HERI Committee Report

STEERING THE SYSTEM

Chapter 20
Conclusion

The one constant in broadcasting is change. Since Reginald Fessenden invented radio in 1900, a long series of inventions and improvements have enabled radio and later television to reach virtually every household in Canada. Perhaps one of the most impressive advances in recent times has been the introduction of direct-to-home satellite services, which provide the same range and quality of service whether a person lives on the coast of Labrador, the Ungava peninsula, the northern tip of Vancouver Island, or in major centres such as Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver.

As noted throughout this report, however, the ability to offer a wide range of broadcasting services to all Canadians does not come without new challenges. For example, uses of new technologies have marginalized other services such as local and community television. Thus, where some have gained, others have lost, which is why great care is needed in the support and regulatory programs that govern the broadcasting system.

Notwithstanding these challenges, it is indisputable that Canadians today enjoy a remarkable range of broadcasting services. And in those areas where problems exist, the Committee is persuaded that the recommendations made in this report will help. For example, although witnesses raised legitimate concerns about community television and radio, the Committee is convinced that these issues, with appropriate adjustments in policy, can be addressed.

It is important to remember, however, that the many new services now available to Canadians will most certainly increase the difficulties of trying to govern and regulate our broadcasting system. This does not mean that our system can no longer be governed; on the contrary, the Committee sees governance as an essential element of the Canadian broadcasting system and notes that the one thread that unites all previous studies of broadcasting and iterations of the Broadcasting Act is the notion that government involvement is central to ensuring that Canadians have a wide choice of Canadian programming.

In a sense, this goal of increased choice has been met, Canadians have more programming choices than ever. But choice, like improvements in technology, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is the benefit of choice but, on the other hand, attracting Canadian audiences to Canadian programs is harder than it has ever been. Despite intense competition — and seemingly endless increases in choice — Canadians continue to watch a great deal of Canadian news, sports and children's programming.

That being said, for a variety of reasons that cannot be easily replicated in English Canada, French-language program producers have been able to develop a broad range of television programs that are extremely attractive to, and popular with, French-speaking audiences. As a result, the top 20 television programs in Francophone Canada have been Canadian for more than a decade. But this situation cannot be — and has never been — the case in English Canada where programmers have always had to compete with programs from the United States. We have, however, developed a set of regulations and funding measures that have increased the production and availability of Canadian drama and documentaries. By extension, there have been modest increases in audiences for English-language drama.

This is perhaps one of the most difficult challenges facing the policy-makers, regulators and supervisors of the Canadian broadcasting system. Drama is expensive and in English Canada the competition has been and will always be intense. The Committee is convinced, however, that adequate funding coupled with an appropriate regulatory regime can ensure the production and viewing of high-quality Canadian drama.

One significant and positive change which has occurred since the 1991 revisions to the Broadcasting Act has been the extraordinary growth of an independent production sector capable of producing world class television programs. The independent production sector has, over the past 10 years, grown much faster than the Canadian economy and now provides direct and indirect employment for thousands. The emergence of this sector is one of many success stories that deserve celebration. Moreover, the Committee is convinced that the independent production sector will be a vital factor in Canada's ability to continue producing world-class television programs.

Apart from funding measures, regulations and a strong independent production sector there is a need for other initiatives. At least part of the success of francophone television programs is linked to the strong promotion of a "star system"; it is difficult to imagine English-language television drama being successful without similar support and promotion.

But making television shows is an expensive undertaking and circumstances dictate that we recognize this fact. Indeed, the many royal commissions, parliamentary committees and task forces on broadcasting have all acknowledged this reality. As early as 1957, for example, the Royal Commission on Broadcasting, chaired by Robert Fowler, was able to draw upon a long list of similar observations on this point. These included:

It is obviously in the national interest that television in Canada should be essentially Canadian and that it carry in large proportion Canadian material, produced by Canadians. ... Such a development will undoubtedly be more expensive.¹

If we in Canada are to have a more plentiful and better cultural fare, we must pay for it.²

Your Committee is aware that production of adequate television programs in Canada is not easy from an economic point of view. It is also aware that the distribution nationally of such programs in this country is costly.³

Your Committee is mindful of the importance of television. ... The evidence produced to your Committee confirms its views, however, that television is a costly and complicated medium of communication.⁴

Thereafter, the Commission embraced "two ideas clearly and without qualification. Canadians want Canadian broadcasting and they expect to have to pay for it."⁵ With the benefit of nearly 50 years of Canadian broadcasting experience since the Fowler Commission made this declaration, the Committee is of the same view, but, at the same time, is convinced that this challenge entails the will to identify and rapidly deal with changing circumstances.

To repeat — television programming is expensive. Furthermore, it takes several years to bring new programs to the screen. For these reasons (and others), the financing of such productions is not particularly compatible with the annual financial planning system of the Government of Canada. While the Committee fully supports the fact that Parliament is supreme, it is of the view that some mechanism should be found to provide stable, long-term funding for the major federal agencies involved in supporting television programs (i.e., the CBC, CTF, Telefilm and the NFB).

The provision of stable, long-term funding would make it easier for these various agencies and bodies to meet the mandates that Parliament has given them. Funding stability does not mean, however, that they would report less frequently to Parliament. On the contrary, the Committee is convinced that mandates need to be more clearly defined and that there should be substantial change and improvements to reporting requirements.

Previous committees and royal commissions have repeatedly raised the issues of stable funding, clear mandates and reporting to Parliament. As such, none of these issues are particularly new, nor should they be, for that matter, surprising. These issues are, however, more important than ever before given the emerging challenges that confront the Canadian broadcasting system.

Over the longer term there are more difficult challenges that will confront the system. Some of these have to do with managing the transition from analog to digital technologies. This will require determination, a willingness to work with the key players in the broadcasting system and an ability to move quickly, experiment, learn from mistakes and adapt. Although this will be a challenge, the Committee is certain that it can be realized.

Perhaps the Committee's greatest concern is for the overall governance of the Canadian broadcasting system. While Canada has developed ingenious support systems such as the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the CTF and a sophisticated regulatory scheme, it has not succeeded in creating a system within which the various elements of the system work together harmoniously. The Committee recognizes that this is not due to ill will or deliberate intent, but rather the ad hoc way in which the system has evolved over time. As this report has noted several times, the Canadian broadcasting system examined during the course of this study is not one that was consciously designed but one that has evolved.

While we can and should applaud our successes, the Committee is convinced that the coming period of change will be more trying and more challenging than any faced in the past. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the ability to deliver even more radio and television programming is already upon us. At the outset of this study it was possible to subscribe to more than 100 television channels. Since that time, more than 50 new digital television services have been launched. Today, it is possible to subscribe to more than 350 channels. The proliferation of channels will lead to even greater audience fragmentation. It may also contribute to the eventual demise of conventional networks, as we have known them for the last 50 years.

A second reason for concern is that the current structure of government, is poorly equipped to handle the challenges that the immediate future will bring. Broadcasting and all the companies and individuals that make up the system is simply too large and important to Canada to be left to a series of ad hoc arrangements. Moreover, as this report has documented, there are some serious issues with the quality and timeliness of the information available. Furthermore, there are significant problems with the governance of the system and of its individual elements.

But fine-tuning one or two of these problems will not likely produce the results that this Committee, or Canadians as a whole, would want or expect. This is why the Committee has recommended a review and an extensive reorganization of substantial portions of the existing governance structure. Indeed, the Committee is of the view that if we accept the status quo, we risk squandering what has been gained over the past 70 years.

It is doubtful that many Canadians are interested in the history of broadcasting policy, the finer points of regulation or the differences between a broadcasting undertaking and a broadcast distribution undertaking. It is equally unlikely that the average Canadian citizen is interested in antennas, cable or fibre optics and the underlying physics involved. Broadcasting policy and regulations may be necessary, and the hardware and software are certainly necessary but, in general, what people are interested in is programming: music, comedy, drama, sports, variety, cartoons, news and the weather.

Although the challenges are substantial, the Committee is persuaded that Canadians have the energy and talent to rise to the occasion. Government will have to play its part in concert with the key players in the broadcasting system. Thus, although the challenges are great the Committee shares the perspective of the 1957 Royal Commission on Broadcasting when it said:

We have a good broadcasting system. The joining together in one system of public and private ownership suits Canada and serves Canadians well. It has had its confusions in the past and its rather silly quarrels. But, in essence, the concept is a good one and we would be wise to keep it very much as it is but improved, strengthened and tidied up where possible.⁶

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that there are limits to what government can do. Infinite resources are never available, and regulation can only accomplish so much. The television programs that Canadians can take pride in and want to watch are created and produced by talented individuals working in teams. The most fundamental task, therefore, is to organize government support, regulations and funding so that they support the resourcefulness and talents of the individuals who will create the programs Canadians will want to hear or watch. This will require a delicate balance. A delicate balance between regulations and programs, between tradition and innovation, between government policy and the creativity of individuals in the private sector. Doing so will be an ongoing process; a process that will ultimately be judged by our capacity to nurture Canada's creative and entrepreneurial spirit so that it may be shared with Canadians and, indeed, the world.

Endnotes