Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Evidence of meeting #51 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
Evidence of meeting #51 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
I must say, just as one of your briefs said, that we could talk about this all day, I'm quite sure. And we are going to talk about it all day, but we have other people who want to make some presentations.
So thank you very much for your presentations.
We'll recess for a very short time until our next witnesses come forward.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you, and welcome back.
I'm going to ask people to try to keep your presentations as close to 10 minutes as you can. I ask our members around the table to keep their questions concise, and maybe the answers could be about the same, so that we don't get too far behind.
We have to leave shortly after 11:30. This group may not get quite the whole hour, but we'll be there.
We'll start off with the Directors Guild of Canada with the first presentation, please. It will be followed by the Canadian Media Directors Council and the Canadian Media Guild.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Pamela Brand National Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Directors Guild of Canada
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Pamela Brand. I'm the executive director and CEO of the Directors Guild of Canada.
With me today is Monique Lafontaine, who is the general counsel and director of regulatory affairs for the DGC.
We are very pleased to be here today to discuss the mandate of the CBC. It's a very important issue to Canadians across the country and indeed to our members.
Since its inception, the CBC has played a critical role in showcasing Canadian stories. It contributes to our shared consciousness and sets the stage for a national dialogue on matters that are relevant to Canadians. Many of our members have worked on and continue to work on productions broadcast on the CBC. These include Little Mosque on the Prairie, Intelligence, Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story, Da Vinci's Inquest, and many others. Without a doubt, the CBC is the leading cultural institution in our country.
Our remarks today touch upon the key recommendations set out in our written brief. We'll begin by discussing the critical role of the CBC in Canada's broadcast landscape.
The CBC is an essential part of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is the champion of Canadian content and provides an important window for Canadian programs in prime time. It is through the CBC's innovation that we've had the opportunity to see such high-quality Canadian programs as The Beachcombers, Da Vinci's Inquest, The Newsroom, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, the two Trudeau mini-series, Canada Russia '72, and Shania: A Life in Eight Albums, to name but a few. Several of these programs have had long runs on television and have been licensed for broadcast in many countries around the world.
Supporting the creation and broadcast of Canadian programs is a key part of the CBC's business plan. Nowhere else on the television dial is the support greater for Canadian programs. This was confirmed last month when the CRTC released its most recent financial information for private conventional broadcasters. Those numbers showed that the private broadcasters reduced their spending on Canadian drama programs by 25%, from $48 million a year to a paltry $36 million, yet they increased their spending on foreign content by $69 million, almost twice the amount of the total budget for Canadian drama.
Given this reality and given the economics of the Canadian television market, it is essential for the telling of Canadian stories on television that we have a strong public broadcasting service in our country. At a time of consolidation of media companies, the proliferation of broadcast services, and the launch of many new platforms, it is more important than ever for Canada to have a strong public broadcaster. This will allow Canadians to continue to have access to Canadian programming that speaks to them in the new television environment.
Monique Lafontaine is now going to speak about funding at the CBC.
9:50 a.m.
Monique Lafontaine General Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs, Directors Guild of Canada
Thank you, Pamela.
Good morning.
As you've surely heard many times during this proceeding, and indeed twice this morning already, the most significant issue facing the CBC is the level of funding it receives. The reason this keeps coming up is because it is indeed the critical issue for the CBC.
Over the past 12 years our public broadcaster has faced tremendous reductions to its budget. In the mid-1990s its government appropriation fell by close to $400 million. Although there have been some small increases, the budget has not recovered.
Currently the CBC receives about $930 million from the federal government. This does sound like a lot of money. However, when we consider the CBC's broad mandate, probably the broadest, the largest of any public broadcaster in the world, the extensive geographic area to be served--the CBC covers five and a half time zones--and the number of broadcasting services provided, ten radio or audio services, eight television networks delivered over various platforms in both English and French, and two full-service websites, when we consider all of that, it becomes clear that the level of funding is not enough.
Moreover, government funding to the CBC is quite small when compared to that of public broadcasters around the world. A recent study showed that Canada was very near the bottom of the list of the 18 countries, with the CBC at $33 per capita. Switzerland and Norway led the pack with $154 and $147, respectively. The BBC, one of the world's leading public broadcasters, receives about $124 per capita or has a budget of about $7 billion.
Note that the cost of producing one hour of high-quality Canadian programming in Canada is not any cheaper here than it is elsewhere--in Britain, for example. In order for the CBC to properly fulfill its mandate and to be a program leader, it is essential that it receive increased and stable funding from the federal government as soon as possible.
In recent years the decline in public funding has caused the CBC to rely more heavily on other sources of revenue, particularly advertising sales. In 2005-06, more than 50% of the revenues of the CBC's English language television network came from commercial sources. Mr. Rabinovitch himself has asked whether that service can call itself a public broadcaster when more than 50% of its revenues come from commercial sources.
The reliance on commercial revenue is having an inevitable impact on programs. CBC executives are seeking more popular content. They're also strongly considering ratings when making their decisions. While ratings are relevant to any broadcaster, they should not be the primary concern of a public broadcaster. The CBC should be focusing on developing a recognizable brand and engaging Canadians in a national dialogue. It should not be chasing ratings.
In order for the CBC to better fulfill its public service mandate and to focus more on innovative Canadian programming, it should move away from its reliance on commercial revenues. Of course, we say that this should only take place in a situation where their government appropriation is increased.
Turning now to the mandate, in the DGC's view, the CBC is meeting its public service mandate on many fronts. The radio services are top-notch in connecting with audiences, Radio-Canada's French language television network has successfully repositioned itself, and the public broadcaster has a strong Internet presence in both English and French. It is also venturing into new areas, such as podcasting and digital radio.
While the CBC is doing a valiant job of meeting its mandate given the resources that are available, there is room for improvement. In particular, the service that is having the most difficulty is the English language television service. The following are our recommendations for that service.
Number one is Canadian drama. The CBC should be supported in its plan to be a leader in broadcasting original Canadian drama. The public broadcaster has a significant obligation to support and acquire audacious, entertaining, and leading-edge Canadian dramatic programming.
Number two is alternative sources of funding. The CBC should continue to forge strategic alliances with other broadcasters to help support the creation and broadcast of Canadian programming, particularly drama.
The CBC should be required to broadcast 100% Canadian content in the prime viewing hours. Currently, that's at about 80%. The evening schedule is Canadian.
As for Canadian feature films, the CBC should be required to broadcast more new Canadian feature films in order to provide Canadians across the country with the opportunity to see the feature-length films that are made here.
Next is commitment to Canadian programs. In order for the CBC to be a content leader, it is essential that it be fully committed to the Canadian programs it airs. This can be achieved through promotion, cross-promotion, advertising, and scheduling.
9:55 a.m.
National Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Directors Guild of Canada
Another component of the CBC's mandate that we'd like to address is the regional reflection. As stated, the CBC has a very broad mandate. Most elements of the mandate are essential for the CBC and should be maintained. These include the cultural, bilingual, and multicultural components of the service. The CBC's mandate should, however, be limited to reflect available resources if there is no political will to increase public funding to the CBC. While this is a delicate issue, the DGC recommends that the standing committee review the regional component of the CBC's mandate. We respectfully request that you consider a new approach to defining service to the regions and make a recommendation to Parliament in that regard.
A final point that we'd like to make relates to new media. A new media presence is essential for the CBC--and indeed for all broadcasters--to continue to reach audiences and to ensure an important place in the new broadcast environment of the 21st century. As mentioned, the CBC has a strong new media presence, offering radio podcasts, mobile content, and online news. These offerings should be maintained and developed. To do this, adequate funding to the CBC must be provided.
Monique.
9:55 a.m.
General Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs, Directors Guild of Canada
In closing, we would like to reaffirm that the CBC is doing a very good job in reaching its mandate given the limited resources it has. More funding is, however, essential for Canada's public broadcaster to maintain and develop its leadership role in the creation of Canadian programming, particularly drama. This is the role for the CBC. No other broadcaster will do it.
Increased funding will allow the CBC to reduce its reliance on commercial revenues and focus more on providing content that speaks to Canadians. We urge this committee to recommend to Parliament that the level of funding to the CBC be increased. Without increased funding, the CBC's mandate should be limited to reflect the resources that are available. We encourage the standing committee to recommend to Parliament that it enunciate a new approach for the public broadcaster to reflect the regions.
We thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our comments, and we'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
We'll now go forward to the Canadian Media Guild and Ms. Lareau.
9:55 a.m.
Lise Lareau National President, Canadian Media Guild
It looks like it.
Oh, no, talk about timing.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Mr. Claassen, I knew you were here earlier. Welcome. Please keep your presentation as short as you can.
9:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Media Directors Council
I'm president of the Canadian Media Directors Council. As a point of reference for some of you who may not be aware, the Canadian Media Directors Council represents the bulk of the commercial purchasers of media time in Canada, which includes the purchase of television time from CBC and Radio-Canada. We represent 80% to 90% of all the purchases in Canada, which is roughly about $7 billion to $8 billion in media purchasing. I'm here today to represent the interests of the colleagues I work with in putting forward our point of view with respect to what we believe is the CBC's mandate.
I have about six or seven points, many of which are not inconsistent with statements I've briefly heard here. I'll be focusing on the television side of the equation, because radio is non-commercial. We don't really have an interest in that particular media, nor do we really have a role and a voice to add to that.
The Canadian Media Directors Council believes that a strong and healthy CBC TV is obviously of tremendous value to Canadian TV advertisers. In the context of what's happening today, with an increasing concentration and amalgamation of media owners in this country, ensuring there is a competitive environment in which there are many voices and opportunities is of tremendous value and interest to us as buyers. Therefore, a healthy CBC TV is something we wholeheartedly endorse.
We also believe that CBC TV represents a valued commercial outlet for advertisers, and it helps to contribute to an overall healthier commercial TV marketplace within Canada. If anything, I guess these comments reflect the notion that we clearly believe the advertising component--and I suppose the revenue portion of that--is certainly of importance to CBC TV, but it is important to us in terms of being an outlet in which to reach Canadians.
The CMDC strongly believes that CBC TV should emphasize the carriage and creation of quality programming of interest to a broad spectrum of Canadians. My colleague Pamela commented on the fact that TV revenues for CBC represent a substantial portion of its entire funding. As quality programming is ensured for CBC, its audiences will remain and potentially grow. There's an extremely direct correlation between audience growth or audience size and revenue. To give you an idea, if the average audiences for CBC TV rose by only 25%, that would add close to $100 million to the entire funding formula for the CBC. We strongly urge the creation and acquisition of quality programming, whether that is Canadian programming or other types of programming. We don't have a point of view there; it's the notion of quality programming that reaches a broad spectrum of Canadians.
The CMDC strongly believes that CBC TV should remain active in presenting top-rated sports programming in Canada. Canadians are extremely strong in many sports that are of somewhat minor interest to certainly our American counterparts. I think CBC has done a laudable job in representing that. Curling is one simple example. We believe CBC should maintain its position as a strong carrier of sports. Clearly that is of interest to Canadians, and it certainly reflects those sports in which Canada has a strong presence and standing.
CMDC strongly believes that CBC has the opportunity to reach unique audience segments, who may traditionally be very light TV viewers, with quality programming that is not readily available elsewhere in Canada. I'm probably supportive of the directors guild in stating that. There is programming that is uniquely Canadian and programming that is unique to the kinds of audiences that are attracted to CBC TV. Those audiences are of value to the advertisers in this country. We urge the CBC to continue to maintain initiatives in that programming arena.
The CMDC strongly believes that CBC TV should equally value the carriage and creation of top-rated programming. What we mean is that the value should be focused on quality programming and not necessarily exclusively focused on the source of that programming. Again, the source of that programming does not mean U.S. versus Canada. It means that it doesn't necessarily have to be produced by CBC. It could be produced by independent producers. It could be produced in other countries in the world perhaps. Basically, the focus should be on the quality of the programming in terms of equal value relative to where the source of that programming comes from.
Last but not least, and not perhaps surprisingly, the CMDC strongly believes in the continued commercial status of CBC TV.
And that's the end of mine.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much for that presentation.
Now we'll switch to Ms. Lareau.
10 a.m.
National President, Canadian Media Guild
Good morning.
I'm a TV producer in my other life at CBC, and I do know what a clock looks like, so I will keep my remarks to what your needs are too.
I'm Lise Lareau. I am national president of the Canadian Media Guild. I'm joined by Marc-Philippe Laurin, who is the president of our branch at the CBC, and by Benoit Cantin, who is the host of an Ontario regional radio program called L'Ontario aujourd'hui.
We are representing the front-line folks at CBC, the people who make the programming we're talking about, the people who sell ads, the people who support all that broadcasting--all the hosts, the producers, the stars, the non-stars, all of it.
You've heard a lot of good over the past few weeks and you've heard some bad things about our national public broadcaster. In the end, what we really hope you do--you four parties sitting together on a committee--is retain the idea that CBC is an important cultural institution that we all love, and agree among you, even on just a few things.
A lot of us at this table--I see a couple--are veterans of these hearing processes examining where the CBC is going. If I can ask you just to find a few things that you can all agree on and that survives minority politics, all of us who are at the CBC would be really grateful.
I trust you've read our brief, “A cry for help”. It gives you some idea of where we come from. Today we're concentrating on the recommendations and not the crying, because we want to focus on the positive and not the negative.
Despite the hard times our members have endured over the last few years, the overwhelming majority of us are excited to go to work every day to deliver news, to deliver analysis, laughs, tears, companionship, and food for thought to Canadians. They work to reach the diversity of Canadians, no matter where their audiences are, where they live, how old they are, or how they choose to connect to the CBC.
It's important to point out, as they say, that it's not your grandmother's CBC anymore. It's changed. Since the CBC was before you, the national radio ratings came out. In four urban markets, the morning radio show is number one. It says a lot.
The CBC is more urban than you'd think, and it's appealing to a younger age group than what you'd think. TV shows such as The Rick Mercer Report, The Hour, and Tout le monde en parle appeal to Canadians of all ages--and that's rare on TV and radio--who are interested in engaging in laughing about political, social, and cultural issues that are rocking our country.
Perhaps most importantly for the 21st century, this programming is increasingly connected to and often available solely on new media platforms. As I know the CBC reiterated to you earlier, cbc.ca has become one of the most popular Internet downloads available to Canadians.
The news services of CBC/Radio-Canada remain the most trusted sources of information. We know that. From the investigative reporting of the fifth estate, which just broke a lot of news lately about the lottery scandal in Ontario, and Zone Libre, to the day-to-day coverage provided by all its extensive radio and TV news teams, Canadians really rely on the CBC and Radio-Canada to inform them. It's become part of our fabric. And there's a lot of life in the place, no matter what it sometimes looks like.
At the same time, it should be noted that I would not be representing our members if I did not say that for many of us the CBC is not a livelihood. It really is a life's work and it's a calling. Their commitment comes through with virtually everything they do. And that's why, after all these years of financial uncertainty, debates, and various struggles, people in this country still support the CBC and they are scandalized when it's taken away from them.
What would solve some of the problems we've been dealing with and you've been hearing about? Well, for starters, a positive and long-term mandate from Parliament. You've heard it from many people. If we're not clear about what the CBC is doing, it's tough to function. So we echo the CBC and Radio-Canada in calling for a 10-year mandate that sets out Canadians' expectations from their public broadcaster. That's a really basic start.
Second, and equally basic, is increased and stable funding. You've heard about the Nordicity study from many who have come before you showing where the CBC ranks in the world in terms of funding. We know it's at the very bottom of the heap. New Zealand and another country are at the bottom. It doesn't matter really where we fall in the funding, based on per capita per year, considering who our closest neighbour is. The average is $80 per year for all industrialized countries. Now the CBC is at $33 per year per capita, as you've heard. We're recommending it be upped to $45 per capita, be phased in over the next 10 years, and be indexed to inflation, a key thing. The CBC and others have been before you and said it's fine to have one figure, but if that's not indexed to inflation, you're losing year over year.
I know you're tired of that, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't reiterate it.
If this committee or others come out with a proposal to replace some of that funding or to eliminate ads from the CBC, my friend here wouldn't be happy. I'll talk about that in a little while, but we would obviously have to look at $45 per capita. It probably wouldn't be enough in that context.
Why does the CBC need more money? It needs more money to reach Canadians wherever they are with radio, TV, and new media programming. You've heard the desperate calls for this, and we'll talk about it a bit later. In addition, if I could change one single thing at the CBC, it would have to be the governance structure that would allow it to be free from political interference and truly accountable to Canadians. We'll talk about that a bit later.
First, I'll throw it over to my colleague, Marc-Philippe Laurin.
10:10 a.m.
Marc-Philippe Laurin President, CBC Branch, Canadian Media Guild
Good morning. My name is Marc-Philippe Laurin, and I am President of the CBC branch of the Canadian Media Guild. I represent employees at the CBC outside the province of Quebec. In my daily work, I am a technician and associate producer for local CBC radio in Ottawa.
I would like to talk a little about what is happening to the infrastructure of our public broadcaster. The guild is very concerned about the fact that the CBC clearly does not have the financial resources to protect its cultural and technological assets, which enable it to provide programming on all its platforms to reach all Canadians, including minority language groups in every region.
CBC/Radio-Canada's infrastructure, we believe, is in decline. This is of some concern to us. Many of the decisions faced by the CBC today to change some major parts of its infrastructure are, we believe, in part because it cannot defend the expense when so much of its programming is now bought from independent producers. I want to be clear here. While we certainly support the role that independent producers play in providing Canadian content, we also believe that CBC and Radio-Canada must continue to be able to produce original programming that cannot be found anywhere else on the dial.
As you know, CBC/Radio-Canada is also proposing to greatly reduce its provision of free television over the air with the transition to digital. This is due to the fact that the CBC again does not have the resources to upgrade all its existing TV transmitters. We know you've heard about this already, and we share the concerns of smaller centres, such as Kamloops, B.C., which is losing free access to their public broadcaster over the airwaves. We think that is just wrong. This not only disenfranchises Canadians in small towns and in rural areas, but it would also fundamentally change the public broadcaster's role to one of a specialty service sandwiched within a 200-channel universe, as opposed to being one of a broadly accessible public service.
The public broadcaster's leaders have stated this is a public policy question, and we entirely agree with them. Even in Germany, where only about 5% of the population picks up TV signals over the air, the public broadcasters were required to fully replace analog transmission with digital without losing a single viewer. It was a matter of public policy for them, and we believe it should be one for Canada also. That's why we are urging Parliament to provide one-time financing to CBC/Radio-Canada to allow for the upgrade of its existing transmission infrastructure from analog to digital.
The public broadcaster must continue to provide broad access to CBC/Radio-Canada programs over the airwaves to all Canadians in all parts of Canada, to every single viewer.
I would like to pass along the microphone to my friend, Benoit.
10:15 a.m.
Benoit Cantin Member, Canadian Media Guild
Good morning, my name is Benoit Cantin. I have been a journalist and host at Radio-Canada for seven or eight years now. Thanks to the corporation and my work, I have had the opportunity to spend time in many parts of Canada. I have worked in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. My assignments have taken me to many places, including Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Whitehorse.
Radio-Canada is extremely important for francophones! Owing to the quality and variety of the programming it offers throughout Canada, it is an exceptional broadcaster. Wherever you are in Canada, the programming has a local flavour. For example, you can listen to the morning radio show in French in Moncton, discover the social issues affecting Albertans simply by watching Le Téléjournal in that province and savour the charming Franco-Manitoban accent on CKSB.
What is striking when you visit the various regions in Canada is not only that you find francophones there, but that they defend their language and culture staunchly and vivaciously. Whether they are many or few, whether they are concentrated in one place or scattered over a large area, these francophones grow up, go to school and live in French.
Much of the credit for what I would call this amazing achievement goes to Radio-Canada, which has been playing a crucial role in support of these communities for the past 50 years. It brings people together, but it also acts as a catalyst for the French language. The public broadcaster must maintain and even strengthen its presence in Canada's regions, which make Canada's francophone colourful. Radio-Canada is a tremendous boon to francophones who in turn respond by being a faithful audience of radio and television programming.
I can give you an example. Just two years ago or so, when the Radio-Canada British Columbia signal began to be transmitted to Whitehorse, Yukon, francophones there kept telling us how happy they were. They told me that they were finally going to be able to see other francophones. So there is a very special connection between francophones in minority communities and Radio-Canada.
The concerns of francophones in Toronto are not necessarily the same as those of francophones in Victoria. And francophones in Sudbury and Regina do not experience the same things. This regional diversity must be reflected in the radio and TV programming provided by Radio-Canada. That is what gives its richness, its strength and its raison d'être.
In short, Radio-Canada must maintain its presence in the regions, and this presence is more important than ever today when we have so many channels, satellite radio, the Internet, etc. Radio-Canada is like a lighthouse in an anglophone sea for francophones.
Thank you.
10:15 a.m.
National President, Canadian Media Guild
You've probably heard in the last few weeks all about the technological advances--the Internet, new media--and certain people are arguing that we need less. There's just more diversity out there. In my view, there's a misconception that there's more information available to everyone. I would argue there is a whole lot of opinion, interaction, blogs--no question about it--but it's actually gotten to be more difficult to get news and stories about what's going on in our local communities. You ask any newsmaker across the country. It's harder to get local news now than it ever has been. Probably mostly it's because of consolidation. Probably a whole other group of people should study that. But local news is in trouble. It's not being done anymore. It's not being done in the big markets, the little markets, and the ones in between. This is one of the reasons this committee, I think earlier, urged the CBC to develop a plan to reinvigorate its local and regional services.
Well, the good news is that CBC has now begun doing just that. It's increasing its local TV news programming, going from half an hour to an hour, and adding regional lifestyle programs to the TV schedule. It's a great move. We applaud it, because as journalists and consumers of Canadian news, we've witnessed firsthand this decline in local programming. But it's being done without any new money, and it's being done on a hop, skip, and a prayer. Our people are working hard at these programs, but there is no new money for them, and there will be glitches, and it won't be what it could be if it were funded properly. So that's another reason, again, to look at increased funding.
I know that Bev Oda, in a speech she gave here in Toronto in the winter, about eight weeks ago, mentioned the need for local programming and the lack and deterioration of local programming over the last five or six years.
So as the CBC moves to fund this local initiative, what it means is that it must either cut from other important areas and/or focus on more commercial priorities in prime time. We don't like either of those things. You heard from the group earlier this morning about how the CBC has moved away from literary programming, as an example. I know you were engaged with the...I don't know the name of the organization. I believe this is a direct result of a broadcaster that recently has been compelled to program for advertising revenue, and it can no longer do the things it should as a public broadcaster.
So we urge that you not only recommend the increase I spoke of earlier—the appropriation to $45 per year per Canadian—but that you also dedicate some of that new funding to the provision of local news and programming, and you make that specific.
As I mentioned earlier, please pay attention to the many calls you've heard from other groups, not just us, for a change to the governance model at the CBC. Look, governance is not sexy and no one likes to spend a lot of time on it, okay? I get it. But we live with it every day, and it needs to be changed. As I said earlier, after 10 years of doing my job, I can say we have to come up with a new model for governance at the CBC. Please, if you do one thing as a coordinated group, it would be highly appreciated.
Do you know that now the president and CEO of CBC serve at the pleasure of the PMO? Therefore, it's not entirely clear where the buck stops within the CBC. Governments of the day are understandably reluctant to interfere in CBC management, and we don't want them to, but when the president serves at the pleasure of the government, it's a very grey area. It's certainly not the best framework for good decision-making, no matter who serves in the job. So the board of the CBC needs to be able to hire and fire the president. That's a basic in governance.
Where should the members of the board come from? We recommend that the board be appointed by an all-party parliamentary committee, either yours or another one, based on a set series of qualifications. I know others who have been before you have recommended that the appointments could continue to be orders in council and then confirmed by Parliament. There are a few variations of this model. In the end, what's important is that whatever method you recommend, it has to be open and transparent. As others have said, there must be a separate chair and president.
These are recommendations, because the CBC will only be better if it has true independence from the government, if it's perceived to be independent from the government, and if it operates in such a way that people are accountable for their decisions.
10:20 a.m.
President, CBC Branch, Canadian Media Guild
I see Mr. Schellenberger looking at me, but this is the last couple of paragraphs.
In closing, we would like to reiterate the three key messages in our presentation.
The first message is that CBC/Radio-Canada provides an important public service, and it must be strengthened in the rapidly changing digital age of the 21st century. Parliament must increase its allocation to the public broadcaster from the current $33 per Canadian to $45 per Canadian per year over the next 10 years. This would bring Canada closer to the average among industrialized countries when it comes to the funding of such an important service to its population.
Finally, Parliament should provide the public broadcaster with a 10-year mandate. This new mandate would respect the values and needs of Canadians across the country. There must be a strong commitment to support local and regional programming. And lastly, before the 10-year mark is reached, the mandate should be reviewed via, again, a public process such as this one and by Parliament.
That concludes our presentation. On behalf of Lise Lareau and Benoit Cantin, I would like to sincerely thank you for having given us this opportunity to add our voices to this important debate. We are open to your questions and will be pleased to answer them.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
We have one round at five minutes each, and I'm going to be strict.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
I want to ask about your recommendation on the governance structure. We've heard that numerous times. You have suggestions and other presentations have their suggestions on what the governance structures should be. Could you talk about why you're so desperately seeking a new governance structure? What do you think have been the impacts of the governance structure as it is?
April 20th, 2007 / 10:25 a.m.
National President, Canadian Media Guild
Where do I begin?
I don't want to be negative about the people serving in the positions. With that in mind, I would say the lockout was probably the best example, the most black and white example. To this day, it was never clear who was going to end that lockout. Was it Canadians? Was it the PMO directing the president?
The PMO at the time told us, “You know what, we can't direct the president. He serves at pleasure and we don't want to interfere in the CBC's business.” So the government doesn't want to interfere in the CBC's business, but the government appoints the president. You get where I'm going here: nobody could end that lockout.
I'm not going to do the history lesson, but it ended in a combination of political will on the part of the government of the day and of Canadians being tough and saying, “End this thing.” But there was no one person who ended this thing. That was a good example.
There are others, in key policy decisions, where the board has not been sufficiently informed, primarily because many of them are appointments. They're not necessarily there because of their broadcasting experience. We've heard and we know the deliberations of how often some very key policy decisions do not get debated at length.
I would say the people inside would treasure a governance change. With the fact that the president now again is the chair—because there has been no chair—don't forget, that was the very situation we were in just before the lockout. The president and the chair were the same person, because Carole Taylor had just stepped down. When that happens, there is a convergence of interests. The chair of the board must keep the public interests in mind. When that chair is the same guy who heads the management team, we have a convergence of powers and interests in one person, and that's highly negative.
I'd be pleased to talk about it elsewhere. There are many more examples. I don't want to dwell on the individuals either. It's not an individual problem. The president of the day could be the best person known to mankind and these problems would still persist.