Canadian Heritage Committee on May 24th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

My line of questioning has changed, probably with every answer, so this is going to be very hard to pull together. But I do think you start at the core.

Whatever inspired Canada to invent a public broadcaster and then to deal with television, and reinvent the public broadcaster, whatever the conditions were that made that imperative then, is there any less an imperative now? I'd have to think not--perhaps more, as the world shrinks and all of those things.

So it's underfunded, and we're having a bit of an artificial debate around what it is that CBC is; that is, why would we publicly fund it if it's providing stuff that isn't distinct enough to warrant it? But we're also saying at the same time that the reason they're doing that is because they're chasing a commercial model and they're being underfunded and they're having to get ad revenues. I think we're saying the two things.

If we all agree that it's underfunded, there may be different models of getting revenues to a public broadcaster that are in addition to or complementary to a parliamentary appropriation. If we agree on a more stable, predictable, long-term, and more generous parliamentary appropriation, will we have to clarify the mandate? Because most people who say that have in their mind what that money would go for, and they'll be surprised in two years when they find out that it didn't, and then we're stuck to some extent. So we may have to bring some clarity.

I know on the regional side you don't have the same sense of the purpose of the CBC in St. John's this morning as you have in Montreal today. Coming from Fredericton, it is a different thing. We feel the need not only to be sovereign as a country, but we feel very vulnerable in the context of our own identity within the country.

But I think it can all come together. We all agree on the need. We agree that it's under-resourced. We even have a sense of what its purpose should be, and it's more important now than it has ever been, probably. That seems to be a pretty good place to start.

The opportunity that is presented by the description of our job--and that is the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century--strikes me as an opportunity to perhaps think about it without getting caught up in....

Oh, and by the way, it was the 1995 budget. It seems strikingly ironic that I would be the one to have to point it out, but it was the 1995 budget that was so brutal. The 1993 budget wasn't ours. But what can I say....

[Kirwan Cox]

It was a Paul Martin budget, we're all agreed.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes, we're agreed on that point. And I don't know why it would be up to me to tell you.

In any case, if we see the opportunity to reinvigorate the public broadcaster because of new technologies, new media, new opportunities to get the stories out there in different ways, perhaps this becomes one of those historic moments when you do that. If we get caught up in the narrow debate around whether we should do this because it isn't distinctive enough and all of those kinds of things, I think it will be a distraction, frankly.

Now, the other part of this--and I'm all over the place today, as I warned you--has to do with the place of the CBC being one of a series of partners with a general objective. I think in the past the public broadcaster was seen as it, as against one of many, the leader among many institutions that perform this function. I think that may be a part of the mandate we have to rethink.

If people have come from Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board, and other places, even other channels on the range of channels that are available now, with an interest that might be complementary, if we could organize ourselves, if CBC assumes a leadership role on that front, I think we may have an opportunity. But it would have to be in the mandate of the CBC to say that, because right now institutionally they're not structured that way. Most of the other people have complained about that fact, that the CBC's view has been if it's going to be done, we have to do it--and I don't mean just in terms of in-house production, but just generally to be the entity in the country that protects our sovereignty and so on.

There hasn't been a consensus here on whether the mandate needs to be changed. Some have said it does and some have said it doesn't. Very specifically on that question, is it adequate as it stands if it's resourced?

[Peter Moss]

My experience in television is that the devil is in the details, and that it's never the overarching vision and description of the mandate, it's the execution of the mandate. I think the Broadcasting Act we currently have is incredibly comprehensive and sufficiently flexible to allow the vision that you've just expressed to occur if it were undertaken and it were decided to do that. Tinkering with the Broadcasting Act wouldn't necessarily make the CBC better; not tinkering with the Broadcasting Act wouldn't necessarily hurt the CBC either.

[Ian Ferrier]

At the same time, though, from my experience in dealing with people in the CBC, I think that because their budget is diminishing due to having no cost of living increases, the CBC are scrambling, and if you want them to take a leadership position, you have to at least give them a platform upon which to stand. They are more concerned about how to fill the number of hours they have: what are they going to fill them with, what are they going to do with this budget cut this year, which person is leaving, which person is there? So they are never in a position where they can comfortably address what it is they should be doing as a public broadcaster.

[Kirwan Cox]

First of all, I want to agree with Peter Moss about the devil being in the details and that the CBC mandate right now is immensely broad. Clearly, it doesn't have the resources to fulfill that.

The thing is that I think you have to be careful about the idea of saying the CBC can make more money with commercial deals. You have listened to a lot of people come here and say, “Boy, can I make the CBC tons of money! I have a commercial deal for them.” Well, all of these commercial deals have a price.

If you just look at advertising as the fundamental commercial deal, it has caused the CBC untold problems for a very long time--TV, of course. If you look at CBC radio as the alter ego of the CBC, you can say okay, there is a public service in a different medium that has zero advertising on it, and what is it doing? Is it able to reach people? If it doesn't have a huge audience, is that good or bad? Look at CBC radio and ask yourselves the questions you're now asking: is the public service able to fulfill these functions? And I think CBC radio proves it is. The problem with television is that you've built a system that requires $400 million in advertising revenue, and to wean it off that will be very difficult. That is quite a challenge, obviously.

It is important to give that the effort. At the very minimum, I think you people need to accept the fact that advertising is definitely warping the programming strategy of the CBC, and that this is not a good thing.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Is that an absolute, or is it simply that the reliance is too much?

[Kirwan Cox]

It's an absolute. To the degree that advertising on CBC could be reduced, you would get more and more of a public broadcaster.

There was a study done by a company called McKinsey about 20 years ago, and it looked at all the public broadcasters around the world. It looked at their advertising and their programming and found out that the public broadcasters that relied most on commercial revenue, whether that was advertising or some combination of things, were actually programming commercial programming the most and were not fulfilling their job as public broadcasters.

If you look here at TV Ontario, which has a very small budget, it is a public broadcaster. Look at children's programming. Look at TV Ontario and ask yourselves what they could do with another $60 million.

CBC has huge problems, because the advertising is warping much more than its actual value. It is the tail wagging the dog there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We have to move on to Mr. Kotto again, please.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I want to look more closely at advertising as we discuss funding.

In your view, what would be an acceptable level of time devoted to advertising for a public broadcaster, in this case, the CBC and SRC? We are aware of the CRTC's suggestion of an additional minute of advertising time. The proposal would allow up to 15 minutes of advertising between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m starting in 2008. In the meantime, we would be well-advised to look at the idea and analyze its impact.

[Kirwan Cox]

Maybe there should be a formula that says that for every minute of advertising that the CBC does not broadcast, Parliament will give them x number of dollars instead, or they'll have access to cable revenue or something of the sort.

Rather than saying that it should be zero--which I have to say might be unrealistic in the current environment--just simply put it on a sliding scale, but build in an incentive for them to reduce it and then see where it goes in terms of how far down it would go.

I do believe that the CBC, and any broadcaster, needs a certain amount of flexibility, because they're dealing with all kinds of contradictory forces. And you at this table can't really micromanage them, but you can create incentives to go in this direction or that direction.

But there is going to be a cost. Whatever the incentive is, there will be a cost.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Moss.

[Peter Moss]

Many people have sat around many tables, answering that very question.

The best we can come up with is to limit it to sports, and pull advertising out of news, pull advertising out of drama, and pull advertising out of arts and entertainment programming. And of course there is none in children's programming anyway.

Limit it to the big sports events--the Olympics that they get, and the hockey and the football they do--and use that as the basis of commercial funding that they need.

I don't know if this is true, as I'm a little out of touch in terms of years, but from memory, well over three-quarters of the revenue that seems to be generated came from sports anyway.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

That leads me to ask another question.

The fallback would be an allocation from Parliament, the government. If we go that way, are we not reinforcing the public broadcaster's dependence on politics? That could have a direct or indirect influence on program content, either through appointments to the board of directors and to the presidency or in other ways. I am playing the devil's advocate.

[Kirwan Cox]

Are you saying that without advertising there would be a possibility of political interference with news programming or something? Is that what you're saying?

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

As regards that fallback that you were talking about, the government's financial contribution would make up the gap caused, for example, by removing a minute of advertising. Is that not a way to strengthen the dependence of the public broadcaster on politics and its whims? Could the politicians then not want to come back and determine content and programming?

[Kirwan Cox]

That's the difference between a state broadcaster and a public broadcaster with an arm's-length relationship.

France used to have a state broadcaster, where the government and the broadcaster were working hand-in-hand. And Russia has it now. That's not what we're talking about in Canada. We're talking about a situation where presumably there is an arm's-length relationship, where there is a separate board, etc., etc.

Certainly there have been historic moments in Canada--and John Diefenbaker was involved in one--when the Prime Minister phoned up people in the CBC and said “I'm very upset with such-and-such a program”, and the CBC presidents worth their salt said “Go to hell”. That's probably why the CBC has been underfunded.

But we're talking about a public broadcaster with an arm's-length relationship and checks and balances to make sure.... You know, you do the news this way and you get money and you do the news some other way and you don't get money. But we have a tradition, I think, of public broadcasting, and hopefully every president of the CBC would have that attitude, at least the ones who talk about it. There are some who talk about it and some who don't, but that's another story. Some time when we're at a bar, I'll talk to you about it.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

But to guarantee that independence, represented by the person at the top, would it not be appropriate that it be Parliament and not the prime minister's office that appoints people to head the CBC?

[Kirwan Cox]

There obviously should be a board of directors, as there is, and the board of directors should appoint the president. I don't think the Prime Minister should do that. It would be one way of lengthening the arm.

If Parliament as a whole were to take responsibility, that would be nice. And if there were a period of time, such as five or seven years, of guaranteed funding so that it took CBC funding out of the cycle of electioneering, that would be a tremendous way of lengthening the arm. People wouldn't say, “You'd better do what I want, or next year you're not going to....”

Every time I look at This Hour has 22 Minutes and they say something nasty about someone--you know, a prime minister--I say, “Shit, the CBC is not getting an increase next year.” Or that's my feeling, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Make it very short, please.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Earlier I was talking about multiculturalism. You know my position on the subject now. I will not talk about cultural diversity or intercultural relations anymore. From your point of view, how do you see it represented in a public network? When I talk about diversity, I talk about human diversity in its entirety, and the diversity of gender. Society is made up of almost 52% women, but we do not see their achievements as much as those of men. We do not see their perceptions, their viewpoint. How do you see a public broadcaster accommodating that?

[Jennifer Dorner]

I am going to answer in English.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Fine.

[Jennifer Dorner]

For our members, we're noticing an increase in the number of media arts festivals and works being produced by culturally diverse groups. We would love to see a lot more of those works recorded and shown on CBC.

In preparing this brief, I looked at new media as a possible interesting area to look into. I realize that a lot of people are still watching television and listening to the radio, but looking at the various ways for short films and so on to be put online, for example, is something we would love to see happen. Definitely we see a strong role for the CBC in putting those works out among the public, especially for indigenous communities.

One of our regions is the National Indigenous Media Arts Coalition, and in that whole area there was a lot of discussion about how successfully the CBC is managing in that whole area. So another investigation might be necessary to look at that question, but absolutely, I think public funding is needed for that to happen.