HERI Committee Report

BACKGROUND

Chapter 1
Introduction

On 10 May 2001, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced that it would conduct a study of the Canadian broadcasting system. The Committee's aim was to determine whether the ideals and objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act of 1991 were being met and whether the Act itself was in need of reform. For almost two years the Committee traveled across the country hearing from broadcasting executives and stakeholders as well as ordinary Canadians who wanted to express their views. From the heads of large corporations in Toronto and Montreal to small producers in Moncton and Regina, from Aboriginal broadcasters from Northern Canada to the Raging Grannies in Vancouver, the Committee listened to testimony and experienced the broadcasting system on many levels. The Committee visited some of the sites where our broadcasting system's creators, producers, journalists, actors and distributors do their work. It also studied more than 200 briefs and submissions.

In its journey, the Committee was moved by the sense of pride and accomplishment that Canadian creators and producers feel in their work. It encountered a great many success stories — and will document some of these, in a series of vignettes throughout this report. The imagination, determination, talent and energy of those whom it met made an indelible impression. Our artists have pushed boundaries, taken chances and delivered their finest efforts to audiences and, indeed, the world.

The Committee also found that Canadians care deeply about their broadcasting system. Whether it was on the future of public broadcasting, the availability of local and community services or the prospects of foreign ownership, citizens expressed their views with great passion and eloquence. While for many of those who appeared before the Committee broadcasting is a livelihood, for most it is a window on the world and a way of knowing about and participating in their communities. For many if not most Canadians, broadcasting is important to their quality of life.

The terms of reference that the Committee developed for this study touched on a large number of topics and themes.¹ As its work proceeded, it became clear that the Committee would have to take a very hard look at the problems that trouble the system. The last time such an exhaustive examination of Canadian broadcasting was undertaken was in 1986, when the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, co-chaired by Gerald Caplan and Florian Sauvageau, introduced its report in these terms:

The Canadian broadcasting system has many strengths and virtues. Our task, however, is not to dwell on these. Formulating public policy is a matter of trying to make what already may be working well work better. That is why our mandate is to investigate the system, to understand its development, dilemmas and failures, in order to recommend ways and means for its improvement.²

This is the spirit in which the Committee has gone about its task. To do less would have been to shirk its responsibility. The Committee has had to make tough choices. The guiding principle that has motivated Committee members is that the broadcasting system must above all serve the interests of the Canadian people. This report will therefore advocate for greater responsibility, transparency and accountability, for a broadcasting system that reflects what is distinctive about Canada, its racial and cultural diversity, its multitude of expressions and values. It will seek to speak on behalf of the public, indeed, the multiple and diverse publics who cohabit this vast territory.

The Committee learned that Canadian broadcasting faces demanding times. Its institutions are struggling to meet the challenges of new technology, globalization, corporate convergence, and the high expectations of Canadians. Indeed, a number of circumstances have come together to form a disturbing pattern, with some representatives of the creative sector saying that there is a crisis in the production of English-language Canadian programming.³

The Committee is gravely concerned about the situation of public broadcasting. The CBC's audiences have plummeted over the last decade and the public broadcaster spends much of its talent and energy searching for the right formula, the right approach, to ensure its place in Canadian life. The search has been painful and frustrating and the goal distant and elusive. There is also cause for serious concern about the production and exhibition of English-language drama. Except in Quebec where audiences are entertained and invigorated by original, home-grown dramatic productions, American programming dominates the airwaves to an extent that is largely unknown and unimaginable in any other country outside of the United States itself.

Broadcasting at the community and regional level presents a further set of problems. Canadians seldom have the opportunity to see their own lives and communities reflected in non-news programming in the places where they live. As it traveled around the country the Committee heard compelling evidence about the large gap that exists between local and national programming. Lastly, there is serious uncertainty brought on by the advent of new digital technologies and their global reach. Satellites, the Internet and the personal video recorder (PVR) present new challenges for broadcasters. Applications of these new technologies might allow Canadian programming and advertising to be easily bypassed, disrupting conventional ideas about what constitutes broadcasting. Broadcasters may not have much time to adapt to these changes.

This situation plays itself out in different ways for broadcasters, creators and above all for the Canadian public which bears the cost of supporting the broadcasting system. The Committee believes that we have entered a new era in communication and culture, one that holds great promise but also great challenges. Old ways are quickly giving way to new ones and it is critical for government to be proactive, rather than reactive. In Canadian broadcasting's second century, we will have to find new ways to build on our achievements, to preserve and maintain what we have, while charting new objectives and new pathways. Reflecting our diversity will continue to be a basic goal and major challenge.

The Committee's approach is based on the recognition that it is necessary to emphasize the integrity of the broadcasting system as a whole. One of the most perceptive contributions the Committee received on this point came from the CEO of Astral Media, Mr. André Bureau, who described Canadian broadcasting as being made up of four key "pillars" (private broadcasters, public broadcasters, distribution undertakings and the independent production sector) and five "building blocks" (CRTC licencing, Canadian ownership, controlling entry of foreign programming services, Canadian content rules, and funding and tax incentives).⁴

In the Committee's deliberations over the last two years it became clear that all of these are connected, and that the Canadian broadcasting system can be likened to a complex machine where the breakdown of a single working part can threaten the functioning of the machine as a whole. The health of public and private broadcasters depends on the success of independent producers and on government funding mechanisms that are reliable and efficient. The success of programming depends on effective distribution networks. The loyalty of audiences is tied to their sense of place and belonging and whether or not their needs are being served. And the choices available to citizens depend on an effective regulatory framework.

In short, the objectives of the Canadian broadcasting system depend on maintaining a delicate balance. The witnesses who appeared before the Committee provided valuable insight into various aspects of the broadcasting system. Their testimony was often compelling and it was taken most seriously. Building on that foundation, the Committee's task has been to determine how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. It has sought to articulate a vision for the system as a whole, as well as for its individual parts. All stakeholders — and above all, the public — will benefit from a broadcasting system that is vigorous and resilient.

The Committee recognizes that the notion of "the public interest" can be a very slippery one. Writing about the CBC as early as 1946, political scientist J.E. Hodgetts stated that:

It must be recognized at once that the 'public interest' is merely a convenient political hypothesis which will provide a sanction for state intervention and which will, at the same time, presumably create a standard against which government policy can be measured.⁵

In short, there is an important trade-off here: governments can do just about anything provided they can demonstrate that it is in the public interest, but in order for what they do to be legitimate, the policies they put in place have to be measurable against some standard. A problem in Canadian broadcasting is the absence of adequate tools to determine whether our best-intentioned policy objectives are being met. Many of the Committee's recommendations will seek to address this problem.

In some respects, and in keeping with its terms of reference, this study can be viewed as a report card on the health of the Broadcasting Act, which dates from 1991. The Committee has concluded that the Act itself needs few changes. It was finely and painstakingly crafted and reflects a consensus reached after a long and arduous consultation process — as the Committee was repeatedly told, the Act responds to the needs of Canadians.⁶ While the Act needs some modest retooling — and the report will suggest places where changes can be made — it remains a viable instrument of public policy. The key issues revolve around how to carry out the intentions of the Act: issues such as how to promote Canadian content, how to ensure the key role of public broadcasting and a fair balance between public and private sectors, how to reinvigorate local and community programming, and so on.

The larger question is how well the institutions charged with implementing the Act have carried out their public trust and whether the spirit and indeed the letter of the Act are being adhered to. One cause for concern is that there is no mechanism in place to report regularly on the health of the broadcasting system and on whether the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met. In some cases, problems have been allowed to fester and deepen, while institutions and programs have lost their edge and effectiveness. The measures carried out under the auspices of the Broadcasting Act are supposed to ensure the defence and promotion of the public interest, yet no one has been in a position to question, raise issues and report back to Parliament and to Canadians on a regular basis about the state of Canadian broadcasting. The Committee will make a series of recommendations to address this problem, including the creation of a Canadian Broadcasting Monitor, whose role would be to report on the health of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Broadcasting involves a complex mixture of cultural and economic considerations and much of its success depends on effective and efficient regulation and government action. Through various instruments it has created (e.g., the CRTC, the CBC and the Canadian Television Fund) the government has a vital role to play in steering the system. The system's governing mechanisms, therefore, require close attention. Among other things, this report argues for major changes in the way that Canadian broadcasting is governed. In response to the numerous criticisms as well as the many suggestions for change that it heard, the Committee makes recommendations intended to streamline decision making, increase transparency, and make Canada's broadcasting system more open and accountable.

The Committee believes that the key to a more robust system is to put in place a series of checks and balances. These checks and balances will allow for more questions to be answered and prevent old and outmoded ideas and policies from hardening in place. A new dynamic will be created. No single institution will have unquestioned power and authority. The need for greater openness and responsiveness in public policy flows through this report, and lies at the heart of the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Charles Dalfen, the Chair of the CRTC, has stated that "Drama is storytelling — and storytelling is close to the heart of human culture."⁷ In the francophone market, Canadian-made dramatic productions have developed popular followings and are consistently among the top rated programs; this is not true in English-language television, where Canadian drama has been pushed to the margins of the broadcast schedule. Some witnesses asserted that the proportion of broadcasters' investments in Canadian dramatic programming and comedy have fallen, and that programs are being relegated to times of the day, days of the week and periods of the year when audiences tend to be smaller.

The problem is a complex one. English-speaking Canada shares a border, and a language, with the world's largest and most dominant producer of audio-visual programming. Canadians are constantly exposed to a mass media that endlessly promotes American shows and stars. American producers can sell programs at a price that is far below what it would cost to make similar shows in Canada. Canadian network programmers argue that American hits provide the revenue that allows the networks to invest in Canadian programs. This knot is not an easy one to untie and the Committee is not suggesting that the knot be untied so much as loosened. The goal must be to create more opportunities and more spaces, to strive for programs that are not only made-in-Canada but also made-for-Canada.

The Committee is heartened by the successes in other areas of Canadian broadcasting, particularly French-language drama, children's programming, documentaries, news and sports. The many successes of the past, the radio and television programs that have touched the hearts and stirred the minds of Canadian viewers and listeners and have been seen and heard across the world, prove that the highest mountains can be climbed.

The Committee believes that the CRTC's priority programming policy, which does not require broadcasters to air a specific amount of dramatic programming or earmark a certain amount of expenditures on original Canadian drama, needs to be revisited. The Committee also wishes to ensure that the Canadian Television Fund (CTF), a cooperative venture between industry and government and the linchpin for independent Canadian production, is preserved and strengthened. This inevitably means a greater public commitment and the guaranteed participation of industry stakeholders. Many witnesses complained about the fact that the various funds and government programs do not work well together. The Committee makes a number of recommendations to improve this situation.

The heart of the matter is that increased choice has raised the standard for what audiences want and expect. With competition for audiences having become so intense, programs will have to be innovative, captivating and imaginative to survive. Programs that are not exciting or interesting or excellent will not be watched. In this new environment the CTF and other programs that support Canadian programming are likely to be more important than ever.

This report contains data that show that many governments in the Western world continue to spend vigorously on public broadcasting. The reason for such expenditures is the realization in many countries that public broadcasting remains a vital instrument for promoting national values and identities. Public broadcasters create bridges that are essential for citizens and for democracy even if many of their programs are not commercially viable. Much of their budgets are spent on news and current affairs programming; they bring citizens together on important national occasions — the opening of Parliament, Remembrance Day, the handing down of the budget, the deaths of national leaders — and they serve and connect their societies in ways that are often intangible. Public broadcasters also have an obligation to reflect different parts of the countries and to reach even the most remote communities. In most of the industrialized world, public broadcasting is still considered the main instrument of public policy intervention in broadcasting.⁸

Why should Canada be different in this respect? Many commentators have viewed the CBC as an insurance policy. It is the last line of defence in a media system increasingly dominated by American programming and American values. It also plays a vital role in a system where there is increasing corporate concentration in the private sector. The CBC ensures that other voices can be heard. In Quebec and in francophone communities across the country, Radio-Canada is seen as a buffer against the domination of the English-language media. Yet as mentioned earlier the CBC has been seriously wounded in the last decade. Nearly two decades of budget cuts, the retreat from local and regional broadcasting, and the increase in competition from specialty channels that air programs that were once the preserve of the CBC have taken a heavy toll. The CBC's weakness has made it more vulnerable to critics. We need a public broadcaster that can do the job.

In its travels across the country, the Committee heard a great deal of testimony, much of it impassioned, about the valuable role played by the national public broadcaster. Clearly if the CBC did not exist, we would have to invent it. But there was much consternation in particular about the CBC's inability to serve local and regional audiences. In some parts of Canada, the CBC has been a lifeline that has connected communities and given those communities both their eyes and their ears. The Committee believes that CBC's national networks cannot be successful if local attachments and loyalties have been severed. Being present and visible at the crossroads of local life, being part of the everyday lives of citizens, may be the only way that the public broadcaster can reconnect with its public. There is an old saying in politics that all politics is local. The same might be said for public broadcasting.

A public broadcaster cannot be "all things to all people" and it may not be able to play the same role in every region of the country. The CBC may have to develop more of an asymmetrical strategy. Some of its services may not be as important in Toronto, which has a highly competitive radio and TV market, as they are in rural Quebec or Saskatchewan or Newfoundland. It also has to ensure that it has a different tone of voice, that it tackles issues and pushes the edge in ways private broadcasters have little interest in doing.

While the Committee wishes to see stable and reliable funding for the CBC, it would also like to ensure that the CBC has the resources needed to reach Canadians in the communities where they live. A public broadcaster that is cut off from its roots cannot reflect the country well. The Committee is confident that increases in funding for the CBC and a proposal to create a new funding program to foster local and community programming initiatives — one of this report's boldest proposals — will make a difference.

The Committee believes that it is also important to acknowledge the special role played by Canada's other not-for-profit broadcasters. In a report prepared for the Committee, the distinguished journalist and scholar, Mr. Peter Desbarats, has observed that, "Over the years, Canada has seen the development of an extensive public broadcasting sector which, in terms of number of broadcasters and diversity of audiences, is probably without rival in any other country."⁹

Provincial educational broadcasters such as Télé-Québec and TV Ontario, international cooperatives such as TV5, the inter-faith broadcaster Vision TV, the public affairs channel CPAC and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network are among the not-for-profit broadcasters that offer distinctive programming to Canadians. The Committee wishes to ensure that this unique part of our broadcasting system continues to thrive.

The Committee believes that independent producers, private radio and television broadcasters, cable and satellite service providers and advertisers are a mainstay of the broadcasting system. Their vision, imagination and entrepreneurial spirit have taken the system to new heights, creating employment for tens of thousands of people and making Canada a leading exporter of television programs. During visits to private broadcasters and independent production companies across the country, the Committee was impressed by the energy, excitement and professional commitment, which motivated and inspired their work. Early morning and supper hour news shows, the creative spirit of story tellers on network television, street front TV, drive time and hot line radio, children's programming, the musical rhythms that stir our hearts and our souls on radio and the advertising that serves the interests of our business community are all part of the complex mosaic that is private broadcasting.

The Committee listened with great attention to concerns expressed by industry representatives. Issues that the Committee were asked to address included: the need to have funding programs that recognize and encourage new Canadian talent, the volume of paperwork and the bureaucratic logjams that make applying to funding programs confusing and exasperating, the utility of the MAPL criteria as a measure of Canadian music, the decline in the amount of Canadian advertising and the burden placed on the industry by Part II licence fees. The industry is also apprehensive about the impact of technological change. It is worried that increased fragmentation is making the size of audiences, advertising dollars and CTF funding much smaller than it once was. The digital transition, which will create new opportunities but will also involve new costs, looms on the horizon and must be addressed.

The Committee tried to address each of these concerns. It strongly endorses the value of the CTF and condemns the recent decision to lower the federal government's contribution to the fund. The Committee believes that the administration of all of the funding programs can be made more efficient and effective, and would like to see Canadian content requirements reviewed. It also calls on the government to take a closer look at the validity of Part II licence fees. The Committee recognizes that while the broadcasting industry enjoys the privilege of having access to the airwaves, airwaves that are in reality owned by the public, private companies contribute a great deal to the vitality of the broadcasting system and to Canadian life. The Committee recognizes that the money spent on Part II fees could also be spent on ensuring a successful digital transition and/or reinvigorating Canadian programming. It wishes to ensure that the government carefully examines this matter.

The Committee is concerned that community, local and regional broadcasting services have become endangered species, and that many parts of Canada are being underserved. In its travels across the country, the Committee heard from a surprising number of citizens who felt that they had been neglected and even abandoned by the broadcasting system. Although our larger cities are served by local stations that often do an excellent job of reaching out to and reflecting their communities — and some of the very best Canadian television can be seen in local breakfast and supper hour news shows — many smaller cities and municipalities have little or no comparable coverage. Private broadcasters go where they can make a profit and the CBC has, in reality, retreated from many localities and even from entire parts of the country. The Committee is aware of the special efforts that have been made by local cable operators to fill these gaps. But in some cases these efforts have been half-hearted and they are not enough to make a difference.

The harsh reality, as witnesses repeatedly reminded the Committee, is that local non-news programming seems to be almost non-existent. More often than not important cultural and civic events as well as local drama and comedy, sports, and music are not broadcast. An entire layer of Canadian life and experience is missing from the screen and the airwaves — and these forms of expression are arguably the places where the Canadian experience is the most original and vibrant, where the country discovers and defines itself.

The Committee recognizes that defining community, local and regional broadcasting is not an easy task. It is particularly difficult in a country where cities such as Montreal and Vancouver have larger populations than some provinces and where there are many contending notions about what constitutes a community. Where does one community leave off and another begin? How does local broadcasting differ from regional broadcasting? Can all of Canada's many regions be served equally?

Although the Broadcasting Act explicitly recognizes community broadcasting as one of the components of the broadcasting system, what exists is a patchwork of different services that vary widely from community to community and from one part of Canada to another. The Committee calls on the government to devise a new strategy so that at least some of these critical gaps can be filled. The Committee also believes that there has to be a decisive break with the past. It is recommending a new funding program that would empower local communities and enable the creation of key partnerships between local and community groups and broadcasters. It would give a voice to those communities that feel that they have been abandoned.

The question of media ownership was perhaps the most emotional and contentious issue that the Committee had to address. A series of hearings focused on whether the current limits on foreign ownership should remain in place and whether cross-media ownership should be allowed. Regarding foreign ownership, the Committee is convinced that the best interests of Canadian citizens and the reflection and fostering of our talents and imaginations cannot be left to foreign interests. The danger is that Canadian companies would be maintained as satellites within the larger orbit of foreign corporations and vital financial and creative decisions would be made in New York, Paris or Los Angeles rather than in Montreal, Winnipeg or Toronto. The Committee believes that the permissible degree of foreign ownership should be maintained at current levels and that sometimes, in the words of the American poet Robert Frost, "Good fences make good neighbors."¹⁰

The Committee is also strongly concerned about corporate concentration in Canadian media industries and the problems associated with cross-media ownership — which have recently reached record levels unequalled in comparable jurisdictions. While the Committee recognizes that size does matter in terms of achieving economies of scale and that Canadian broadcasters need the capacity to compete against giant foreign conglomerates, it sees journalistic independence as being critical to the health and safeguarding of our democratic system. Our society suffers when fewer voices are heard. Citizens need to have access to a rich mix of information and opinion, and to the values and beliefs of others, if we are to build a better future.

Several witnesses told the Committee that it had to address this situation despite the apparent fait accompli of convergence, consolidation and concentration. The Committee's dilemma was how to recommend action to ensure that citizens can have access to a variety of viewpoints, without throwing the Canadian media industry into financial turmoil. The chapter on ownership lays out a number of possibilities and recommends that the government issue a clear and unequivocal policy statement concerning cross-media ownership. In the interim, the Committee recommends that the CRTC should be directed to postpone decisions on the awarding of new broadcast licences involving cross-media ownership. It also recommends that existing licence renewals that involve cross-media ownership be automatically extended (i.e., an administrative renewal) for a minimum of two years and a maximum of three years. Finally, the chapter asks the government and the CRTC to develop clear and firm policies to ensure that newsroom independence is maintained and that no handful of large corporations can dominate either the local or national media landscape.

A challenge for the Committee was the rapid and extraordinary change that was taking place during its study. Broadcasting is entering a new frontier. Structures and formulas that worked in the past, and are the glue that holds much of the system in place, are being challenged by the brutal and unrelenting force of technological change. But technology can and must be harnessed and put to work for people. Much of this report is devoted to the opportunities and challenges that the broadcasting system faces in an age of digital technology and new media.

This report describes the technological innovations that have been used to shape Canadian broadcasting, from the harnessing of the electromagnetic spectrum to the fragmentation of audiences brought about by cable and satellite services, and the advent of new digital channels and "streaming" media. Uses of each technology have had a powerful impact on the broadcasting industry, government policies and on the choices available to Canadians. It is important to note, however, that the introduction of a new medium does not necessarily mean the extinguishing of the old. Older media such as radio, film and newspapers did not disappear with the arrival of television. They were reinvented with new formats and approaches. Similarly, new platforms such as the Internet and technologies such as personal video recorders are likely to be used in ways that will reshape Canadian broadcasting. The Committee believes that the government has a role to play in promoting the health of the broadcasting system as the industry adjusts to these dramatic changes.

The problem of grey and black satellite markets may be emblematic of the kinds of issues that are being brought about by the introduction of new technologies. With all of the investments in programming and all of the regulations that have been put in place to promote Canadian culture, hundreds of thousands of viewers (by some estimates a number greater than the entire population of New Brunswick) bypass the Canadian broadcasting system by accessing American satellite services directly. They have, in effect, been able to opt out of Canada at least for the purposes of television reception. The loss in advertising dollars and subscription fees substantially reduces funding support for Canadian programming. Sealing the border against the reception of unauthorized satellite signals, if not altogether impossible, is especially difficult when many citizens see access to American signals as a civil and individual right.

The problem of borders is compounded by the new culture of the Internet. The Internet is a vast and in some ways a limitless ocean. While the case can be made that the video streaming that takes place on the Internet does not involve the broadcasting of programs, and hence is not broadcasting in the conventional sense, the reality is that all media are converging on the Internet. Radio, newspapers, games, electronic mail, libraries, music and now movies are all available online. Hollywood studios are experimenting with ways to allow subscribers to download films directly. While these delivery systems are still in their infancy, one can envision a not-so-distant time when producers will have the capacity to bypass the television networks and distributors to reach viewers directly. Even a small chipping away at audiences can have a dramatic impact on the broadcasting system.

It is also important to remember that Internet use has helped create a new culture, particularly among young people. The sheer vastness and richness of their media experiences separates them from previous generations. The Internet has become a basic tool for communicating with friends, for home entertainment and for learning about their country and the world. They can attend online concerts, shop at their favourite stores, live and play in simulated environments and meet people from across the globe on a daily basis. When asked by survey researchers to make a choice between having a computer and having a television, a high proportion of young people would choose to keep their computers.¹¹

The introduction of the personal video recorder illustrates another way uses of technology can change the business equation in dramatic ways. PVRs can store hours of programming on a hard disk. Viewers can record an entire series, bypassing network schedules and dispensing with commercials entirely. The experience in the more than one American million homes that already have PVRs is that viewers tend to watch what is on the machine rather than what is on television. PVRs will allow viewers to customize their viewing by creating personalized viewing schedules. The next generation of PVRs will allow viewers to trade files by e-mailing programs to one another. Existing concepts of television viewing will change.

Much of the report attempts to look at the new environment that is rapidly approaching. The question of Internet broadcasting, the need for Canada to plan for the digital transition, the pressing issue of the grey and black satellite markets, the problems associated with copyright and the initiatives that are being taken to develop new instruments of international cooperation are all dealt with in separate chapters.

The convergence of technologies has created another set of issues for governments. Governments must ask whether their current legislation and administrative structures correspond to the new realities. The United Kingdom, for instance, has just introduced a Communications Act that recognizes that broadcasting and telecommunications can no longer be viewed as distinct and self-enclosed worlds. In Canada, there are separate acts governing telecommunications, broadcasting and the CRTC and two government departments, Canadian Heritage and Industry, share jurisdiction over different aspects of broadcasting. The Committee thought long and hard about whether these divisions still make sense and recommends that the government take action.

The sheer power of broadcasting and its important role in cultural sovereignty can be seen in the reports of numerous commissions and study groups. The 1986 Task Force on Broadcasting Policy noted that a single television program can be viewed by more people in one evening than will watch the top grossing Canadian films, or attend all of Canadian theatre, during an entire year. The 1996 Mandate Review Committee on the CBC, NFB and Telefilm, pointed to an even starker reality: by the time Canadian children reach age 12, they will have spent more time watching television than they will have spent in school. As the Mandate Review Committee noted: "Schools may be educating our children. But for better or worse, it's television that's teaching them."¹²

Even with the advent of the Internet and the challenges that it poses to the traditional broadcasting system, broadcasting remains the principal vehicle for communicating about culture and identity. There are studies that show, for instance, that Internet use does not necessarily affect the amount of time that young people spend watching television or listening to radio as much as it affects sleep and time spent with family members.¹³ In fact, the old media — its stars and celebrities, its programs and the issues that it highlights — dominate much of what attracts people on the Internet.

In its travels, the Committee encountered many Canadians who have a passionate belief in our country and its future. Our broadcast executives, creators, artists and journalists and most of all the ordinary citizens who are the lifeblood of the broadcasting system expressed feelings of great pride. The Committee was uplifted and heartened by the sheer talent, enterprise, imagination and courage of so many of the people that it met.

The record shows that there now exists a sophisticated and confident public that has developed a growing appetite for Canadian culture — books, music, theatre and art — and that our accomplishments are now increasingly being recognized around the world.¹⁴ Thanks in part to Canadian leadership in the global quest for a new international instrument on cultural policy — which the Committee supports — Canada has become an example to others.

This report argues that fundamental changes have to be made to provide Canadians with the television, radio and new media services that they want and expect. While Canadians have the desire to see, hear and express themselves through broadcasting, funding deficiencies, bureaucratic logjams, a lack of transparency and accountability, the advent of new technologies and a rapidly changing global environment have created a series of great challenges. The architects of the Canadian broadcasting system successfully overcame similar obstacles in the past. We have always been able to respond with acts of will, with bold steps, that ensured that spaces for Canadian talent and expression continued to exist. Creating and maintaining these spaces is now more important than ever. The times demand new acts of will, a new vision and determination, to serve the interests of the Canadian public. Our future depends on finding the strength to act.

This report is broken down into four parts. The first section describes the impact made by regulatory history and technological changes and the challenges and achievements of the broadcasting system. The second section reports on the state of the system. Here the issues facing the different components of the broadcasting system are described in considerable detail: the complex arena of Canadian programming, the problems faced by public and not-for profit broadcasters, the health of community, local and regional broadcasters, the achievements and struggles of the private sector, the special challenges facing northern and Aboriginal broadcasters.

A third section entitled "Maintaining a Single System" begins with the crucial question of ownership. It then focuses on the challenges presented by new technologies and the digital revolution. Issues surrounding copyright, Internet regulation, accessibility, the black and grey satellite markets and initiatives to protect and enhance Canada's cultural sovereignty internationally and cultural diversity are all dealt with. Here the emphasis is on the need to take steps that will position Canada for the future.

The final section deals with the role that government and the institutions it creates can play in guiding the broadcasting system. Here the emphasis is on proposed reforms that will create checks and balances, spur change, create greater accountability and represent the public interest.

In the end, we need a healthy and financially viable broadcasting system that reflects and enhances our daily experience, that promotes education and dialogue, and that stirs our hearts and imaginations. Most of all we need a broadcasting system that allows us to see, hear and be ourselves. The 1965 Fowler Committee on Broadcasting saw broadcasting as the most powerful mirror and creator of the Canadian experience. It proclaimed:

When we declare that broadcasting should be a major instrument for the development of a distinctive Canadian culture, we use that most abused word "culture" in its broadest and original meaning. It is the reflection of life itself, in all its variety — its beauty and ugliness; its significant artistic achievements and its unimportant daily occurrences; its big people and its little people: its important and often inscrutable messages, and its light insignificant interests; its great opinions and its amusing anecdotes; tragedy and comedy, laughter and tears, criticism, irony, satire and sheer fun and amusement — are all essential.¹⁵

In its best moments Canadian broadcasting reaches these heights. The Committee would like to ensure that broadcasters have the tools that they need to meet such high expectations and that all Canadians have a broadcasting system that serves and reflects their interests.

Endnotes