HERI Committee Report

THE STATE OF
THE SYSTEM

Chapter 6
The National Public Broadcaster

The notion of a national public broadcaster to protect the public interest in Canadian broadcasting is hardly new. As explained in Chapter 2, Parliament's concern for the public and national interest in broadcasting runs through more than 70 years of broadcast policy development. This is reflected in the most recent Broadcasting Act of 1991 when it states that our system "provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty."

In parallel with this well-established desire to protect the public interest in broadcasting has been a consistent recognition that a national public broadcaster should serve to inform, educate and entertain the people. This is why a Canadian public broadcaster was created in 1932 and why every review of Canadian broadcasting since that time has stressed the need for a strong public broadcaster.

This chapter discusses the state of Canada's national public broadcaster and its future. Part A reviews international perspectives on public broadcasting. Part B discusses what the Committee heard about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And, Part C considers the challenge of resituating public broadcasting in an era of everincreasing choice.

Over time, many countries — particularly Western democracies — have developed similar ideals for public broadcasting. In the United Kingdom, for example, the mandate of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has always been to educate, inform and entertain. In the United States, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) has at its core the fundamental importance of informing and educating. Similarly, Germany's Arbeitsge-meinschaft der Offentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten des Bundersrepublik Deutschland (ARD) and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) networks have always focused on news and high quality entertainment. And, in Australia, the Charter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) stipulates that the Corporation should "contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain" and broadcast programs of "an educational nature."¹

Beyond similarities in mandate, however, it quickly becomes difficult to compare various public broadcasters. Probably the most important reasons have to do with different governance structures, funding arrangements, languages and competitive environments. Furthermore, conventional definitions of public broadcasting (e.g., "major generalist broadcasters with significant public funding"²) tend to exclude smaller not-for-profit or publicly funded specialized services.³ Indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year by federal, provincial and certain Canadian broadcasters that by any reasonable definition should be considered public broadcasting.

Notwithstanding these limitations, observers often try to compare the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with public broadcasters in other countries, particularly the BBC. But this comparison is unfair. The United Kingdom is an extremely small, largely unilingual country on set of islands off the coast of Europe.⁴ Its European neighbours do not use English for day-to-day broadcasting and it is virtually impossible for over-the-air signals from continental Europe to be received in the United Kingdom (apart from short-wave). Moreover, the BBC receives a licence fee from a population that is more than double that of Canada's to fund its activities.⁵

Compounding these factors is another consideration unique to the Canadian reality. Most public broadcasters were granted monopoly or quasi-monopoly status to prevent the airwaves from being overcrowded with commercial or special interest networks. Canada's public broadcasting pioneers, however, faced an added consideration: more than 80% of Canadians are able to receive over-the-air signals from the United States. In other words, unlike its international counterparts, Canada's national public broadcaster has competed head-to-head since its very inception with the Western world's most successful producer of popular entertainment.

By contrast, the BBC was a monopoly broadcaster until limited deregulation permitted the creation of a private network, ITV, in 1954, and did not face significant channel proliferation until the 1980s. As Peter Humphreys explains: "In a week in 1980 British viewers could choose from 300 hours of television provided by three channels (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV). Today, UK households with multi-channel television can choose from over 40,000 hours provided by over 250 channels."⁶ Indeed, the arrival of terrestrial, cable and satellite competition is a phenomenon that all public broadcasters have been forced to accept and address in recent times.

To date, there have been varying responses to the growth of private-sector competition. In many countries, public broadcasters have launched new television services. Here in Canada, the CBC operates two all-news services, one specialty service and two other specialty services in collaboration with private sector partners. In the UK, the BBC has launched new channels (for example: BBC News, BBC Choice, BBC Parliament and a Learning Channel); and, in Germany, ARD and ZDF have launched parliamentary, history and children's services.

The BBC has commissioned a number of studies on how public broadcasters have adapted to change. For example, a study by McKinsey & Company looked at twenty public broadcasters on four continents. Public broadcasters, the report finds, are resituating themselves in three ways: by focusing on distinctiveness over market share (e.g., PBS in the United States); market share over distinctiveness (e.g., RAI in Italy); or, a balance between market share and distinctiveness (e.g., SATV in South Africa).⁷

McKinsey also found that public broadcasters have helped "raise the bar" by exerting pressure on private broadcasters to produce certain types of high-quality programs. The authors note, for example, that the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice encouraged ITV to make Moll Flanders. Similarly, Germany's ARD and ZDF — thanks in large part to their high audience shares — have (perhaps by default) obliged commercial broadcasters to produce higher quality programming to remain competitive.

Finally, and not surprisingly, a close relationship was found between public broadcaster funding levels and sources (i.e., licence fees, government grant, advertising, sponsorships, etc) and the capacity of a public broadcaster to maintain audience share. For example, in contexts where public broadcasters were forced to pursue market share (e.g., Spain and Portugal), it was found that "overall standards of the market" quickly "decend[ed] to the lowest common denominator."⁸ Furthermore, in countries where the public broadcaster was obliged to increase its dependence on advertising revenues, "a more populist and less distinctive schedule" was the result.⁹

Figure 6.1 compares public funding for public broadcasting in Canada with other OECD countries. As can be seen, Canada ranked below the OECD average in 1999 — and just above Portugal and Poland — for its spending on national public broadcasting as a percentage of GDP. Conversely, Finland, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom placed in the top four with public funding expenditures that were three to four times greater than what is spent in Canada on the CBC.

That said, while these data are useful for comparative purposes, the Committee recognizes that they in no way represent a complete measure of public spending on broadcasting for any of these countries. Within the Canadian context, for example, these data do not include federal and provincial support to Canada's production sector, federal and provincial tax credits, or direct and indirect public funds that support Canada's private, not-for-profit and educational broadcasters. Furthermore, the functions of public broadcasters vary considerably from one context to the next. Some, like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), are similar to the CBC, running multiple national TV and radio networks. Others, like the United States' Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), are less diversified.

While it is no simple task to compare major public broadcasters, it is less difficult to demonstrate why public broadcasters are of continued relevance. As Jeannette Steemers noted in a recent paper:

Historically [the public broadcaster] was justified on technical grounds (the lack of frequencies), and on the basis of an underlying philosophy grounded on intangible normative values associated with western-style democracy — such as diversity, pluralism, universal service, the maintenance of cultural identity, and more recently the promotion of a common culture, which understands and acknowledges different groupings in society rather than simply a belief in a particular way of life. These values also form the basis of argument to extend [public broadcasting] into the era of new technologies.¹⁰

In other words, as we move further into an era during which all forms of cultural perspectives will be shared easily and willingly between and among nations, public broadcasting may well emerge as an important source for a more focused and distinct expression of particular national cultures and values. With this in mind, the remainder of this chapter discusses the current state and future prospects for Canada's national public broadcaster, the CBC.

Mandate

As noted in Chapter 2, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 created the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, Canada's first public broadcaster and regulator. Less than four years later, in 1936, a new Act replaced the CRBC with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Apart from making the CBC more arm's-length in its functioning than its predecessor, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1936 offered few details concerning Parliament's expectations for Canada's national public broadcasting service. For this reason, between 1936 and 1957 the CBC developed and operated its national English and French language broadcasting services on its own terms.

In 1958, the CBC's regulatory responsibilities were removed following the passage of a new Broadcasting Act and the creation of a new regulator, the Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG). The Corporation's mandate, however, remained unclear, with just a short statement noting that the CBC's purpose was to operate a national broadcasting service. This led to regular disagreements between the BBG and the CBC as to the Corporation's place in the Canadian broadcasting system.

Ten years later, upon the passage of the Broadcasting Act of 1968, the CBC was given its first mandate, and officially recognized as Canada's national broadcasting service.

Twenty-three years later, in 1991, the Act was revised and the Corporation's mandate was amended. Since that time, the Corporation has been expected to: contribute to a shared national consciousness and identity; be available by the most appropriate and efficient means as resources become available; be distinctively Canadian; be of equivalent quality in English and in French; reflect the needs and circumstances of each official language community, including English and French linguistic minorities; reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada; and, reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences.^11,12

Since the passage of the 1991 Act, the CBC has faced a broadcasting environment in constant flux. Many new specialty and over-the-air television services have been licenced, audiences have fragmented at a rapid rate, the Internet has gained mass appeal, and, in parallel, the CBC's budget has not kept pace with inflation, but, instead, has been subjected to periodic cuts.

In light of these challenges, the Corporation has at times made some unpopular decisions. Most notably, it no longer delivers the quantity of local news and public affairs programming that it once offered. Furthermore, it no longer produces or purchases the same range of local and regional non-news programming that it could previously afford.

In 2000, the CBC set in motion a corporate transformation strategy to guide its conduct in today's competitive communications environment. In particular, and in light of its public service mandate as articulated in the Act, the Corporation set the following priorities:

The Committee commends the CBC's efforts to reposition itself as a distinctive source for quality Canadian programming that reflects Canada's cultures and values.

Profile of Services

The CBC reports annually to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It operates: four commercial-free radio networks and two television networks that broadcast in English and French from coast to coast to coast. It also offers:

In the sections that follow, selected summary data on CBC radio and television are provided.

Radio

The CBC's English and French radio services provide information, cultural and music programming. These services are available over-the-air on AM, FM, in digital audio (DAB) and via the Internet. Figure 6.2 shows the CBC's English and French radio presence in Canada.

Overall, Radio One is available to 98%, while Radio Two is available to 75% of all English-speaking Canadians. As for French radio, the Première chaîne and the Chaîne culturelle are available to 98% and 83% of all French-speaking Canadians, respectively.¹⁴ Table 6.3 shows the audience shares for English and French radio for 1999 through 2002. As can be seen, Radio Canada showed strong growth during this period, while English radio experienced moderate increases.¹⁵

Overall, the Committee is pleased by the performance of the CBC's English and French radio services. It notes that the CRTC recently granted the Corporation 20 licences to complete its French radio network, La Chaîne Culturelle, and that it has committed to having all of these stations in operation by early 2004. The Committee looks forward to the launch of these new stations.

Television

The CBC's English and French conventional television services are available to Canadians over-the-air, via cable or satellite. Overall, 97% of English speaking Canadians are able to obtain CBC English television and nearly 99% of Canada's French speaking population has access to Radio-Canada.

Figure 6.4 breaks down the CBC's over-the-air stations by ownership. Of particular interest is the fact that the Corporation owns just half of its stations (i.e., 24), while the other half are owned by private affiliates who carry all or part of the CBC's programming schedule.

Due to budget cuts, increased competition and audience fragmentation, the CBC's audience share has declined dramatically over the past 20 years.

Figure 6.5 shows that the CBC's English network enjoyed, on average, a 16.4% audience share (between 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.) in 1985-86, while its French service, Radio-Canada, was being watched by more than 30% of the Quebec television audience.

Figure 6.5 demonstrates vividly the extent to which viewer share for CBC and Radio-Canada has declined due to increased channel choice since 1984. Indeed, as was seen in Chapter 4, audience fragmentation is a phenomenon all broadcasters — both public and private, whether Canadian or American — have had to deal with in recent years.

What it also reveals is that the overall audience share for CBC's English-language television network — despite being down by more than half from 1985-86 — increased by about 12% between 1999-2000 and 2000-01. This suggests that the CBC's English Television Transformation Project, which launched a new image and schedule for the public broadcaster in fall 2000, is working.

As for French television, it can be seen that Radio-Canada's audience share, which is down about 54% from its 1984 level, may well continue to erode, particularly given the array of newly licenced French-language specialty services that are only now gaining popularity in the Quebec market.¹⁶

Program Supply and Viewing Data

As noted in Chapter 2, the CBC (radio and television, in English and French) has never had a problem meeting its Canadian content requirements. In fact, its television services regularly exceed CRTC expectations in this regard, and is, by far, the largest single supplier of Canadian programming during prime time.

For example, during peak evening hours from October 2000 to March 2001, 94% of all programming on CBC English television was Canadian (the requirement is 80%). Figure 6.6 shows how well English and French CBC television fared in this regard between September 2000 and August 2001.

A useful way to look at supply of programming data is by comparing it with viewing statistics.¹⁷ Figure 6.7 shows English and French prime time viewing data (in this instance, 7:00 — 11:00 p.m.) for September 2000 through August 2001. As can be seen, the CBC's English and French conventional networks attract audiences to Canadian programming in prime time at rates that exceed the existing supply. For example, CBC English television supplied 90% Canadian content in prime time in 2000-01, but 93% of CBC viewing time was to Canadian content. In contrast, Global averaged 24% Canadian content in prime time, but just 11% of Global viewers selected Canadian programming.

Audience Share

When placed head-to-head with the American programming offered by Canada's conventional private broadcasters, the CBC's English television network is regularly and easily outdrawn.¹⁸ That said, when looked at in isolation, the CBC's average audience numbers for Canadian programming, while much smaller than French television (see figures 6.10 and 6.11), still exceed those obtained by CTV and Global, the CBC's chief over-the-air competitors. Figure 6.8 shows the top 20 English-language, Canadian drama and comedy series that aired in 2001-02. As can be seen, 7 of the top 10 — and 11 of the top 20 — English-language, Canadian drama/comedy series were broadcast on CBC in 2001-02.

Figure 6.9 shows the top English-language, Canadian special event programs that aired in 2001-02. Taken together, these audience numbers, while well below average audiences that the CBC (and other networks) once enjoyed in a less fragmented market, reveal that the CBC's English television service remains the leading source for those Canadians seeking out distinctively Canadian programming, including special event sports programming such as the Olympics.

French television, however, tells a different story. Figure 6.10 shows the top 20 Canadian drama/comedy series that were broadcast on French television in 2001-02. This table shows impressive 2001-02 audience data for Canada's French-language market. Overall, 15 of the top 20 shows averaged more than one million viewers. Furthermore (and despite a potential audience that is about one-third the size of the English market), these top 15 programs enjoyed higher average audience shares than the number one English-language Canadian series, the Royal Canadian Air Farce. As for Radio-Canada's 2001-02 performance in the French market, 6 of the top 20 Canadian drama/comedy series were aired on SRC, but just one show placed in the top ten. In contrast, TVA, the SRC's main conventional broadcasting competitor, had 13 of the top 20 shows.

Figure 6.11 shows the top French-language, Canadian special event programs that aired in 2001-02. Taken together, figures 6.10 and 6.11 highlight the fierce competition in the French market between Radio-Canada and TVA for viewers to Canadian entertainment specials. They also show that Radio-Canada, like its English-language counterpart, does very well with its Olympic sports coverage.

In short, the above figures help make the following points:

The Committee is encouraged by the performance of CBC and Radio-Canada and notes that the networks' strong audience shares for Canadian content programming demonstrate the continued relevance and value of public broadcasting in a fragmented media environment.

Revenues and Operating Expenses

Figure 6.12 shows the CBC's parliamentary appropriation in current and constant dollars for the period 1990-91 to 2001-02. As can be seen, the CBC's parliamentary appropriation for operating expenditures (the CBC

Apart from its parliamentary appropriation, the CBC also generates revenues from advertising, cable subscription fees (for its speciality services) and sales. Figure 6.13 shows CBC revenues for its main channels for the past six fiscal years. This figure shows that the Corporation's parliamentary appropriation is about $100 million less than it was 1996-97.²⁰ Furthermore, in 2000-01, approximately 60% of all funding (excluding specialty service revenues) came from its parliamentary appropriation.²¹

Figures 6.14 breaks down CBC operating expenses for 2001-02, including speciality services. This figure shows that nearly 75% of the CBC's expenses are directed towards the operation of its main networks, while just 1.2% enables it to deliver portions of these and other programming services via new media technologies (i.e., the Internet).²²

C. What the Committee Heard

As noted in Chapter 2, the CBC has always had to deal with the burden of high expectations and substantive criticism at the slightest misstep. This phenomenon prompted the Task Force on Canadian Broadcasting in 1986 to remark:

Over the years, the CBC has become the kind of institution that every Canadian has something to say about. Both its friends and foes feel and speak strongly about the CBC, as we have learned in our public and private meetings across the country.²³

Since that time, significant cuts to the CBC's parliamentary appropriation (particularly since the early 1990s), coupled with the Corporation's ongoing struggle to resituate itself in Canada's broadcasting system have merely amplified public scrutiny. In its defence, the Corporation's 1993 Annual Report observed:

The fundamental question for the CBC, with resources contracting, demands increasing and competition intensifying, has been how to maintain our capacity to fulfill our mandate to ensure that Canadians and their collective identity will continue to find a voice.²⁴

A year later, the CBC's President added:

... we have been able to mitigate some of the corroding effects of budgetary uncertainty, restore a measure of optimism to our work and refocus our efforts on the primary purpose of the CBC — to give Canadians a view of themselves and their country that they cannot get from any other source.²⁵

And, most recently, the CBC's current President, Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, declared:

As Canada's national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio Canada must provide Canadians with high-quality, distinctive Canadian programming ... Our focus is to strengthen our ability to be a more distinct public service broadcaster ... In the context of limited resources and an increasingly competitive environment, the Corporation has set out ... priorities to 1) Demonstrate that CBC/Radio Canada is a well-managed company. ... 2) Ensure distinctive programming of the highest quality. ... 3) Pave the way for a debate on the funding of CBC/Radio Canada ... 4) Ensure the sustainability of our Canadian schedules. ... 5) ... fulfill our mandate through selective alliances and partnerships ... [and] 6) Reinforce the capacity of CBC/Radio Canada to work as one integrated conglomerate.²⁶

The above citations expose two core issues that the Committee struggled to unravel and address. These are: (1) the appropriate role, mandate and structure of the CBC and (2) its funding sources.

But making sense of these issues is hardly a straightforward undertaking. Throughout its hearings and travels, the Committee heard a wide range of witness testimony on the strengths and weaknesses of the CBC. Some witnesses were complimentary, while others were critical. Some were concerned with local and regional representation, whereas others were focussed on the delivery of national programming content. Some were worried about reaching minority audiences, while others were concerned with low audience share. Yet, upon close scrutiny, most issues raised by witnesses tended to flow from — or into — the long-standing debate over the CBC's role, mandate and funding structure.

Keeping this in mind, this section reviews what witnesses told the Committee (in person or in written submissions) about the CBC. Notwithstanding extensive overlap in issues and concerns, witness perspectives have been divided into the following categories: general perspectives; local and regional programming; the CBC's role; and, funding considerations.

General Perspectives

When the CBC appeared before the Committee, its Chair, Ms. Carole Taylor stated:

At a time of unprecedented challenges in broadcasting from diverse technological platforms, from almost unlimited channel choices, it is imperative that we as a country develop policies and initiatives that ensure a space for independent Canadian public broadcasting. I sense a real stirring of pride in our country these days ... Within this context CBC stands as a national institution dedicated to supporting Canadian values, Canadian athletes, Canadian performers and artists, Canadian identity. So, is the CBC still important to Canada? In our view, the CBC is more important today than it ever has been in its history.²⁷

Shortly thereafter, the Corporation's President, Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, told the Committee:

Today, there is a greater need than ever before for a distinctive Canadian voice. There must be a reconfirmation of the CBC's role in the Canadian broadcasting system. The CBC must be provided with the necessary tools and flexibility to fulfill its mandate and properly serve the Canadian broadcasting system and the Canadian public.²⁸

The above citations offer useful insight into how the CBC would like to position Canada's national public broadcaster in today's changing environment. What their words exhibit is a dedication to providing a public broadcasting service to all Canadians, for all Canadians — one that has the means and the mandate to transmit and share what it is that makes Canada, and its citizens, unique.

Many witnesses who appeared before the Committee shared this perspective. For example, Mr. Armand Dubois argued that the CBC:

... is the solid foundation that supports the rest of the structure, and must remain so. ... The CBC must remain a resolutely public organization that is independent of government and not defined by profitability criteria.²⁹

Voicing similar passion, Mr. Brian Pollard said that:

Because there is this kind of tremendous cultural divide [across Canada's regions] and nobody has made any attempt to explain the differences between you and me to the rest of the country, this misunderstanding persists. That's why public broadcasting is so essential. We're a community of minorities. We need to have good public broadcasting. It's essential.³⁰

The Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique told the Committee that:

In Quebec, we have often seen how the presence of a high-quality, strong and competitive public television channel has helped to raise the standards of programming offered by the private sector. The evolution in news and drama programming illustrate this dynamic very well.³¹

Remarks such as the above were heard frequently. Indeed, submissions made to the Committee throughout its study underscored regularly the essential role of the CBC and of public broadcasting in general. For example:

The CBC is ... a vital force that has to be maintained.³²

We recommend that the Act state that CBC must remain a fundamental and significant presence within the Canadian broadcasting system as it evolves.³³

The CBC [is] a fundamental pillar of our cultural heritage ...³⁴

... the CBC's mission remains as essential today as when it was created over 60 years ago.³⁵

We consider that the CBC's Canada-wide mandate on issues of interest to all Canadians is essential in ensuring this country's sovereignty.³⁶

CBC ... is great. Keep it. Do everything you can to support it. If it weren't for CBC Radio, I guess I probably wouldn't be informed.³⁷

In my opinion CBC is the most important ... broadcaster in Canada. There is no part of our society and culture that unites the country the way CBC radio does.³⁸

You could help us by ensuring the CBC remains important to yourselves and all Canadians, and that it will be preserved and strengthened.³⁹

Quite naturally, the same passion that fuelled expressions of support for public broadcasting also energized some witnesses to share a wide range of concerns about CBC programming. These included: the decline of local and regional programming; the virtual elimination of in-house production; and, overall program quality. The following is a sampling of what the Committee heard on these three points:

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in Newfoundland, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was alive and vibrant with activity. Today it is dying, and there are many Newfoundlanders — indeed, many Atlantic Canadians — who feel deeply that the CBC television network in fact is dead.⁴⁰

CBC finds one program format that is a success and is forced to milk it to death instead of constantly developing new and exciting formats.⁴¹

... the CBC must make every effort to offer viewers Canadian programming in areas that tend to be under-represented in the schedules of other Canadian broadcasters, particularly drama, music, children's programming and documentaries. But this must be done in a way that does not provoke viewer flight from public television.⁴²

Documentaries have a natural fit with all public broadcasters, and indeed in a public space that should be increased. However, I want to say that with the CBC currently in terms of documentary, one of the sore points ... with us ... is, for example, an independent documentary strand called Witness. If you know what's on this week, then you're ahead of me, because it's never promoted, and part of that has to do with some of the internal promotion rules.⁴³

The Committee also heard much speculation as to the root cause(s) of the issues identified above. Explanations included: weak management; an absence of clear priorities; insufficient funding; problems with governance; and, a lack of accountability. For example:

The CBC is mired in its bureaucracy.⁴⁴

Certainly in television — I don't know if in radio — CBC has succumbed to every institutional weakness or virus in becoming bloated with middle management. It has been losing inspiration at the top and at the bottom, and it has allowed talent much less access to the dials.⁴⁵

... since 1990, parliamentary appropriations to the CBC have visibly been shrinking like snow in the sun. This has had a direct impact on jobs, programming and the quality of the advertising carried on our public network.⁴⁶

But therein lies part of the problem ... the management at the CBC and its direction. Is it pulling in the same direction as the one people want it to go in, in terms of regional programming? I'm not certain that just giving the CBC money would see it go in the direction of more local programming. I don't know that this is what it would do with more money.⁴⁷

I don't know if contempt is the right word, but I don't think the CBC cares about its audience a lot. Or maybe the CBC doesn't know who its audience is. ... In terms of the kind of everyday television that people watch, I think CBC is a tremendous waste of resources. I don't think it's a matter of funding. It's a matter of priorities, poor understanding of quality and content.⁴⁸

The tragedy is that somebody, somewhere, who makes the decisions with respect to CBC has written off the regions in the name of the dollar. And it's not working.⁴⁹

In short, perspectives on the CBC were as diverse as they were passionate. The well-known comedian and actor, Mr. Rick Mercer, perhaps summed it up best in a videotaped presentation to the Committee during its visit to the CBC's facilities in Halifax:

Now, I should tell you ... I love the CBC. — I just want to get that out there in the open — And while we're on the subject ... I hate the CBC. Why? Because I'm Canadian and that's what Canadians do. We love the CBC and we hate the CBC. Why? Because the CBC ... the CBC is like a vegetable. — not the people running the CBC, the CBC itself — Why? Because the CBC is good for us. It's good for us as a nation and it's good for the entire broadcasting system. [...] The fact is ... the CBC sets the bar. Now, yes, occasionally other broadcasters and producers soar over the bar. But the fact is, the CBC sets the bar.⁵⁰

Local and Regional Programming

As the Committee travelled across Canada, it became apparent that feelings run deep — especially outside Toronto and Montréal — whenever the issue of local, regional and national programming is mentioned. In particular, decreases in local CBC programming — which started in the early 1990s — raised many questions concerning the role and mandate of the national public broadcaster.

The Committee notes that the Mandate Review Committee foresaw this dilemma in 1996 when it wrote:

Some commentators argue that in order to reduce costs, the CBC should become strictly a national network ... We disagree strongly ... Our view is that the CBC will not be able to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" if people from various parts of the country do not hear or see themselves on the CBC.⁵¹

As noted in Chapter 2, the Broadcasting Act of 1991 states in Section 3(1)(m) that the Corporation's programming should: "reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions." Nowhere does it state, however, that local audiences should be specifically targeted, nor does it insist that there be particular levels of programming provided at a regional or local level. In short, the CBC's mandate for local and regional audiences is left open for interpretation.

And it is on this basis that Ms. Carole Taylor explained the CBC's regional focus when she appeared before the Committee. She stated:

Regional is not just doing the local news and local stories, although that is certainly part of it. And on that point, we don't have to compete with the privates, we can offer a different kind of local service. We don't have to do all the ambulance chasing, we don't have to do all of the crime stories that often lead off on privates. ... But underlying every possible civic issue there is something to be discussed and looked at, and I think that's the role CBC public broadcasting should scoop for itself and make sure that if you want a deeper or a different look at those regional or local issues, that's where you'd turn.⁵²

Picking up on this same point, Mr. Robert Rabinovitch added:

... we must reflect the regions in our national programs. That is why we opened up new news offices and what we call "pocket bureaus" right across the country, so we have more news coming from all areas of the country. That together forms what we call the national newscast. If you look at the newscast, you will see more and more stories that originate in different places than you did in the past. If there's a hospital problem in Toronto, that's one thing, but if there's a hospital problem in Saskatoon, we'd like to show that, too. So I think we have changed dramatically, if you look at the structure of our newscasts.⁵³

Seeking clarity, a Committee member asked whether the Broadcasting Act should be amended to specify the CBC's role in local programming, to which Mr. Rabinovitch responded:

I think you have to look at that very carefully, but if you attach the local and not the regional ... I fully accept the [A]ct as it is now. We have a very important regional responsibility to show and to produce in the region, but local, as Carole said, is not the same in terms of local news. We have to think of different ways of doing that. You may want to look at that. It's a responsibility you may not want to give to the public broadcaster.⁵⁴

The English television suppertime news program, Canada Now, is the best-known example of the how the CBC has struggled to reinvent its local, regional and national representation in this era of fiscal restraint and intense competition. Committee members saw the show in production in Vancouver (where the national segment is produced) and in Regina (where one the regional editions is programmed and broadcast).

Canada Now strives to blend national, regional and local stories. Using segments provided by CBC journalists from across Canada, thirty minutes of national news is produced and repackaged five times a night for five time zones. Another half-hour segment of regional news is also produced in CBC stations across Canada. In some regions the national component leads and in some regions it is the regional. But, no matter the region, Canada Now has failed to attract sizeable audiences.⁵⁵ Mr. Robert Rabinovich admits that "[l]ogically, it should work, but logic doesn't determine audience share."⁵⁶

Professor Bruce Wark believes that CBC's repackaged supper hour news not only short-changes the public, but is in contravention of the regional obligations imposed by the Broadcasting Act and the Corporation's own licence. He told the Committee:

The [A]ct states that the programming provided by the corporation should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions. CBC Television now attempts to serve those special needs with a half hour of Nova Scotia news every weekday evening. ... CBC Television is a pale shadow of what it used to be.⁵⁷

Many witnesses also commented on the importance of maintaining local programming. For example, Mr. Brian Staples, told the Committee that there is a lack of focus on local issues at the CBC and that it should have more "participatory television", encouraging informed public dialogues amongst Canadians.⁵⁸ The Canadian Media Guild and the Newspaper Guild both argued that the CBC does not have an adequate approach to local programming even though people have a fundamental desire for local content.⁵⁹ And, the Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's went so far as to say that "[u]nderfunding the CBC is denying th[e] regions a voice and denying the not-so-commercial voices a chance to have their say".⁶⁰

That said, the Committee heard from some citizens who support the Corporation's new programming direction. Ms. Jocelyn A. Millard of Winnipeg, for example, wrote to tell the Committee that she:

... firmly believe[s] that the CBC Radio and Television have an important role to play in fostering a sense of nationalism, by informing Canadians from coast to coast to coast of what is happening in other regions of our country. Certainly some regional programming is important and necessary, but the truly national aspect needs to be emphasized by a national vehicle as the CBC.⁶¹

Similarly, a Quebec-based union told the Committee that:

... the CBC must remain generalist television, not defined by profitability, and independent of the political arm.⁶²

And, in Prince Edward Island, Mr. Wes MacAleer, MLA, argued that:

The principal role played by public broadcasting in Canada is to promote Canada to Canadians, and Canada internationally. The task of the Canadian public broadcaster is multi-dimensional. As a fundamental Canadian institution, the CBC should play a central role in Canadian public life. It has a responsibility to provide a national focus, assisting Canadians to understand themselves and their values.⁶³

In fact, in Prince Edward Island, the CBC received a ringing endorsement from all witnesses:

So, heavens, local radio is fine. ... we really feel we are part of Atlantic Canada, particularly part of the Maritimes, and whatever is going on here is of interest.⁶⁴

My impression is that in fact the CBC does a pretty reasonable job of covering what is local.⁶⁵

On Prince Edward Island, public broadcasting can be described in one word: community. The CBC on Prince Edward Island is part of what we call here the "Island way of life".⁶⁶

Aside from its withdrawal from local production, the CBC was also criticized for its closure of in-house production facilities in favour of centralized facilities in Toronto and Montréal. In St. John's the Committee was told by the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation that:

The loss of CBC in-house production activity has had a dramatic impact here. The CBC studio functioned at one point ... as an incubator, giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians an opportunity to pilot projects that could be picked up nationally. This is no longer possible. ... everything now is Toronto-centric.⁶⁷

Similar sentiments were heard from other witnesses throughout the Committee's travels. For example, Mr. Georges Arès, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, told Committee members that the French services of the CBC are excessively Montréal-focused:

Radio-Montréal, as we sometimes call it in our communities and in certain regions in Quebec, must continue to change in order to better reflect the reality of francophones from the entire country.⁶⁸

Witnesses also raised questions concerning the CBC's commitment to local and regional francophone audiences — especially those living as a minority community. In Prince Edward Island, a representative of the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, told the Committee that:

... to ensure our survival, it is critical that we have access to the communications tools that will help us to better know and appreciate our cultural and social wealth. ... we are happy with the morning show on Radio-Canada, L'Acadie c'matin, the only French-language program produced here, at the Charlottetown studio ... it contributes to the blossoming of the Island francophonie.

[But] we feel obliged to reiterate that, with the exception of this program, the product broadcast by the Crown corporation is all too often made by and for Quebeckers. In order that they also reflect Acadian reality, we would like to see greater prominence given to local productions. Quebeckers are often unaware of the existence of other French-speaking populations outside of their province. It would be as much in the interest of Quebeckers as of island Acadians to see and hear more about Acadia on the national network.⁶⁹

In Western Canada, Mr. Denis Desgagné made many of these same points. He also added that:

... we are concerned about the erosion of programming produced in Saskatchewan in the last decade caused by a shortage of funding. ... When there is a cut at Radio-Canada, there is a direct cut to the resources of the francophone community, there is a blow to our hope of maintaining the French language and culture in Saskatchewan.⁷⁰

Thus, despite much appreciation for (and some frustration with) CBC's French-language services, it can be seen that the Corporation's reduction in local programming has been particularly hard on minority francophone communities outside Quebec.

But concerns with reaching and serving francophones in the regions were not limited to minority communities. In Halifax, for example, one witness argued that CBC Radio lacks diversity and that local service to Nova Scotia's regions, is poor, at best. He explained:

CBC Radio budgets were slashed, and as a result CBC Radio spends much of its time broadcasting the happenings in and around Halifax and Sydney to the rest of the province. ... Moreover, the lack of competition, never a healthy thing in journalism, made CBC Radio complacent. As one critic noted recently, Halifax is an increasingly interesting and cosmopolitan city, but you'd never know it from listening to the local CBC morning program.⁷¹

Others argued that the concentration of CBC resources in larger centres was unfair to their communities, particularly since larger centres are already well served by private media. Most notably, the Committee was told repeatedly that Atlantic Canadians watch, listen and value the public broadcaster, but that their sparse population prevented better service. Similarly, in Western Canada, the CBC's importance was regularly emphasized, with numerous witnesses pleading for a renewed local and regional presence.

The CBC's Role and Mandate

Nearly all witnesses shared their views on what our national public-service broadcaster's role and mandate should be in today's complex and ever-changing communications environment. And the conundrum was clear — how does one situate a publicly funded broadcaster in an era of increasing choice and fragmented audiences? What is its role? What should its mandate be? What should it be doing? Can it still be justified? And, how should it be funded?

Few witnesses argued that the CBC should be disbanded. There were some, however, who objected to the use of public funds. For example, one witness stated:

... if people don't want to watch [the CBC], they'll turn it off. But the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for the CBC. It's divisive. Who has confidence in the CBC? Who watches it? Stop paying it. Get out of it.⁷²

But this perspective was the exception, not the rule. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters suggested that the CBC's "successes should not be measured in terms of business objectives or performance indicators" and that it "must not simply duplicate the type of programming provided by the private sector".⁷³

Indeed, private broadcasters repeatedly told the Committee that CBC programming should be complementary, rather than just another competitor; moreover, ratings should be secondary. After all, as Global Television's CEO, Mr. Leonard Asper told the Committee: "Unfortunately, the way it is, whether it's Australia or Germany or Ireland, X-Files and Friends and Survivor are programs that drive the schedules of broadcasters everywhere."⁷⁴

Taking this point a step further, the CBC's Chair reminded the Committee that the Corporation is still a very important training ground and, in this regard, attracts Canadian talent, both in front of and behind the camera. She noted:

During your recent tour out West, some of you met Chris Haynes. He's a talented CBC recording engineer in Regina who went to school in the United States, but came back to Canada because he wanted to work for CBC, where he could do state-of-the-art production. ⁷⁵

Similarly, at CBC Halifax, the Committee met a young singer who was recording her music for the first time and, later on, it witnessed production of Scott MacMillan's MacKinnon's Brook Suite, that follows the journey of a pioneer family from Scotland to Nova Scotia.

Funding Considerations

The CBC's current parliamentary appropriation helps fund its six main networks, 102 originating stations, 26 privately owned affiliates, the distribution of its conventional signals, and its new media initiatives.⁷⁶ The Corporation, however, has never been fully supported by public funds, nor has there ever been full agreement on an appropriate funding mix. In 1929, for example, the Aird Commission argued that:

If the general public as a whole were listeners, there might be no just reason why the full cost of carrying on a broadcasting service could not be met out of an appropriation made by Parliament from public funds.⁷⁷

In contrast, in 1957, the Fowler Commission concluded that:

... advertising is a positive contributor to living standards and economic activity and should not be regarded as ... regrettable ... when the CBC is engaged in commercial activities, it should do so vigorously and with the objective of earning the maximum revenue from those activities.⁷⁸

Complicating matters has been the annual renewal of the CBC's appropriation by Parliament, a situation that has always prompted concern over its independence from government. Indeed, more than 50 years ago the Massey Report noted that:

There are ... serious objections to an annual grant to be voted by Parliament. Although other essential government services depend on an annual vote, it is so important to keep the national radio free from the possibility of political influence that this income should not depend annually on direct action by the government of the day. A statutory grant seems to us a more satisfactory method, because it enables the CBC to formulate reasonably long range plans with the confidence that its income will not be decreased over a period of years.⁷⁹

Budget instability not only disrupts the CBC's plans each year, but causes difficulties for several years thereafter. This is because the program production cycle, particularly in television, often lasts several seasons. As Mr. Rabinovitch told Committee members:

It's sobering to realize that it takes about three years for a program to go from the concept stage to the development stage to being on air, and without an assurance of funding over a period of time it's very difficult to make the commitments that result in programs getting to air."⁸⁰

Under the circumstances, it can be seen why advertising revenue remains so important for the CBC. Indeed, several witnesses told the Committee that advertising revenues allow the CBC to be fiscally prudent and that removing advertising would reduce healthy competition in the advertising environment.⁸¹ That said, consultant Peter Desbarats, in a paper prepared for the Committee, noted that: "Cuts in the CBC's parliamentary allocations have led to a greater reliance on advertising, blurring one of the essential distinctions between public and private broadcasters."⁸² Furthermore, the 1999 study by McKinsey & Company found a negative correlation between public broadcasters' reliance on advertising and spending on original programming.⁸³

For his part, the CBC President explained that:

... the question of commercials has been a touchy one for a long time. Sometimes some of the private sector would like us out of the commercial business because of the space it would create for them. We cannot survive without commercials as our funding formulas now stand, but what we have tried to do in the last three years is look at program genres and ask ourselves whether there should be commercials in this genre and whether we can afford to get out of commercials in this area. .... But we've gone as far as we can go in getting out of commercials.⁸⁴

The CBC's budgetary shortfall also helps explains why it has always needed private sector partners and, more recently, international partners.⁸⁵ In its view, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists believes that "there should not be a formal business alliance between the CBC and any private company" because it weakens the resolve to hold the bar high.⁸⁶ However, as Mr. Rabinovich explained to the Committee:

I have taken as my mandate, and my board has confirmed it, that we are to run the CBC on as commercial a basis as possible. And to the extent that we have assets, I believe it's our responsibility to generate revenue with those assets, not to undercut the private sector."⁸⁷

The CBC also raised a familiar theme: stable, long-term funding. Examples of what was said by witnesses in this regard are plentiful:

We need adequate, long-term, effective financing for the CBC, and it hasn't been there.⁸⁸

... if the government makes requirements of the national broadcaster in terms of Canadian content and cultural diversity, reflecting Canada back to Canadians (as the CRTC has done), then the government must give the CBC and Radio Canada the means to accomplish those goals.⁸⁹

... the CBC must have increased financial resources to play a central role in the current and future broadcast environment by continuing to be a producer of Canadian stories.⁹⁰

With regard to CBC TV, I would argue that they should get a lot more money and become ad-free.⁹¹

The CBC's President made one of the most important statements of the Committee's study when he reminded Members that: "The only thing that really matters in broadcasting is program content; all the rest is housekeeping."⁹² These were the words of the 1965 Fowler Committee study on Canadian broadcasting; they are as relevant today as they were then, perhaps even more so.

While programming services aimed at particular public interests, citizens or communities have an important niche within today's multi-channel world, the Committee recognizes that it will be more difficult for public broadcasters with a broad, general mandate to resituate themselves. Before discussing this issue, however, it is worth remembering that the world in which public broadcasters operate today is considerably different than the world within which they were conceived.

In the 1920s and 1930s (the period during which the CBC was proposed and launched) most adults did not have a high school education, and university graduates were far fewer than 10% of the adult population. While learning is a life-long process, one could easily argue that the "inform and educate" function envisaged by the pioneers of Canadian broadcasting policy is less relevant today, particularly when one considers that Canada and most developed countries have much higher levels of literacy, schooling, and much richer educational establishments (e.g., graduate schools, special purpose colleges and training institutes). That said, given today's highly commercialized communications environment, one could just as easily argue that the "inform and educate" element is more important than ever before.

A second element is the sheer volume of choice now available to most citizens. In 2002, more than eight million Canadian households had access to 50 or more television channels, nearly 100% of all households had radio and more than 50% had Internet access. Contrast today's situation with the 1930s, when there was no television and most households received just a handful of radio stations. Newspapers were thinner, magazines fewer and the only way to communicate across vast distances was by mail or — for those who could afford the expense — the telephone. Moreover, bookstores with tens of thousands of titles such as the ones we find in most large cities today simply did not exist.

Whether the choices we find in today's media represent meaningful choice, however, is another matter altogether. Indeed, the Committee heard from several witnesses, particularly during its hearings on media ownership, who believed that today's new media environment in fact validates the need for a distinctive and strong public broadcaster such as the CBC.

No matter one's perspective, it is indisputable that changes in communications practices have contributed to the decline of the mass audience and increased audience fragmentation, even during the time this Committee was holding hearings and drafting this report.⁹³ For this reason, while it is true that more than 1.8 million Canadians watched the Trudeau series, this will remain the exception, not the rule, unless large sums of money are directed into original Canadian programming. Indeed, as noted in Chapter 4, even prime time has been seriously undermined by the profusion of channels, the Internet and the advent of the personal video recorder (PVR).

Thus, dealing with increased choice creates special challenges for today's public broadcasters. As already noted, the Aird Commission suggested that it was not unreasonable to imagine the cost of the national broadcaster being covered by the public purse if the bulk of the population was listening to the national broadcaster. What if, however, the majority of the population is not watching or listening to the national public broadcaster? In a broadcasting environment with more than 200 channels, any program with more than 2 or 3% of the audience is — in many ways — a success. But this lends little comfort to a public broadcaster that relies on a Parliamentary appropriation. There are two problems, one of legitimacy and one of meeting public mandates.

Underlying the "inform and educate" aspect of the public broadcaster's mandate is an assumption that broadcasting can "enhance social cohesion by creating high-quality, mass-appeal programs."⁹⁴ For this reason, McKinsey & Company suggest that the general-purpose public broadcaster will need to use:

A scheduling approach that uses mainstream type programming (albeit with appropriate standards of quality) to bring in the audiences and "earn the right" from the viewer to expose them to a wider variety of genres — particularly in educational and informative areas.⁹⁵

This strategy, however, will be very difficult to execute in the unlimited-channel universe, where citizens are equipped with remote controls, VCRs, DVDs, set-top boxes and PVRs.

But what makes matters worse for today's public broadcaster is that the traditional network strategy of attracting an audience to one show — so that it can keep it for several hours thereafter — no longer works with so many programming sources from which to choose. The Mandate Review Committee of 1996 recognized this very dilemma when it observed:

... the CBC is running into competition ... from new "high-end" cable-based networks as well as other publicly funded broadcasters. These include Arts and Entertainment (A&E), the Discovery Channel, and Bravo!, as well as broadcasters like PBS, TVOntario and the Knowledge Network — all of whom carry programming that to some degree parallels the CBC's schedule.⁹⁶

This is why it suggested that the CBC develop more material with mass appeal:

Our model for CBC television does not suggest a narrow niche. It is far more pluralistic than elitist. In other words, while the new CBC must strive to provide a "quality alternative," it must also take seriously its mandate to serve a wide cross-section of audience tastes and needs. While we recognize this is a challenging task in the multi-channel universe, we also believe this is the only way for CBC to survive.⁹⁷

Since that time, however, many more specialty channels have been launched (or made available) and the CBC's audience has continued to shrink. But the CBC is far from being alone in dealing with this phenomenon; many European public broadcasters also saw their audiences contract during the 1990s. Moreover, in the United States, even the well-established private networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) have struggled to maintain their audience shares in an increasingly fragmented market, with an ever-expanding array of channel choice.

It is perhaps inevitable, therefore, that the absence of a mass audience for a general purpose public broadcaster will lead to the slow erosion over time of its claim on the public purse. For this reason alone, general purpose public broadcasters will continue to face financial pressures and scrutiny in the political arena simply because their original mandate will seem less legitimate or realistic.

With these thoughts in mind, the Committee makes the following observations and recommendations, which it believes will help the CBC resituate itself in today's rapidly evolving broadcasting environment:

Stable Long-Term Funding

As noted repeatedly, the CBC has been struggling to stay afloat financially for some time. It is worth remembering that this Committee made recommendations concerning stable funding in its June 1999 cultural policy report, A Sense of Place — A Sense of Being. It stated:

That ... The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive continuing, stable funding so that it remains a public, non-profit corporation for the common good.

... CBC Radio receive sufficient levels of stable, sustained funding so that it need not resort to corporate sponsorships, commercial or non-commercial advertising.

... CBC Television receive sufficient levels of stable, sustained funding so that advertising can be reduced to minimal levels.⁹⁸

One year later, the Auditor General's Special Examination Report on the CBC, stated:

The CBC cannot operate in an optimal fashion without a strategy that balances the results it is expected to deliver, expectations for audience reach, and how available resources can be optimally configure to meet them. ... it needs a process through which the Corporation and its key stakeholders can periodically discuss the role and funding of the public broadcaster and measure its success.⁹⁹

In light of what the Committee has heard over the past two years, it sees no reason to depart from the recommendations that it made in 1999. The Committee is concerned, however, that the Corporation may need more than an assurance of stable funding in order to meet its longer-term needs. The Committee is pleased to note the government's February 2003 announcement, through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, "that new funding [$60 million] to the CBC is indeed in the fiscal framework."¹⁰⁰ However, in light of the overall decrease in the CBC's parliamentary appropriation in the past decade, coupled with growing demands on its resources, the Committee believes that additional funding is warranted. The next sections discuss areas where the Committee feels strongly that the CBC may require further funding. Meanwhile:

Local and Regional Programming

As already noted, the Committee is very concerned that budget cuts — which prompted the CBC to focus on its role as the national public broadcaster — have led to a reduction of local reflection in many areas of Canada where there are few alternatives. While the Committee recognizes the importance of national programming, it notes with concern that many believe that culture at the local level has suffered because of the reduction of CBC services. By extension, these actions appear to have undermined the important role of the Corporation as a cultural incubator.

Canadians have for some time been seeking a resolution to the question of how the CBC should balance service provision to local and regional communities. As noted earlier, the CBC's mandate includes the provision that: "the programming provided by the Corporation should ... reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions" [emphasis added]. Since the responsibility to serve the special needs of the regions is already in the CBC's mandate, the Committee see no reason to recommend any change to reflect this requirement.

As for local service provision, the Committee observes that the Act states in Section 3(1)(I)(ii) that: "the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources." For this reason, the Committee is of the view that it is incumbent upon the CBC to ensure that levels of local programming — based on local needs — are delivered to audiences.

The Committee notes that in 1980, the CBC's President, Mr. A.W. Johnson, told the Applebaum-Hebert Cultural Policy Review Committee that: "a reasonable part of ... Canadian programs ... must be regional and local programs for regional and local consumption. To do other wise would be to fail to meet our mandate."¹⁰¹

The Committee is of the view, however, that the CBC cannot possibly be expected to act on one part of its public mandate — over and above its other responsibilities — if it is not ensured sufficient resources. Nor should the CBC be expected to be the only broadcaster with obligations to Canada's regions. This is why Chapter 9 of this report recommends the creation of a Local Broadcasting Initiative Program that would be available to all broadcasters — including the CBC — that would facilitate partnerships between local broadcasters and interested stakeholders in the development of programming services to serve the special needs of certain areas.

The CBC may have to see its role as asymmetrical. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, the public broadcaster may need to have a different presence and different responsibilities in different parts of the country. In Toronto, for instance, the CBC is only one voice among many in a highly competitive market. Its role is to offer programming that is distinctly different from that provided by private broadcasters. In places such as rural Saskatchewan or rural Quebec, or in Newfoundland, however, the CBC may be the only strong voice. In these contexts, it has the capacity to be one of the essential building blocks of community life. Clearly the CBC can no longer be all things to all people in all parts of the country.

Canadian Programming

If the CBC is to be revitalized, a strategic plan for local and regional service provision is only the first step. Indeed, it was abundantly clear from what the Committee heard that limited resources also impair the Corporation's capacity to deliver a sufficiently wide range of high-quality, distinctively Canadian television programming. This is despite ample evidence from the audiences garnered for recent projects such as Canada: A People's History, Trudeau, Music Hall and Le dernier chapitre, that Canadians do indeed have an appetite for high-quality Canadian programming. With these considerations in mind, the Committee feels strongly that the CBC's Board should develop a plan for the Corporation's long-term Canadian programming objectives.

Reaching New Audiences

During its visits to CBC facilities across Canada, the Committee was extremely impressed by the scope, quality and quantity of new media services that the Corporation has developed. It was clear that initiatives such as Radio 3, Bandapart and ZedTV are an appropriate and cost-effective use of the Corporation's revenues to reach a wider, and younger audience. Moreover, the Committee was strongly persuaded by what it heard and saw through the course of its study that the future of communications, both in Canada and throughout the word, will be dependent on cross-platform strategies in which online content is used to supplement radio and television programming. Therefore, given the rapid growth of the Internet as a new communications protocol used by Canadians:

Strategic Planning

In light of the above discussion, the Committee sees it as more essential than ever that the CBC communicate to Canadians — in clear terms — how its mandate will continue to serve their needs in the years to come. The Committee believes that the Corporation's Board has an active and important role to play in the formulation and refinement of policy to address the CBC's role in local and regional reflection in underserved areas, in Canadian programming and in new media programming. With this in mind:

Governance and Accountability

Chapters 18 and 19 discuss a set of issues that have implications for the future functioning of the CBC, including: appointments to boards, conflicts of interest, governance and accountability. These chapters also point out that coherent objectives, sub-objectives and targets for certain public policy instruments — including the CBC — are either ill-defined or missing altogether. They also note that the measurement and reporting of outcomes by these agencies tend to focus on outputs, rather than outcomes. With this in mind, the Committee believes it to be essential that the strategic plans described above be designed in such a way that it will be possible — if implemented — to measure and report on outcomes on a regular basis in the years to come. Accordingly:

Operational Flexibility

When it appeared before the Committee, the CBC identified several key areas where it believes changes to the Broadcasting Act would provide the Corporation with increased operational flexibility. The Committee recognizes that several of these requests would likely help the Corporation in its operations. That said, because these particular recommendations deal with very specific aspects of the Financial Administration Act and Treasury board requirements, they lie beyond the scope of this Committee's mandate. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that it is an issue that deserves further consideration by government.

The Committee also recognizes that the CBC may have specific one-time funding for the transition from analog to digital technologies (see Chapter 12). Accordingly:

The CBC's Place in the Canadian Broadcasting System

Broadcasting in Canada has changed dramatically since the creation of the CBC in 1936. After much deliberation, the Committee remains convinced that the CBC continues to represent an important public policy instrument that not only nurtures, but helps promote Canada's vibrant and diverse cultures. This is why the Committee is of the view that the time has come — and that it is entirely possible — for Canada's national public broadcaster to be re-invigorated with a new mandate — one that would meet with general acceptance from Canadians. Accordingly:

Related to this recommendation is the Committee's grave concern that the CRTC has for some time been micromanaging the CBC's day-to-day activities by issuing conditions of licence that include: expectations for the selection of programming, how much programming of certain types should be broadcast, and how money should be allocated to various budgets. The Committee returns to this topic in Chapter 19.

Endnotes