimed, which despite
being paid
for by taxpayers was really controlled by the government and could go
on
indefinitely without informing the public.
Thus, he concluded, "the Private Station is, in fact, much more
a
public station than the Public Station itself." (Finlayson 1949, 8)
Finlayson’s third
“fundamental misconception” referred to
the old idea that radio
broadcasting must inevitably be some kind of monopoly.
He argued that this view was unsubstantiated and no longer
applied
because the Department of Transport possessed the authority to prevent
a private
company monopolizing the industry. He
did argue, however, that the possibility of a monopoly did arise when
and if the
private broadcaster was not permitted to grow. Here Finlayson continued
his
theme that the private broadcaster was more a public station than the
governmentally funded one. He
argued that the “amusing” references to the “private” station as a
“community” station reflected this. He
proceeded to examine the concept of “community” and concluded that due
to
the fact that radio waves could in fact reach as far as New York City,
the idea
of a “community” could not be so geographically constricted.
He concluded therefore that there was no “sensible” reason for
restriction of the size of a “radio community” beyond the technical
limitations of the medium itself and argued against “arbitrary
limitations of
power” because they were not in the public interest.
The fourth fallacy Finlayson identified was the emphasis placed
by the
CBC on public service broadcasting using local talent and the hiring of
professional musicians through a limited number of authorized agencies.
Finlayson argued for the middle of the road - he did not want to
use too
much “immature talent that can make better use of the private practice
room or
the school auditorium,” but neither did he want to spend a great deal
of money
on professionals. (Finlayson 1949,
11). His point was simply that the
CBC was interfering too much in the programming choices of the private
stations.
“Too much is frequently said about community service” he
concluded,
“but all too little consideration, we fear, has been given to the great
contribution that has been made by all stations down through the
years...” (Finlayson
1949, 12).
The fifth fallacy Finlayson criticized was the “misconception”
that a
private network organization was somehow not in the public interest.
(Finlayson,
1949, 12) He suggested that a network would help those areas of the
country
where there were no radio stations as well as greatly improve the
standard of
listening in other areas. Thus he argued that proper operation of a
private
network would actually benefit the public and strengthen Canadian
broadcasting,
not weaken it. (Finlayson 1949, 13)
Finlayson recommended that the “Canadian Broadcasting Structure”
should be based upon three elements: the (private) enterprise
broadcasting
station, the nationally-owned broadcasting system and
an independent authority whose agenda would be to “ensure that
Canadian
listeners get the best and most diversified radio service possible.”
(Finlayson
1949, 20) The private broadcaster,
Finlayson outlined, would rely on its own funding, motivated by
progress, and
would be dedicated to serving the community’s special interests which,
as
Finlayson argued, was its “natural” role. This type of broadcasting
station
would only be responsible to a higher authority regarding matters such
as the
“allocation of channels, the maintenance of proper technical standards
and
whatever rules may be necessary to insure the maintenance of what can
be
described as ordinary public decency.” (Finlayson 1949, 18)
Finlayson argued that there was a need in Canada for nationally
owned
broadcaster whose primary responsibility would be to create and
maintain a
Canadian consciousness.He also argued, however, that the national body
should be
removed from commercial activity entirely in order to stop the
“spiralling”
deficits in the private stations’ revenues.
But the national broadcaster should not also be the regulatory
authority.
Therefore, the third element Finlayson called for was
the“vital[ly]
need[ed]” independent regulatory authority which would be the
“Custodian of
the Public Interest.” This
authority would recognize that “no one group of listeners should be
consistently neglected.” (Finlayson 1949, 20) He argued that the
creation of
this body would straighten out all problems in radio legislation and
most
espeically the complete lack of “progress” in the field.
One of the federal regulations then in place that was contrary
to the
public interest in Finlayson’s view was the CBC’s foot-dragging on the
future development of FM radio. While
the CBC wished to stake its claim to FM frequencies, it did not feel
the time
was right for the allocation of these frequencies to private
entrepreneurs.
As a result, certain major AM stations like CFCF were given FM
frequencies, but could not program them independently; instead they had
to use
them as re-broadcasters for their AM programming.
Finlayson did not agree with this policy at all.
Because ‘Frequency Modulation is tied, as it were, to the apron
strings
of its amplitude moderated parent and can do nothing but echo the
programmes of
the AM station, “ Finlayson stated, many opportunities for better radio
service were being missed. (Finlayson
1949, 22)
Finlayson believed that an independent regulatory authority
would act as
a “court of appeal” so that disputes such as this one over the growth
of FM
radio could be “properly assessed.” (Finlayson 1949, 27) The
“custodian”
would not be a single individual but a “small group” who could be
nominated
from different departments within the federal government as well as
from private
enterprise. The body would be
separate from other government and business organizations and would
report
either to the Ministrer or to Parliament. In
other words, Finlayson believed that what Canada needed was an
independent
regulatory authority to supervise two separate broadcasting systems,
one public
and one private.
As we have already seen, despite acknowledging the "frankness
and
clarity" of the arguments of private broadcasters like Finlayson, the
commission did not respond favourably:
We believe that Canadian radio broadcasting legislation
contemplates and effectively provides for one national system;
that the
private stations have been licensed only because
they can play a useful part within that system; and
that the CBC control of network broadcasting, of the issue and
renewal of
licenses, of advertising and of other matters related
to radio broadcasting, is a proper expression of the power of the CBC
to
exercise control over all radio broadcasting policies and programmes in
Canada.
( Massey 1949-51, 283)
The
commission’s conclusions were based upon the
notion that broadcasting in Canada was not an industry but a public
service and
that while private enterprises could take part in this service, they
had to be
subservient. Thus the commission recommended that radio regulation
should
continue to be placed under the control of the CBC.
The commission also rejected the private broadcasters'
request to form local networks because it believed that a more lenient
approach
would lead to further Americanization of Canadian radio and to unfair
commercial
competition for the CBC at the national network level.
The commission did recognize that the private stations had some
legitimate grievances, however. It
recommended that whenever the CBC Board discussed matters affecting
their
interests, they not only must be informed, but must have the right
to
participate, and the right to appeal against a "substantial
miscarriage of justice" to a Federal Court. (Massey 1949-51, 289)
Moreover,
it agreed with the private broadcasters that a three-year licence term
was too
short, and recommended that it be increased to five years and be
subject to
cancellation only for "non-observance of clearly-defined conditions."
(Massey 1949-51, 290) Even more
significantly, the commissioners recommended that the CBC's local
stations cease
to compete for advertising with private broadcasters except in the rare
instances where no private station existed in a community.
The commission supported, however, the continued use of
commercial
programs on the national network, on the grounds that the CBC needed
the
revenues, that many popular programs were available to Canadian
listeners only
in this manner, and that listeners would turn to American outlets if
these
programs were not provided by the CBC.
In sum, while the commission did respond positively to some of
the
specific grievances of the private broadcasters, it stood firm on the
main
point: that the CBC must remain in charge of a single national system.
It did not accept Finlayson's argument that private
broadcasters
provided a significant public service, but rather concluded that the
private
broadcasters' real priority was commerce, and that the public service
goals of
radio could only be fulfilled by the CBC:
We are ... convinced that the policies advocated by the
private
stations must lead to an extension of the commercial tendencies
in radio programmes which are already too strong, and which
have been the subject of much complaint.
We were particularly impressed by
the fact that few of the representatives of private stations who
appeared before
us recognized any public responsibility beyond the provision of
acceptable
entertainment and community services. The
general attitude was that the government might, if it
chose, subsidize "cultural programmes" but that the private stations
must be left free to pursue their business enterprise subject
only to
limitations imposed by decency and good taste.
We offer no criticism of this frankly commercial attitude; we
cite it
only as evidence that those who honestly
hold these views are not primarily concerned with the national function
of
radio. (Massey 1949-51,
284-285)
Radio's sponsor (133 K)
Canadian Broadcaster & Telescreen, Feb. 21, 1951
In 1956, Finlayson, accompanied by his manager J.A. Hammond, his
assistant manager, R. E. Misener, his engineer J.C. Douglass and E.W.
Farmer,
went before another Royal Commission on Broadcasting,
once again to discuss the role of the private broadcaster in
Canada.
This commission was popularly known as the Fowler Commission
after the
Chairman, Robert Fowler, a lawyer, a Liberal, and a man who had worked
on the
Wartime Prices and Trade Board and the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission
on
Dominion-Provincial Relations. (Bird 1988, 250)
The other Fowler Commission members were Edmonde Turcotte, a
newspaper
editor who was also from the Wartime Prices and Trade Board and at the
time of
his appointment was the Canadian ambassador to Colombia, and James
Stewart, the
president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce.
The objective of the Fowler Commission was to recommend a policy
for
television, including measures to provide an adequate proportion of
Canadian
programs for both public and private broadcasting, licensing and
control of
private stations, and the financial and managerial requirements of the
CBC. (Raboy
1990, 119) The commission was instructed by the federal government that
two
essential features of the Massey Commission's recommendations were to
remain.
The first was that the granting of licenses would remain under
the
control of Parliament and the second, that the central feature of
Canadian
broadcasting would continue to be a public agency for producing and
distributing
programs. (Raboy 1990, 119)
Finlayson’s concerns mimicked many of the points he had made at
the
Massey-Lévesque Commission in 1949, namely the misconceptions
concerning the
availability of broadcasting channels, the definition of what was the
“public
interest” and who was responsible for it, and the establishment of an
independent and impartial regulatory body that would control
broadcasting in
Canada. There were, however, some
new arguments made by Finlayson in response to some of the different
concerns of
the federal government during the mid-1950s.
By this time, the federal government was much more worried about
the
“quality” of what would be considered “worthy” Canadian programming.
Another issue was who was responsible for producing this kind of
programming - the public or the private broadcasters.
While Finlayson understood that there was a need in Canada for a
central
body that would be responsible for regulating the country’s
broadcasting, he
believed that it should have far less direct control over programs than
the CBC
had or desired to have:
I take the
view the government is the servant and not
the master of the people. I also
take the view that the less government we have the better.
I admit the need for some government, and I think that when
government intrudes itself into a highly controversial and almost
undecidable
question as to what constitutes a good programme for Canada, and its
future,
that the government has stepped out of its proper role. (Finlayson
1956, 7-8)
Using analogies to the “freedom of the press,” Finlayson
attempted to
provide reasons why the success of a program really depended upon the
public.
When the public ceased to be interested in something, argued
Finlayson,
then it would turn to something else. He
stressed that the private broadcaster believed that “man has the right
as an
individual to decide for himself what is useful and desirable in his
world and
to choose for himself the substance of his thoughts and his way of
life.” (Finlayson
1956, 5-6) The government, turn,
had the “responsibility” to “guide” and “influence” the people, but
not to force certain views upon them. Finlayson
essentially argued that the fate of the private broadcaster should be
left in
the public’s hands or, to put it another way, that private broadcasters
had no
responsibility to provide Canadian programs, only popular ones.
By using a quotation from the Massey Commission, Finlayson
continued to
dispute claims that it was the government’s responsibility to define
what was
“worthy” Canadian programming and concluded that there could never be a
completely objective arbitrator of “good taste in any art.” (Finlayson
1956,
9) He urged the commission to understand that private broadcasters
existed to
provide an alternative for the Canadian listener. Finlayson then took
this point
one step further by arguing that it was a complete misconception to
believe that
somehow private broadcasters, with their tendency toward American or
American-style programs, would undermine the future of Canadian culture
and
national well-being. Finlayson did
not see the American influence as much of a danger to Canadian national
identity;
he felt that the greater danger was from our
“poor or clumsy productions.”( Finlayson 1956, 9) .
Obviously the question of who was responsible for regulating
programming
was the bone of contention between the commission and the private
broadcasters.
The following discussion between Finlayson and Fowler represents how
problematic
this was:
CHAIRMAN: Do
you think that government is responsible
also to the will of the people?
FINLAYSON:
Much less so, Mr. Chairman, than the
individual private operator.
CHAIRMAN: I
am not thinking about operations; I am
talking about policies now.
FINLAYSON: I
have the feeling that it is, and I have
the further feeling that it is in part due to this unrealistic concept
that we
have gradually drifted into where a great (“many” handwritten in)
people
seem to feel that because government does or decides this or that, it
is
inherently right. (Finlayson and Fowler 1956a,
8)
It is clear
from this debate that the two parties
disagreed on who was most responsive - and responsible - to the will of
the
people. Here Finlayson again argued,
as he had before the Massey Commission, that the private stations had a
greater
interest than the CBC in catering to the listening public; in other
words, that
they were closest and most attuned to the real needs of ordinary
Canadians.
In closing, Finlayson made four recommendations. First, he urged
the
commission to endorse the proposal that radio (and television)
licencees be
allowed to operate as they wanted without any government interference.
As with the Massey Commission, he asked for permission to create
a
national private network because he believed that it was “necessary to
the
development of radio in Canada.” (Finlayson 1956, 13)
His last two recommendations concerned the development of the
CBC and its
future. He asked the commission to
“re-examine” the CBC’s effectiveness and the possibility of changing
its
programming directives. By
referring back to the Massey Commission’s three objectives for the CBC,
Finlayson argued that the CBC as an experiment had failed. For example,
regarding the first of these objectives, adequate coverage of the
entire
population, Finlayson argued that adequate coverage in areas that had
none
previously had been provided by the private broadcasters and that, in
fact, the
CBC was just duplicating what was already in existence.
In terms of the second objective, the provision of adequate
opportunities
for Canadian talent, Finlayson insisted that the CBC network was in
fact
“inhibiting” Canadian talent by putting programme production “in the
hands
of relatively few people.” As a
result, he continued, “the number of outlets for talent and
self-expression
has been held down to the minimum.” He argued that the third objective
outlined by the Commission, resistance to the power of American culture
in
Canada, could not be achieved by limiting the number of (TV) stations
because
that in fact encouraged Canadians to turn to the United States.
Finlayson stressed that because of the CBC’s failure to reach
its
goals, it should confine itself to program production only and
concentrate on
“purely Canadian cultural programmes which might not otherwise be
created.”
(Finlayson 1956, 15)
In its conclusions and recommendations, the Fowler Commission
was a
little more sympathetic to the private broadcasters than the Massey
Commission
had been. They outlined four
recommendations as follows:
(1) that the
mixed Canadian system of public and
private ownership is here to stay;
(2) that the
state agency may grow, as Canada grows,
but its functions are not to be extended to do the whole job of
providing radio
and television services to Canadians;
(3) that
private stations should individually be
required to justify the continued grant of a valuable public franchise
and that
some may lose their licences because of a shabby performance, but
private
operators should stop worrying about the bogey
of nationalization that has filled them with suspicion and fear
in the
past; and
(4) that,
for the foreseeable future, we will continue
to have a single broadcasting system in which all Canadian radio and
television
stations, public and private, present and future, will be integral
parts,
regulated and controlled by an agency representing the public interest
and
responsible to Parliament. (Fowler 1957, 13)
Most importantly, the Fowler Commission finally accepted the
private
broadcasters’ long-time plea for the separation of the CBC's operating
and
regulatory functions. It
recommended the creation of a public agency, responsible to Parliament,
which
would be in charge of "all elements in Canadian broadcasting."
"It should not ... be part of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation," but should be a "new Board, differently named."
Both the CBC and the private stations would be answerable to the
new
Board for their performance. ( Fowler 1957, 90)
While some at the CBC took this to mean a sort of splitting of
the CBC
Board into two parts, it seems more likely that in fact it intended
what the
private broadcasters had been requesting for years: an independent
regulatory
agency. Less than a year and a half later, with the Conservatives newly
elected
to power, the independent Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG), the
predecessor to
the current Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC),
was created.
Mr. Finlayson did not succeed in persuading either the Massey or
Fowler
Commissions that the private broadcasters best represented the public
interest
because they were closest and most responsive to the people. The principle of a broadcasting regulatory
agency answerable
only to Parliament did not die. But
he and his fellow private broadcasters did succeed during the 1950s in
convincing the government that the CBC should no longer
exercise that
regulatory function. In this
crucial decade which ushered in the dawn of television, the Canadian
broadcasting system in fact was broken into two parts, one public and
one
private, and the way was cleared for the growing dominance of the
private sector
in the years to come.
Bird, Roger,
1988. Documents
of Canadian Broadcasting (Ottawa: Carleton University Press)
Finlayson, S.
M., 1949.
Brief to be presented by
Canadian Marconi Company to the Royal Commission
on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences at its
hearing in
Montreal, November1949, National
Archives of Canada,MG 28, ser. III 72, vol. 77.
Finlayson, S.
M., 1956. To the Royal
Commission on Broadcasting, April 15,
1956,
National Archives of Canada, MG 28,
ser. III 72, vol. 77.
Finlayson, S.
M., 1956a.
CMC Testimony Before the
Radio Commission on Broadcasting, 1956,
National Archives
of Canada, MG 28, ser. III 72, vol. 77.
Fowler,
Robert M., 1957. Report of
the Royal Commission on Broadcasting (Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier)
Litt, Paul,
1992. The
Muses, the Masses, and the Massey Commission (Toronto: University
of Toronto
Press)
Massey,
Vincent, 1949-51.
Report of the Royal Commission on
National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, (Ottawa: Edmond
Cloutier)
Peers,
Frank, 1969. The
Politics of Canadian Broadcasting, 1920-1951
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press)
Peers,
Frank, 1979. The
Public Eye: Television and the Politics of Canadian Broadcasting,
1952-1968
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press)
Raboy, Marc, 1990. Missed Opportunities: the Story of Canadian Broadcasting Policy, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press)
Projets réalisés | ||
English Radio in Quebec | ||
CFCF: The Early Years of Radio (see also Anecdotes...) |
In the Name of the "Public Interest": CFCF and some Controversies... |
Relations among the English Stations in Montreal Chronological Master List of Quebec's English-Language Radio Stations |
Galerie d'images / Gallery | Extraits sonores / Sound Clips |
Tous droits réservés
© 1997 Phonothèque québécoise / Musée
du son.
Mise à jour le 29 juillet 2004
URL http://www.phonotheque.org/Hist-radio-anglo/CFCF-commissions-english.html