:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for this opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome you to Vancouver on what is, for us, a pretty typical spring day.
British Columbia Film is a not-for-profit society that was established in 1987 by the Government of British Columbia, with the mandate to expand and diversify the film, television, and digital media sectors in British Columbia.
We acknowledge the importance of reviewing the role of Canada's public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada. Canada, like many other countries, is faced with the challenge of redefining the role of its public broadcaster in a rapidly changing national and global media environment. Given our geography, diversity, and proximity to the largest producer of entertainment product in the world, Canada's public broadcaster has a unique and essential responsibility to the Canadian public. Given these challenges, British Columbia Film supports maintaining a strong national public broadcaster and supports the existing mandate of the CBC as set out in the Broadcasting Act.
Our comments this afternoon will focus on those questions posed by the standing committee in framing this review that are of particular relevance to British Columbia Film, and it will be made primarily in the context of English language television.
Television, private and public, is faced with profound change in the years to come. The proliferation of cable and specialty television channels, the decrease in foreign market financing, the impact of audience fragmentation, the emergence of multi-platform content delivery systems, and the looming cost of high-definition television will all affect what has been a relatively stable broadcast sector. Above all, there is the continuing challenge to create and produce high-quality, distinctively Canadian television that can attract audiences and compete against the juggernaut of American television programs that are so readily available to Canadian audiences.
Yet in light of all these challenges and the rapid pace of technological change and innovation that the broadcasting industry is experiencing, the mandate of the CBC remains remarkably relevant. The mandate speaks to the central role of the public broadcaster while allowing for flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances. It is our view that it is fundamentally important, as a first step, to review, clarify, and affirm the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada. Issues and questions pertaining to governance, management, and operational delivery can only be addressed in the context of an affirmed mandate.
We believe a balance between the mandate of the public broadcaster and the resources that are available to support its purposes must be found. Finding this balance is at the heart of mapping a direction for the CBC in the decades ahead.
As Canadians, we have choices in this regard, but with choices there are implications. A broad and expansive mandate without the resources to support it is little more than rhetoric. Conversely, a narrow and restrictive mandate, while perhaps more affordable, may fail to meet the expectations that Canadians have for their public broadcaster.
The Canadian broadcasting system, public and private, is supported by a range of federal and provincial policies and programs that provide direct and indirect economic support to broadcasters and Canadian television programming. The Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm Canada, labour-based tax credits, the funding programs of provincial agencies, and other programs established to preserve, promote, and develop Canadian culture all contribute to the sector.
Our broadcast system is composed of privately owned conventional broadcasters that are accountable to their shareholders and derive significant public benefit directly or indirectly as a matter of federal and provincial public policy and a public broadcaster that derives significant revenues through commercial transactions that are normally associated with the private sector. It is our perspective that the distinction between public and private broadcaster has become blurred to a considerable degree.
All parties in the broadcasting sector--specialty, conventional, public, and private--have access to benefits created by public policy.
In the context of these public policy benefits and the fiscal challenges facing CBC/ Radio-Canada, as outlined in our submission, we believe that finding the balance between mandate and resources will serve to establish the foundation for the future. Coming to an agreement on the blend of public and private funding, as well as identifying the most effective and efficient mechanism for providing these resources, stands at the core of this review. We believe that finding this balance is achievable and that finding it is quintessentially Canadian. Further, we believe that support for CBC/Radio-Canada should be provided on a multi-year basis that at a minimum reflects the three-year industry planning cycle.
The committee has also invited comments on the adequacy of services that reflect Canada's regional and linguistic diversity. It is our view that the time has come to move beyond the talk of regions, as though most of Canada exists at some geographic and intellectual distance from the centre. We take issue with the notion that British Columbia or Vancouver is a region in relation to a centre that is located elsewhere.
If the public broadcaster is to succeed, it is essential that it move beyond the concept of regions and focus on serving the distinct needs of communities across Canada. In this regard, the responsiveness of the public broadcaster to local and linguistic diversity is an ongoing concern. CBC/Radio-Canada must redouble its efforts to root itself in local communities throughout the country and ensure that Canadians, regardless of where they live, can have their voices heard in framing the priorities of their public broadcaster.
Vancouver is a striking example of the growing diversity in Canadian communities, and it is becoming increasingly important for CBC/Radio-Canada to connect with and reflect the cultures and customs of our multicultural and multi-ethnic communities.
The emergence of new technology poses numerous challenges for conventional television broadcasters. Consumers now have significantly expanded opportunities to choose how and where they watch video content. Many of the new platforms are on-demand services, which enable consumers to view programming not available on television, and some provide content in a different format from traditional television, offering a new viewing experience. For broadcasters, meeting these challenges by developing viable content and revenue models is critical to future success.
We believe that CBC/Radio-Canada has been a leader in the development of multi-platform programming for Canadian audiences. The website cbc.ca has established itself as a pre-eminent site for news and information. CBC has also been a pioneer in the development of user-generated content for television broadcast purposes. The now cancelled Zed was an innovative web-based program that invited the creation of user-generated content, including video uploads for television broadcasts. Zed was a new kind of television program that had an impact in the television and new media communities reaching far beyond the limited measures of audience and advertising. It is our view that new media is included in the existing mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada, and it is appropriate and necessary for the public broadcaster to exploit new platforms in fulfilling its mandate.
CBC/Radio-Canada must offer news, information, and entertainment content to Canadians in a manner that is consistent with the changing viewer preferences of our citizens. To do this, it must embrace new delivery platforms. The committee has also questioned whether the CRTC should regulate the new media sector. This is a significant question, and it may be that the CRTC should revisit its 1999 new media ruling. However, as CBC/Radio-Canada is subject to CRTC review, we believe its new media initiatives will fall within the existing regulatory framework.
While acknowledging the importance of new media, we do want to emphasize the resiliency and the adaptability of television. Television will continue to be the dominant platform for content delivery for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, British Columbia Film supports maintaining a strong public broadcaster, a public broadcaster that is equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and one that connects to the hearts and souls of Canadians.
We agree that this review is of fundamental importance, that solutions can be found, and that a uniquely Canadian balance can be struck. This is the genius and the promise of Canada. A reaffirmed mandate for CBC/Radio-Canada is an essential first step. Finding the balance between mandate and resources is achievable--a balance between what Canadians want and what CBC/Radio-Canada can deliver, between public and private funding, between popular and populous programs--and can create a public broadcasting service that Canadians will take pride in.
And finally, with this mandate review behind us, we expect CBC/Radio-Canada to proceed with its business of serving Canadians across all platforms and to provide periodic reports on its performance to assure Canadians that the mandate is being met.
Thank you for your time and for your attention.
:
I'd like to take this opportunity to express our delight to be presenting to you this afternoon. My name is Pam Astbury. I am a civil engineer and president of Save Our CBC Kamloops. With me is David Charbonneau, a retired electronics instructor from Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops and our group's secretary-treasurer.
Our reason for attending this mandate review today is to share with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage our extreme disappointment at having lost our over-the-air CBC television service, and also to provide for you a citizens' vision for the CBC in the 21st century. We are a non-partisan group, and we are also not-for-profit. The presentation today has been compiled by dedicated Kamloops volunteers who have been directly affected by recent changes to CBC television service.
In February 2006, as Canadians recovered from the excitement of the Torino Olympics, Kamloops transmitters stopped broadcasting the CBC television service over the air. The day after the Olympic flame was extinguished, so was our access to CBC television. It was a surreal experience to realize that something we had all taken for granted--free access to CBC television--was no longer available. Letters to the editor of our local paper appeared, as residents expressed their dismay that despite paying their portion of taxes slated for the CBC--approximately $33 each per year--they would be forced to pay upwards of $360 annually to be able to watch it on cable, that is if cable was even available.
A group of citizens from Save Our CBC Kamloops formed in an effort to understand how we'd come to lose the CBC, determine the scope of the problem nationally, and identify what it would take to get it back. Historically, as we understand it, our local broadcaster, CFJC, had carried approximately nine hours of CBC on its daily schedule. In a decision based on finances, CFJC applied to the CRTC to drop the more expensive CBC content for less expensive CH/Global content.
Our group first approached CBC CEO, Robert Rabinovitch, to reinstate the lost signal to our city. In response, his office explained that analog technology was being systematically phased out right across Canada. Only those in 44 of the largest urban centres would be able to access free over-the-air CBC television in digital form. The letter supporting that statement is attached to your handout.
By 2012, all Canadians will be forced onto cable or satellite as a means to access their public broadcaster, unless they live in a big city. For Canada, not having equal access to the CBC, whether on radio or television, presents a number of concerns. Urban areas already enjoy an abundance of television channels--in many cases upwards of 10--over the air. However, small areas may have only one. To lose CBC television in these communities is to leave them with little to draw upon for Canadian perspectives. Each of us contributes to the finances of the CBC via our tax dollars. To obligate residents of Canada's small and medium-sized communities to buy cable or satellite in order to access the public broadcaster is shameful. Undoubtedly, these are the very communities that are the largest supporters of the CBC.
Let us not forget that cablevision is not a privilege that all Canadians can afford. Seniors on fixed incomes often rely on over-the-air television and radio for their information and companionship, especially those who may be housebound. Teachers who have used CBC programs such as Canada: A People's History and The Greatest Canadian as home-teaching resources can no longer ensure that all students have access to them. We also must consider the single-income families who may rely on Hockey Night in Canada or the Rick Mercer Report, for example, to share quality nights together. This is the reality for many struggling to make ends meet.
Over the past seven months, our group has reached thousands of Kamloops residents. We have circulated a city-wide petition on which we have collected more than 2,000 signatures and on which we are still collecting. It is our plan to have this document presented to the House shortly after March 31. We've asked hundreds of people two questions: “Why is the CBC important to you?” and “Should all Canadians have equal access to it?” The following are selected responses from Kamloops residents.
Ginny Ratsoy says: “Even more important than individual programs is the collective that is the CBC. It has historically been about showcasing Canada to Canadians. Particularly in this global and technological age, this emblem of our nation is vital. CBC television has historically been available to all Canadians, and to make it available only to those who can afford cablevision is unconscionable.”
Lori Schill says: “I have lived in many parts of this country and having the C.B.C. to listen to has always made me feel at home.”
Anne-Marie Hunter says: “The CBC provides down-to-earth, out of the ordinary drama that was not dependent on stereotypes but rather, worked outside society's common views of life.”
Bronwen Scott says: “The CBC is literally the only show in town in isolated areas of the province and country. It helps us to maintain a Canadian identity in the face of a flood of US programming.”
Connie Alger says: “It's the Children's programming that we miss the most at our house. We choose not to have cable for lifestyle and economic reasons...lifestyle being that we want a small amount of quality programming available to our children, not a 24 hr supply of endless distraction. KidsCBC was just right for us, a few really good shows that my children could choose for entertainment, and education.”
Jim Fornelli says: “The CBC's reporters and interviewers are of the highest quality and bring credibility and integrity to the broadcasting profession. The international flavour of reporting of world events whether athletic, political, economic or social broadens the boundaries of Canadian audiences to include the world stage not just the protective North American world-view.”
The remedy to this cultural crisis may be technology itself. As you might know, the U.S. will have completed its national conversions from analog transmitters to digital three years ahead of Canada, by 2009. A solution to keep as many as possible connected to broadcasting is an $80 set-top box that over-the-air viewers can redeem for free using federally funded rebates. The U.S. is touting the system as the biggest revolution for over-the-air television in 50 years. Wireless TV is seen as a hip and practical new face for television.
In Canada, it would mean replacing all analog transmitters with digital, instead of just the urban ones, as the CBC is currently proposing. The model would allow Canadians to continue to stay connected to their beloved CBC without the cost and negative impact of full-fledged cable connection.
In looking to the 21st century, our group considers the CBC has a strong future in this age of media infestation. As a selection of the CBC's national audience, our vision for the CBC is quite simple: access to CBC radio and television for all Canadian communities, large and small, continued high-quality and intellectual Canadian content, and increased and reliable federal funds to ensure that our national treasure is strong and vibrant in the 21st century.
In closing, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for acknowledging that there are serious problems festering within the CBC. There is a strong sense that television and radio, still a mainstay in our media world, is increasingly becoming an offensive intruder in our homes. In the 21st century, the CBC must strive to exceed this norm and continue to provide the exceptional intellectual television and radio services it is known for. Undoubtedly, a reliable financial commitment from the federal government is badly needed to ensure that infrastructure is in place to deliver CBC to all our communities. The high-quality programming that is synonymous with the CBC cannot be appreciated if the people for whom it is intended can no longer access it.
From the city of Kamloops, B.C., we look to this committee to provide guidance to get CBC television back on the air in our community and keep it on the air for all small and medium centres from coast to coast to coast.
So Ron MacLean would go around to different communities, and during commercial spots he would talk to the audience about the great film they were watching. All of us, a little group of us Canadians who are going to watch movies tonight...what are we watching? We're watching American blockbusters. I can get American blockbusters at every theatre in Canada, on every broadcaster in Canada--everywhere. Yet the CBC's Movie Night in Canada is basically promoting American blockbusters. That seems absurd.
Secondly, when you look at how they program Canadian feature films currently--and again, respectfully, I am speaking about the English programming because I know that Radio-Canada does a great deal--they have a lousy middle-of-the-night block where they play ancient Canadian films or films that have been around for so long there's no longer the sense that they connect to what's out there.
Why is that important? Why is it important for the CBC to play a role in celebrating what's currently happening in the cinema scene, the feature film scene? I think it's an important cultural issue. I think film is an internationally respected cultural medium and it has a role to play with our national broadcasters. So the first point is let's get them programming Canadian feature films.
Another thing that could happen, which would be amazing and I think would really help everyone.... I had a conversation in Paris with the woman who was running Radio-Canada in Quebec at the time--I can't remember her name and I can't remember the specifics, but it gives you a sense of what the CBC in French Canada is doing--and she said to a panel in Europe, “Yes, we have discretionary funds to promote Quebec cinema on Radio-Canada, and we work closely with distributors to lay the groundwork for promoting films that are currently playing in the theatres.” When I heard this, I was the biggest fan. I thought, what country is this and when can I move there?
We have a really hard time on English Canadian CBC affording ad space for current feature films. There's a movie opening this Friday called Fido. It's the first film I've seen in 10 years with a prime-time advertising placement. It was on Global, in the middle of the show 24.
Why is it that the CBC cannot be mandated to at least work with the distribution community to create better placement for the promotion of a Canadian feature film? The reason they don't do that is the biggest point I'm going to make today. The CBC plays no role at all in pre-licensing the movies. This is an important point.
When you're a producer making a feature film in Canada, this is what you do. I'll give you the layman's “how to”. You run around the country and meet with all the broadcasters. Why? Because broadcasters have a CRTC mandate to pre-buy your movie. Without even reading the script, The Movie Network, Movie Central, which is Corus Entertainment, and all the CHUM channels will give you a piece of paper that says when you deliver this movie they'll give you $100,000 or $150,000 or $250,000, whatever they think it's worth.
You take that paper, which is the thing you need to get your movie in the theatre, and you run off to your distributor, who says okay, what do you have in licences? You say you have The Movie Network over here, Movie Central over here, and CHUM television over here. And just so you understand, that means you go theatrical, home video, and then it goes right to TV. In Canada, it goes first to pay TV for a six-month window.
Am I going too fast? You are following, right? Okay.
So it goes for a six-month window on pay TV, and then it goes to conventional TV, which, in the case of Canada, is CBC, CTV, Global, CHUM. The second window is on the cable channels like Showcase and so on. You use these licences to finance your movie.
Now you go to a distributor like Alliance Atlantis or TVA or whatever, and you say, “Guys, I have all these letters that say I'm going to get x for this movie.” They say, “Fine. You assign all those broadcast rights and we'll give you a minimum guarantee. We'll give you an advance.” Basically, they'll give you money that you use to make your movie.
The reason you give them your licences and take their money is that you need the money quickly to make a movie. A television licence is only good when you deliver to television. If I'm a conventional broadcaster, I'm only putting it on the air after it has been in the theatres, after it has been on DVD, and after it has been to pay TV, if you follow what I'm saying.
So you can't really use the money. No bank is going to give you interim financing on that money, because it's prolonged. It takes three years sometimes to get the money on it. So the distributor swoops in and plays the role as a kind of guarantor, a sort of interim financier of your movie.
Anyway, I'm getting to the point.
What happens is they give you about 50¢ on the dollar currently. Their rationale is, “Look, Canadian films don't make any money--we all know that--so why should I buy your movie?” You go, “But I have licence fees.” And they say, “Fine. If you have a dollar worth of licence fees, I'll give you 50¢. Take it or leave it.” And what do you do? You take it, because you can't defend the case that your film is going to make a lot of money theatrically. You can't. So you need licence fees in order to push distributors to advance you money to get the movies made.
Now, in Quebec, it's a totally different story, right, because in Quebec the films are making money theatrically, the licences aren't discounted by the distributors to the same degree, and Radio-Canada is also involved.
Now, what I'd like to know is, why can't the CBC be a part of this food chain? We've been making...all of us in my group, but me in particular.... I'm starting my sixth movie right now, a feature film. Not one of my movies has ever had a dollar of CBC financing in advance. They may have ended up on the CBC at some point--maybe. Why is that? Why is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not interested in getting involved in the business of making feature films?
I asked Slawko Klymkiw, when he was the head a few years ago, when he was at the Halifax film festival promoting the mini-series about the Halifax explosion—which seems a little ironic to me, but anyway.... I said, “Why don't you guys ever get involved in feature films?” He said, “Oh, it's not our thing. It's not something we're mandated to do; it's not something we want to do. We're going to put drama on television as series, as TV movies, whatever.”
The reason this is important is if the CBC were mandated to pre-license films, we would have a lot more money going into the making of these films. My partner is one of the producers on the show Intelligence. It's a great CBC show. The amount of money that CBC puts into that show is quite significant, and the amount of money that the CBC puts into all feature films in English Canada is nada. They don't put any in.
And if they did, see how it would work hand in glove with promotion. If I were the head of the CBC and I pre-licensed your film, Jacques, then I would have a vested interest in making sure your film got promoted. I would still charge the distributor to advertise on my network because I need the revenue, but why not give him a little better deal? Because it's my program, too, and it behooves all of us to get the audience to show an interest in this stuff.
When I was asked about whether I had something to bring to the committee, I was feeling, well, this is really about broadcast, it's not about feature films; we should just stay out of this. Then I thought about it a little more, and I thought, no, the CBC could play a really significant role. The end result is going to be that more Canadian feature films get made, more Canadian feature films get promoted, and more Canadian feature films get seen by the public.
Why should we bother? Because we're spending a hell of a lot of money making these movies. Every taxpayer in this room has contributed to all of my films, and everyone else I know and work with. But can we name the films?
We can argue about exhibition and distribution till we're blue in the face, but the exhibitors and the distributors don't care. They're making lots of money selling American movies back to Canadians. They're happy.
The CRTC and the mandate to show Canadian content is the only way we can help the Canadian feature film. And they know this in Quebec. They do. I think we should start paying attention to what they're doing in Quebec and start doing a little more of it here.
Thank you.
Brian and I just talked before about specifically which genres we feel the CBC should be addressing. We wanted to bring them up based on both our own personal business experiences and how we've worked with the CBC.
I know you heard Carl Bessai speak very passionately about feature films, so I'm only going to speak very briefly and make a point. Five years ago, at the CBC's licence renewal, they made a promise—it wasn't a condition of licence but a promise—to spend $30 million on the marketing and licensing of Canadian feature films. This was at a time when Heritage brought forth the Canadian Feature Film Fund. I'm a big believer that if government is going to make a decision, there had better be harmony. Why isn't there harmony? If you're going to spend the money, let's get all of the agencies and institutions involved in meeting the objectives of the Canadian theatrical box office.
Simultaneously, SRC committed $20 million to the marketing and licensing of Canadian feature films. They followed through, and I have to say that has to be a contributing factor to the success of the Quebec box office. There are many other factors, but that has to be one of them.
The CBC did not fulfill its $30-million promise on feature films, and I think it should have. I made a feature film that the CBC licensed at the time—I think they paid $75,000 or $100,000 for the licence, around 2000—and that film went on to premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival. It won the Claude Jutra Prize for best first feature film. It sold to the Sundance Channel in the United States. It broke a major Canadian talent onto the scene. That was partially because the CBC participated in a licensing fashion, which they don't do at all anymore, or very infrequently.
In terms of art, it's very much a concern to me that recently the performing arts giant called Opening Night has essentially been obliterated. One of the most talented people at the CBC in terms of staff is a man named Robert Sherrin, who runs the arts programming section.
I believe strongly that it's the role of a public broadcaster to reflect the art and culture of society, and it is important that the CBC make some kind of commitment to arts programming or a reflection of the arts in Canada. If it doesn't, the only place Canadians will have will be Bravo. The future of Bravo is under question right now, given the purchase of CHUM by CTV.
We made a film that was an adaptation of a play locally, called The Score, for Opening Night. It went on to become the only Canadian dramatic television film nominated at the Banff television awards last year for best television movie. It was in a global competition against hundreds of other films submitted from around the world, and it would not have been made if it wasn't for Opening Night.
The third genre I want to speak about is documentary. Obviously documentary is a realistic reflection of our culture, and it is something that Canada has a long history with. We're known around the world for documentaries because of institutions like the NFB and the CBC, and I think the CBC needs to make a very clear commitment to documentary. They currently have The Doczone on Thursday night, but what is unclear to us as independent producers is how much will be produced in-house and out-of-house, and there needs to be a very clear commitment to the documentary form.
If you read this, you'll note how much the CBC depends on sports for its audience share, and I think that could be problematic if the NHL goes to another network.
Those are my thoughts on genres.
Brian, did you want to say more?
:
Hello. My name is Mercedes Watson. I'm the chief executive officer of the Union of BC Performers. I'm here today with two of my colleagues: our president, Howard Storey, who is a performer, and my colleague, Thom Tapley, who is our director of operations—film, television, and digital media.
We know that you have spent a great deal of your day listening to a heck of a lot of people, and our approach, for that reason, will be slightly different. You will be hearing from our national organization in a fulsome way. They will provide to you a full brief on all the issues that have been outlined in the mandate review. So we will not take your time going through them again, because you will hear from them directly on those points.
We will touch on some of the issues that we think are key to our jurisdiction here in B.C. and on issues we have been dealing with as an organization and that we feel could be further developed through the mandate and through initiatives the CBC could take up for itself.
Just to give you a bit of a sense of how we have come here, I have almost 20 years' experience in the industry. I started with one of the very small independent production companies in Toronto and have had the benefit, over my years within this industry, to work with Alliance Atlantis, when it was still Atlantis, and then more frequently, or certainly for a longer period of time, at Showcase Television. And I was one of the members of the team that launched Showcase Television.
From there I moved to ACTRA and became a member of that organization, working specifically with performers with regard to their rights--copyright specifically--and the introduction of the new rights that legislate remuneration for performers in sound recordings. After that time, I came and joined the UBCP. My involvement within this industry spans quite a breadth of experience, from television production to broadcasting to distribution to legal issues and copyright legislation. So that is the basis from which I'm going to be presenting to you.
I will allow my colleague, Thom Tapley, to do an introduction as well.
What we wanted to say today is that the Union of BC Performers represents 5,100 performers in the province of British Columbia and the Yukon. That remains our jurisdiction. Over the past year, we have been negotiating our collective agreement. So regrettably, the submission we are making to you today is not necessarily one that we would have spent as much time on as we would have liked. But we think the points we will be making will be significant and meaningful for your continued foray into the area of the review of the CBC.
As I mentioned, you will be hearing from our colleagues nationally, specifically on the issues of the current mandate of the CBC.
We have elected today to provide to the committee thoughts on how the CBC can re-vision itself. We think this has probably been a day when you have heard how everything should be changed and how everything should be different, and we thought perhaps we would give you an idea of how that change or difference might be brought about.
We think the CBC can re-vision itself to serve the cultural needs of the vast array of Canadian viewers and listeners who are drawn to it every day. In fact, we believe that its current viewership can continue to grow exponentially in a global manner.
We'd like to provide to the committee and to the CBC our expertise within the film and entertainment industry, specifically in the areas of distribution, copyright, and digital media, to allow for a return of the CBC to its rightful place. We believe that place to be the pre-eminent launching pad for Canadian talent and for digital Canadian products. We believe that the CBC can assist this country in branding itself and its culture through a Canadian-branded digital distribution portal, and that portal would blend marketing with access. These are the two critical elements that have prevented Canadians from seeing our own stories on our own airwaves.
It's a three-step process. It's straightforward: enlist experts, dialogue in order to address the new digital media realities with a view to investigating new modes and how those can best be used to serve the needs of the CBC, focus on branding the content to make it proudly Canadian, and create a model that remunerates all rights holders and makes it possible to have access to all content.
We have had discussions about the limited resources of CBC. It has continued to stretch itself more thinly in order to achieve everything that everyone feels the CBC needs to be for all the people of Canada. We believe that a digital module could assist in those costs. It is cost-effective and has a wide reach for not only the youth--as Brian mentioned earlier--who are no longer drawn to television and are concentrating their energies on the Internet, but also others.
The trend is that most people are no longer drawn to television and are accessing content, information, music, and entertainment through the Internet and digital distribution. We believe there is an opportunity to use those methods to expand the reach and make better use of what is already a very well-known and successful Canadian brand, and that is the CBC.
My colleague Thom Tapley will continue with our thoughts.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee.
I also bring regrets. My colleague Dr. Druick is quite ill today and unable to be here.
I'm speaking to you as an associate professor of communication from Simon Fraser University, and I have the remarkable distinction of having served as a member of the mandate review committee with Mr. Juneau, which released a report, Making Our Voices Heard, in February of 1996.
I'm also a member of the Graham Spry Foundation, affiliated with SFU, which together with the University of Montreal offers an annual lecture on the future of public broadcasting. I would commend that website to you for further research.
I teach in the area of broadcasting policy, and I'd like to acknowledge today the students of Communications 333, “Broadcasting Policy in the Global Context”, who have been with you this afternoon and watching in a fascinated manner. I'd also like to indicate that I research in the area of cultural diversity, civil society groups, and changing forms of media governance.
I'm going to take the liberty of leaving behind with your secretariat an article I've written on the CBC, which is entitled “Wellsprings of Knowledge: Beyond the CBC Policy Trap”. I wrote it in 2002, partly debriefing my experience of 1996, and many of the recommendations in it are as salient today as they were then.
In the interests of the presentation this afternoon, I thought what might be interesting would be to direct my observations to what has changed since 1996 in the dilemma facing the mandate review of the CBC at that time, and what has remained the same.
1996 marked a time that was widely perceived as a crisis point in public broadcasting around the world, and the specific crisis of budget cuts at that time, brought about by Mr. Martin, which led to the appointment of the Juneau committee, caused major concerns then about the scope of the CBC's mandate and its very sustainability.
There were many faces to that crisis. The first face was the political aspect of the crisis. Then, it was probably defined in terms of Quebec nationalism. Our report was written at the time of the Quebec referendum, and much of its text can be read in that light.
Now, the crisis is determined and defined in terms of our international obligations in Afghanistan, through the multi-lateral NATO. I note that after 9/11 we have seen a remarkable politicization of government communications policies around the world in the name of the war on terror. We have seen a close-down on security access to information in public journalism, and even disputes and resignations forced upon chairs of public broadcasters such as the BBC, or of the president of the BBC, because of problems of disclosure around allegations that there was faulty intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction.
I note that the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the United States is under attack for partisan appointments. Our own past chair of the CBC resigned because of inappropriate remarks construed as offensive to some.
Certainly what has changed since my time on the watch in 1996 is the scope and news culture in which crises embroil our public broadcaster. But I think there is good news here. Public opinion and quality ratings indicate a high degree of public trust in CBC news, and there has not been the same meltdown of partisan meddling as has been seen at the BBC, for example. The CBC has built its foreign news bureau and in a very important move has repositioned CBC International away from hard news to more general life information, I think in part to fly under the radar of other better financed and more propagandistic international radio sources. But I think the CBC has grown beyond its current role in self-regulation of news quality and news standards.
I served as the chair on a national ombudsman process during the federal election in 2004, and while I can say I attest to the general validity of the process, it is no substitute for two elements that are necessary to protect the editorial independence and excellence of CBC news standards; that is, taking the office of the CBC ombudsperson outside the CBC; and secondly, restructuring all press councils and broadcast standards councils into a single news body more publicly accountable to citizens, journalists, and editors and more accessible in the adjudication of news disputes and promulgating better news standards.
In a world where CanWest Global's news coverage comes under fire from Reuters for inappropriate stereotyping of terrorists in an imbroglio in 2004, preserving a space for public debate over ethics of the media is never more important, and the CBC has a lead and large role to play.
The news environment in which the public broadcaster functions has never been more supercharged. In terms of meeting its international and national news functions, the CBC continues to outspend on a head-to-head basis on news gathering, do more high-value investigative reporting, which is measured by peer awards or in databases that have to do with access to information requests, and so forth, and has never been more open in submitting its news standards to high levels of public scrutiny and sustaining more foreign news bureaus.
Its value has been defended by the Senate committee on the future of the news media. The CBC's role is never more important in a news environment fraught with dangers in reporting in a world increasingly divided by ethnic, national, and religious fundamentalism, promoting, as Graham Murdock, a past Graham Spry chair, has indicated, inaccessible or uncrossable lines between us and them.
I want to rewind once again and say that then the crisis was technological. Few foresaw in 1996 the competition over 100 Canadian digital channels or over 100 international imported channels in Canada, or few saw the growth of the Internet and the challenges that podcasts and online media content through social sites like YouTube would pose. At the time, our committee was of the view that these were interesting developments, but I think it is fair to say that we did not predict they would grow as quickly as they have. At the time, we made a recommendation to amend the Broadcasting Act of 1991 to ensure that the CBC could make its services available on the Internet and make the most innovative new uses of new media as possible.
In light of a subsequent decision by the CRTC not to regulate new media or the Internet, nothing in the 1991 act precluded the CBC subsequently from developing its own Internet portal. Today, cbc.ca, as many have mentioned earlier, is among the top three in Canada, attracting more than two million hits a week. Studies of its performance during the recent election, especially in providing more accessible election coverage to younger voters, two in three of whom choose not to vote during our federal elections, have been largely positive.
The drive to develop new media was pioneered by Radio 3, which was based here in Vancouver, and we're very proud of the team that developed it. A study of Radio 3 that was done by one of our graduate students, who I believe is here today, Anu Sahota, argues that it is precisely this kind of innovation in new media that a public broadcaster must do.
I am tremendously impressed by the contribution that the new and indie music sites available on cbc.ca are making to the Canadian soundscape, and I applaud the corporation for creating this musical digital commons with shareware. The fact that Radio 3 moved to the commercial digital stereo satellite radio network is unfortunate, in my view, and it diluted the record of innovation at the corporation.
On the whole, the new media opportunities are not as well developed as they are or could be at the CBC. I would argue that the CBC needs to embrace the idea of a TV 3 or TV 4 or TV 5, as you've heard this afternoon, on the web, providing a portal for indie documentary and other emerging TV producers to share their work and rival YouTube for the post-first privilege.
Certainly few foresaw that the CBC could embrace new media, but it needs to do far more to be the pivot of the digital commons. I believe, too, that our committee, and especially the Lincoln report, saw the CBC as absolutely basic to the idea of preserving a public space on the digital commons. I believe the Lincoln report went further than we did, that the CBC must work together on the public Internet with the not-for-profit and community broadcast sectors of the new environment, something that the CBC has not yet done at all.
One of the most important calls the standing committee can make is upon the to coordinate a strategy to protect community, independent, and alternative media, with the CBC as its hub, on Canada's emerging digital commons. In my vision, CBC TV 3 would link campus TV, community TV, and a number of other not-for-profit program providers, as the hub across Canada.
To flash back again, then the crisis was fiscal. We were faced with over $300 million in cuts. By the year 2000, I note, Minister Copps did reinstate an annual $60 million a year for special-purpose broadcasts, and then the Canadian Television Fund emerged and earmarked some proportion of its holdings derived from public tax money and cable subscriber funds. These moneys were directed at independent productions licensed to the CBC slate.
I would say that today we do not face quite the same level of public debt or fiscal crisis of the state. In fact, given the unprecedented surpluses facing government today, there is a possibility existing for reinvestment in public broadcasting. The CBC has been faced with year-to-year uncertainty. Its appropriation of about $1 billion is diminishing under inflation, and in constant dollars, as many have commented, we have a corporation that is about one-third smaller than it was about ten years ago.
More to the point, today we have far better data comparatively about the rate of public investment around the world. It seems to me that a number of different sources have now confirmed that Canada is among the lowest of all OECD countries in its investment on a per capita basis, at a time when we are experiencing among the highest rates of population growth. This does not compute.
Even adding in provincial spending on educational broadcasting does not change the overall picture. What I would argue is that in a federal state like Canada, where there is a bifurcation of jurisdictions between culture and education, the data around the world, from the Mackenzie Group, from the Nordicity Group, indicate that culture does not do well.
The CBC is Canada's largest institution. It is a cultural institution, and it is not given enough to do its job. I have seen the need for stable long-term funding, and I support the continuous and repeated refrain over many public inquiries such as your own, for a long-term charter and stable long-term funding. I further support an annual increment to the base of parliamentary appropriation, because we have seen what the lack of certainty on public moneys can do.
Over the past ten years, the CBC has increased its reliance on advertising. You've already heard today how sports viewing as a proportion of CBC's share went from just over 30% at my time in 1996, to almost 50% today. In recent years, however, we've seen a cataclysmic drop of $90 million—almost 40%—in CBC ad revenues. Since the merger of CTVglobemedia, the CBC has been outbid for major sports properties like the Olympics by a three-to-one margin.
Our committee argued for a reduced reliance on sports properties like the Olympics, and economic necessity and the loss of market power vis-à-vis these new concentrated private sector sources is really doing for the CBC by default what public policy should. What has happened is that media mergers and consolidations are undercutting the CBC's right to negotiate major properties. It will get out of sport by default and may now reframe sports to the cultural pursuit, or focus on amateur and less popular sports in North America, possibly like soccer.
Its hemorrhaging of ad money will deeply continue to wound it. I stand behind the mandate review committee and the Lincoln committee's recommendations that the CBC step further back from ads if the requisite public money is in place to replace ad money.
In terms of critical mass, ad revenues today provide almost 50% of the operating costs of CBC TV. That is far too high. A quantum of around 20% to 30% in the period of transition to buying back our public broadcaster is probably more sustainable.
The drive to replace revenues has led to what I call a “creeping privatization of policy” mindset at the CBC. In recent hearings about the future of private broadcasting, the CBC has intervened before the CRTC to support the private broadcasters' opportunistic case to get cable subscriber revenues from basic cable—that is, a fee for carriage of local CTV and Global signals, for example—because of the lack of ad certainty.
The CBC, if this fee for carriage of local signals is introduced, stands to make anywhere from $12 million to $30 million, which is nowhere near what it needs. But it is driven by desperation, I think. The fact that local retransmission rights raise issues of copyright reform and issues of universality and raise problems of access for those 12% of Canadians who do not get digital cable is completely lost on the CBC policy perspective. In this case, self-interest, in light of a declining revenue base, won out over public policy interests in the framing of their position.
I support stable, long-term funding for the CBC. I simply point out that the last crisis facing us in 1996 is the same crisis facing you today. It was a crisis with respect to public transparency and public governance. The picture was bleaker in 1996, to be sure. A lot has been done to modernize systems at the CBC and bring in more transparency. I note that there have been two recent external audits of the CBC by the Auditor General of Canada, and the CBC has undertaken major reforms of the type that were identified in our report in 1996. Collective bargaining arrangements have been rationalized, internal efficiencies have been realized, and significant gains have been made from the rationalization of real estate. And certainly the renovations here, for example, to the CBC in Vancouver will make it a hub of a cultural district and will realize large community spinoffs.
My sense is that the efficiency gains to be realized by modernizing the corporation and streamlining it have now almost come to a close. There is not much more fat to be wrung from the animal. But the Auditor General, in her largely positive review, notes in the report of 2005 a continued need to establish corporate-wide performance and management targets and indicators and to communicate better with external stakeholders. And that the CBC must do. I only note that a similar charge was made to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women in a later study of cultural industry programs that are also administered.
While the financial house at the CBC may be in better public order, warranting, I would argue, a serious re-conceptualization of public reinvestment in our public broadcaster, one main impediment remains. As we stated in our Making Our Voices Heard : Canadian Broadcasting and Film for the 21st Century, and as the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has so ably argued over the past ten years, it is imperative to ensure that the process for appointment to the board of the CBC is less partisan so we do not get into the same trap President Bush got into with PBS. And I would suggest that your own committee has a role to play in this.
We must see the board become more broadly representative of all scientific, cultural, creative, technical, and business leadership in this country. The board must have the right to appoint the president and to insulate her or him from the partisan spin and pressure cookers of the day. Despite major changes in the federal political scene in this country, I am reminded that Parliament has, and continues to have, a consistent multi-party voice in support of the CBC, which is also supported by public opinion polls across this country.
What has changed since 1996 is the emergence of a neo-conservative press that is driving elite discourse on policy issues in this country, one in which CBC-bashing has become quite common. What has also changed is the breathtaking convergence of private ownership in the mediascapes in this country, which is something the CRTC will be examining in a new hearing. In such a converged landscape, the need for the CBC to provide local services, as they become victim to decisions made by central offices outside this province, has never been higher. What is odd is that public interest advocates—those who want a more democratic communication sphere protecting the rights of our citizens—have been relatively silent.
What the parliamentary committee can do is instruct the minister to ask the CRTC to review, for example, the public-benefit policies in place during this merger and acquisition binge and provide an account of exactly where these moneys go and how effective they have been. In the forthcoming news about the sale of Alliance Atlantis to a U.S. investment consortium in partnership with CanWest, for example, who is challenging the disposition of the specialty channel? Why would one channel, patently the heart of a renewed public broadcaster as a central hub of Canada's digital commons, not be given back to the Canadian taxpayers who subsidized its launch? Perhaps it is time for a discussion on the public benefit of reinvesting the History Television back to the CBC, where it belongs. The CBC, after all, is Canada's largest audio-visual archive of record in this country, and it only makes sense.
What has not changed, quite simply, is that Canada needs to build public institutions that foster a sense of citizenship, a citizenship that is cosmopolitan, that values diversity, that is committed to address problems through deliberation rather than force. The CBC is one such institution, and the challenges facing it have never been more enormous but its opportunities never more unrivalled.
Thank you very much.
:
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you very much for inviting me to appear on this panel. I'm a great CBC supporter, and I welcome the opportunity to present my views to you today.
There's no question that the CBC is in crisis and that it desperately needs major reform. For years now, the CBC has been chronically underfunded by government. In fact, the CBC has suffered massive cuts to its funding and it has been deprived of the reliable long-term funding essential to planning its operations. As a result, the CBC has been forced to increasingly rely on advertising revenue to survive. Depending on private corporate advertising has compromised the CBC's objectivity and its ability to protect the public interest. At the same time, the CBC has drifted towards a private sector style of management, which is totally inappropriate for a public broadcaster.
In my youth, the CBC was a proud institution that produced quality Canadian programming. Today it is a pale shadow of its former self. Much of the CBC's current programming consists of American or other foreign TV programs. Recently we've even seen American so-called “reality” TV shows bumping The National from prime time. Programming of this sort, American pop culture programming of any kind, clearly violates the mandate of the CBC. It is inexcusable that CBC management has allowed this to happen, and it is even more outrageous that the Government of Canada has been so wilfully negligent in its treatment of the CBC.
Critics may argue that the CBC has outlived its usefulness, or that we should privatize it, but the fact is that the CBC is more relevant now and more essential to Canadian unity and independence than ever before. In a world of corporate globalization and increasing U.S. regional dominance, we need a revitalized CBC to protect the public interest, to promote Canadian culture, and to foster Canadian unity and independence. In order to reform and reinvigorate the CBC, I believe that the following actions are essential.
First, Parliament must ensure that the senior leaders of the CBC, its board of directors and president and CEO, are not appointed based on partisanship or patronage. Therefore, the CBC leadership should not be appointed by the Prime Minister or the government. Instead, perhaps the CBC leadership could be chosen by an all-party House of Commons committee made up of an equal number of MPs from each party represented in the House of Commons. This way we could make sure that the CBC better reflected the priorities of all Canadians, not just those of the governing party.
Second, Parliament should give the board of directors of the CBC the power to hire and, if necessary, fire the CBC's president and CEO. The CBC's board of directors should always include a majority of people with Canadian public sector broadcasting experience. The CBC president and CEO should always come from the ranks of the CBC staff. This way we could be sure that they have the necessary depth of experience and commitment to the organization.
Third, Parliament must provide the CBC with sufficient stable long-term funding so that it can fulfil its mandate, including revitalizing grassroots programming and vastly improving Canadian content. No matter what the fiscal circumstances of the government, the CBC plays a vital role in our culture, and it should always be protected as a priority for government funding. But now in this age of massive multi-year budget surpluses, it is disgusting that the CBC has suffered crippling funding cuts so that it even has had to shut down its costume department. In a prosperous society like ours, this simply cannot be tolerated.
Fourth, Parliament should ensure that if it increases government funding, the CBC will simultaneously phase out private advertising. There's no place for private advertising revenue at a public broadcaster, and if the CBC were properly funded by the government, there would be no need for it.
Fifth, Parliament needs to strengthen the CBC's mandate from one of being “predominantly and distinctly Canadian” to one of being “overwhelmingly and distinctly Canadian”. Only this kind of crystal-clear mandate will ensure that the CBC focuses on broadcasting almost exclusively quality Canadian programming.
Sixth, Parliament must ensure that the CBC fulfills its mandate “to contribute to Canada's shared national consciousness and identity”. To achieve this, the CBC should make large increases to arts and cultural programming, for example, by producing more contemporary Canadian dramas, historical documentaries, and TV movies. Canadians need to see and hear uniquely Canadian stories in order for our culture to thrive.
Seventh, Parliament should direct the CBC board of directors to give high priority to the instructions of the Broadcasting Act that the CBC “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions”. The CBC needs to build its programming capacity at the grassroots level in communities all across Canada, so that it serves the needs of those communities and is at the same time representative of Canada as a whole.
Eighth, Parliament must prohibit the CBC from becoming involved in partnerships with private broadcasters. Canadian private broadcasters are an absolute disaster in cultural terms. The level of corporate concentration of broadcasting and media in Canada is appalling. A few massive corporations have unprecedented influence on Canadian culture, and they project a corporate neo-liberal agenda of privatization, deregulation, and destruction of government and the public good. If the CBC were to become involved with them, it would be a terrible conflict of interest. The CBC's role is to serve the public interest; the private broadcaster's goal is to maximize the profit of its shareholders and to further its agenda of corporate control. The CBC must remain true to its mandate of serving the Canadian public interest, and it can only do that by preserving its independence and integrity.
Ninth, Parliament needs to ensure that the CBC maintain its focus on news and current affairs programming. In this world of increasingly concentrated corporate media, Canadians need the CBC more than ever to inform us about what is really happening across the country and to provide us with thoughtful, in-depth analysis. This is one area that, tragically, has seriously deteriorated in recent years. A number of events of great significance to the independence and integrity of Canada have transpired in the last ten years, but have been largely unreported or only superficially reported by the CBC. For example, the coverage of the security and prosperity partnership of North America, which I believe will result in submerging Canada in an anti-democratic, U.S.-dominated North American entity, has received only a passing mention on the CBC. Yet this is precisely the kind of pressing threat to Canadian sovereignty that the CBC has a unique responsibility to provide meaningful coverage of.
Tenth, Parliament should direct the CBC to continue coverage of major Canadian sports, such as hockey. There's no question that hockey is a significant part of the Canadian identity.
I urge the committee to recognize the perilous state the CBC is in now, and to follow the recommendations above in order to save the CBC. If you do not act now to save the CBC, Canada will lose a great institution, which has played a vital role in building and preserving our nation.
Once again, thank you very much for having me here today, and thank you for considering my recommendations.
I think I'm just going to repeat for the third time the same message. I happen to agree with them almost 100%. I have just two pages here.
My opinion is the CBC relative to all private stations has been the most balanced in presenting regional and cultural information as well as in reporting news.
The CBC, as mandated, has contributed to a distinctive Canadian identity, and because of its independence from for-profit ownership it has to a greater extent contributed to a national social consciousness rather than to promoting consumerism. However, with the global event of Internet starting in the nineties, the traditional diffusion of information has gradually evolved at least on two fronts. First, the CBC hierarchical top-down one-way traditional system has increasingly become outdated and replaced by a non-hierarchical horizontal independent media where ordinary lay people are interacting in the diffusion of news and information.
Second, the issues prioritized by a few CBC professional reporters and producers are not necessarily accepted as the same as the issues concerning most citizens. In other words, the limited choice of issues from one team of professional broadcasters needs to be expanded to more public participation. Therefore, I suggest that one of the organic ways for CBC to keep up with the evolving communication trends is to include in the Broadcasting Act a CBC mandate to open some community access programming to non-profit, non-religious, non-partisan, local independent media producer groups.
A precedent to this suggestion is the CRTC's regulation in 2002 that required privately owned cable television stations to grant community groups up to 25% access on television. This CRTC requirement, which includes more public participation, should be extended to CBC as well.
In reference to the governance structure, the hierarchical corporate governance of CBC and Radio-Canada needs to democratize itself by having an elected board of directors. I don't mean it has to be elected by every citizen in the country. I would accept an election by all 309 legislators, but there should be some form of election rather than just appointments by one person. And that should be for each local station. Furthermore, the access to programming should have an advisory board composed of all its participants.
If the Canadian heritage committee and the democratically elected ministers have in mind a democratization of information and communications, a fundamental principle to keep in mind should be to democratize the governance structure of CBC, because, after all, that is what democracy is all about.
In regard to partnerships between CBC and private broadcasters, the uniqueness of CBC is precisely its public ownership, which theoretically at least may not be influenced by privately owned interests. Selling a proportion of CBC to for-profit partners is effectively dismantling that original uniqueness.
For-profit partners would impair CBC from carrying out its present mandate, and eventually the for-profit partners would transform CBC into another commercially efficient enterprise. This simple prognosis is based on the ancient fact that the main interest of any business is to make profit. The present mandate of CBC of providing a public service is not in the least concerned with profit.
I suggest that we adequately maintain CBC's uniqueness as a democratic medium for information and keep it separate from the for-profit broadcasters, who may continue advertising their products and services on their own.
With respect to the new media, if CBC were fully funded by taxes, the emergence of new media would have no financial implications for CBC/Radio-Canada's overall budget.
With regard to regulating the new media, CRTC, in conjunction with local municipal governments, should extend its transmission regulations to municipal wireless networks. We have traffic bylaws to avoid chaos. We also need regulations for low-frequency networks to avoid abuse.
Thank you very much.