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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.1:
The Committee recommends that Parliament provide the CBC with increased and stable multi-year funding (3 to 5 years) so that it may adequately fulfill its mandate as expressed in the Broadcasting Act. |
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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.2:
The Committee recommends that for greater clarity the Broadcasting Act be amended to recognize the value of new media services as a complementary element of the CBC's overall programming strategy. |
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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.3:
The Committee recommends that the CBC deliver a strategic plan, with estimated resource requirements, to Parliament within one year of the tabling of this report on how it would fulfill its public service mandate to:
(a) deliver local and regional programming.
(b) meet its Canadian programming objectives.
(c) deliver new media programming initiatives. |
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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.4:
The Committee recommends that the impacts and outcomes of the CBC's strategic plans (for the delivery of local and regional programming; Canadian programming; and, cross-platform, new media initiatives) be reported on annually and evaluated every two years. These evaluations should meet Government of Canada program evaluation standards. |
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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.5:
The Committee recommends that the CBC submit a plan to Parliament detailing its needs for the digital transition and that it receive one-time funding to meet these needs. |
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:
RECOMMENDATION 6.6:
The Committee reaffirms the importance of public broadcasting as an essential instrument for promoting, preserving and sustaining Canadian culture and recommends that the government direct the CRTC to interpret the Broadcasting Act 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
1 | Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act (1983): section 6. |
2 | McKinsey & Company, Public Service Broadcasters Around the World: A McKinsey Report for the BBC (London: McKinsey & Company, 1999). |
3 | For example, a recent survey of public television conducted by the Centre d'études sur les médias (Portrait de la télévision publique dans dix pays, dont le Canada, 2001) makes no mention of Canada's educational or not-for-profit broadcasters. Similarly, Mckinsey & Company's 1999 study of public service broadcasters focuses exclusively on generalist broadcasters with significant public funding. |
4 | Gaelic is spoken in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. |
5 | As one witness observed observed: "Britain has a larger population, perhaps double the population. The land mass of Britain is about half the size of the island of Newfoundland, let alone Labrador." 29 April 2002. |
6 | Peter Humphreys, Regulatory Policy and National Content: The UK Case, Department of Government, University of Manchester, England (2002), p. 1. |
10 | Jeanette Steemers, "Public Service Broadcasting Is Not Dead Yet — Survival Strategies In The 21st Century." Paper presented at the RIPE@Conference, Finland, 2002. 17-19 January 2002. p. 4. |
11 | The major elements that were removed from the Corporation's mandate in 1991 included the expectation that the CBC: contribute to Canadian national unity; provide a service that balances its types of programming; serves people of different ages, interests and tastes; carries the whole range of programming available; relies exclusively on public funds; or, provides specifically regional entertainment. |
12 | Since its earliest days, the CBC's role and mandate has been regularly studied and reviewed. For reference purposes, a list these various studies is provided in Appendix 10. |
13 | ARTV and The Documentary Channel are run in collaboration with private sector partners. |
14 | CBC Research, February 2002. |
15 | The most recent summary of Canadian radio listening issued by Statistics Canada (The Daily, October 21 2002. Catalogue 11-001-XIE) shows that CBC's radio services (in English and French combined) accounted for about 7.1% of all radio listening in fall 2001. This figure is significantly lower than the data listed in table 4.2 because Statistics Canada calculates average listening time based on "the total number of hours of listening divided by the total number of persons, regardless of whether or not they listened to the radio." This difference in what is being measured relates to an important distinction about the interest of advertisers and policy-makers, which is addressed in Chapter 4. |
16 | See Chapter 4 for more on the increase in channel choice in Canada's English- and French-language television markets. |
17 | CBC Research typically compares its audience share and viewing data with conventional, over-the-air broadcasters. See Chapters 4 and 8 for data on the broader context of all television viewing in Canada. |
18 | These audience numbers are very low if compared with the full slate of American programming viewed by Canadians in prime time. A more extensive discussion of audience share for Canadian and foreign programming is undertaken in Chapter 4. |
19 | Moreover, the CBC's parliamentary appropriation is down nearly $300 million from the mid-1980s. |
20 | Of the $840.4 million that the CBC received from Parliament in 2001-2002, $60 million was one-time funding; thus, its original appropriation was $780 million before the top-up. |
21 | It should be noted that the CBC's sole source of advertising revenue comes from television. |
22 | The CBC delivers its main radio networks (including local feeds) via the Internet and offers some video clips (largely news and information) from its television networks. |
23 | Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy (Caplan-Sauvageau) (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1986), p. 269. |
24 | Mr. Gerard Veilleux, CBC President, CBC Annual Report 1992-1993, "President's Report," p. 10. |
25 | CBC Annual Report, 1993-94. |
26 | CBC Annual Report, 2000-01. |
27 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 21 March 2002. |
29 | Mr. Armand Dubois (TVA Network Journalist in Montréal, Provincial Council for the Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees), Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 21 May 2002. |
30 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
31 | Canadian Union of Public Employees Provincial Council for the Communications Sector., Brief., Appendix G., p. 8-9. |
32 | Canadian Independent Record Production Association, Brief, p. 3. |
33 | Canadian Media Guild and The Newspaper Guild, Brief, p. 30. |
34 | Writers Guild of Canada, Brief, p. 5. |
35 | Canadian Union of Public Employees Provincial Council for the Communications Sector, p. 5. |
36 | Serge Paquin, Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 19 March 2002. |
37 | Allan S. Taylor, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 28 February 2002. |
38 | Ken Schykuiski, Letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2 March 2002. |
39 | Thor Bishopric, President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA), Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 May 2002. |
40 | Leo Furey, President, Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
41 | Katie Nicholson, St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
42 | Fédération nationale des communications, Brief, p. 16. |
43 | Barri Cohen, National Chair, Canadian Independent Film Caucus, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 May 2002. |
44 | Thor Bishopric, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 May 2002. |
45 | Greg Malone, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
46 | Fédération nationale des communications, Brief, p. 15. |
47 | Patrick Flanagan, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 May 2002. |
48 | Brian Pollard, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 May 2002. |
49 | Leo Furey, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
50 | Rick Mercer, Videotape shown to Committee in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 30 April 2002. |
51 | Making our Voices Heard: Canadian Broadcasting and Film for the 21st Century (Mandate Review Committee), Report of the Mandate Review Committee (Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage, 1996), p.#45. |
52 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
55 | Competition for audiences is discussed in Chapter 4. |
56 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
57 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 30 April 2002. |
58 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
59 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 11 April 2002. |
60 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
61 | Letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 February 2002. |
62 | Canadian Union of Public Employees Provincial Council for the Communications Sector, p. 5. |
63 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
64 | George Park, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
65 | David Helwig, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
66 | Steve Stapleton, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
67 | Leo Furey, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 April 2002. |
69 | Maria Bernard, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
70 | Denis Desgagné, Executive Director, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, 28 February 2002. |
71 | Bruce Wark, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of King's College, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 30 April 2002. |
72 | Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 4 December 2001. |
73 | Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Brief, p. 12. |
74 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 March 2002. |
75 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
76 | The CBC's specialty services (CBC Newsworld, RDI and Galaxie) finance themselves through subscriber fees, while Radio Canada International receives a separate parliamentary appropriation. It should be noted, however, that these services would not be self-supporting if it were not for the main network infrastructure. |
77 | Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting (Aird Commission) (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1989), p. 9. |
78 | Warner Troyer, The Sound & The Fury: An Anecdotal History of Canadian Broadcasting (Toronto: Personal Library, 1982), p. 172. |
79 | Report of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences: 1949-1951 (Massey Commission) (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1951), p. 294. |
80 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
81 | One witness went so far as to suggest that CBC radio should run corporate recognition spots (Robert Reaume, Vice-President, Media and Research, Association of Canadian Advertisers, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 18 April 2002). Most other witnesses were adamant that the CBC's radio networks remain commercialfree. |
82 | Peter Desbarats, The Future of Public Broadcasting — Distinction or Extinction. Prepared for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. |
84 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
85 | Private CBC affiliates have been delivering public service broadcasting to communities such as Dawson Creek, British Columbia; Brandon, Manitoba; Rouyn, Québec since the Depression of the 1930s. |
86 | Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. Brief. p. 15. |
88 | Brian Staples, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
89 | Independent Film and Video Alliance. Brief. p. 4. |
91 | Alan Taylor, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 28 February 2002. |
92 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
93 | Indeed, more then forty new digital television services were launched in the fall of 2001, the biggest single launch ever of television services in Canada. |
94 | McKinsey & Company, p. 35. |
96 | Mandate Review Committee, p. 107. |
98 | A Sense of Place, A Sense of Being: The Evolving Role of the Federal Government In Support of Culture in Canada, Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Ottawa: House of Commons, 1999), Recommendation 26, p. 98. |
99 | Canadian Broadcasting Corporation — Special Examination Report, Office of the Auditor General of Canada, June 2000. |
100 | Hansard (37th Parliament, 2nd Session), 19 February 2003. |
101 | Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, Summary of Briefs and Hearings (Applebaum-Hébert) (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1982). |
| |
|