If you look at the BBC, in a sense it is a model because there is no advertising. But I didn't say there shouldn't be any advertising at all.
Everybody in Canada has something to say about the CBC and Radio-Canada, so other people might be as competent as I am on those matters, but making cuts in the eighties and nineties instead of trying to manage with less money was the wrong decision by the CBC.
I will continue in French because this is a very sensitive issue. I would not want to translate my own comments and do a bad job of it. I trust the interpreters to accurately do that.
At the time, CBC/Radio-Canada had a decision to make: work with a smaller budget or increase advertising to maintain a similar budget. In the 1980s, advertising's share in the total budget grew. I believe 20% is not enough to have an effect on programming. However, when 30%, 35% or 40% of the budget depends on advertising, things change. The greater the share of advertising revenue, the greater the spirit of competition. You want to draw viewers in, who in turn draw advertisers in, and public television increasingly starts resembling private television.
Since 1991 it has been clearly stated in legislation that the issues and solutions are not the same for English-language television and French-language television. CBC's ratings are so low that some may feel, at some point, that it is a marginal network.
I sent you a document, but I do not know if you have it. In fact, I sent two versions of this text, because the first version was incomplete. Second version which includes a quote, is better.
I will quote from two European authors, who say the following:
If public service broadcasting tries to compete more directly with its commercial rivals, it risks losing its niche. That is the problem with the French network.
Radio-Canada television is directly competing with private television. In may cases, TVA and Radio-Canada are identical when it comes to news. My apologies to the ombudsman. That is the problem with the French network. What I will now read describes the situation on the English side:
If it fails to go for a broader audience it risks losing its relevance to the general public.
The problems are not the same on the English and the French sides. CBC's share fluctuates around 5%. Radio-Canada's share remains at 13% or 14%. I believe the French network is nostalgic about the days when its viewership stood at 20% or 25%. It misses those days, which will never come again. This nostalgia, compounded by competition with private broadcasters for advertising revenue, explains why the French network is so different.
I could give you many other examples. As I stated, I have been looking at these issues for 20 years. I've always tried to look at the framework within which the public broadcaster should evolve and I've tried to make suggestions for the improvement of this framework, not to improve programming. I think the same should apply to legislators. I would find it regrettable for legislators to want to program Radio-Canada. It makes no sense.
Legislators must ensure that those who create programs are working within the best possible framework to express themselves. Legislators should define the framework. It is then up to those who design programs, and not legislators or analysts like myself to make these programs. If they can't manage that, they should be fired and someone else should be hired, but we should not be trying to do the job in their place.
One of the problems for Radio-Canada, in fact, is that there are too many cooks. There are too many people trying to find the perfect recipe for Radio-Canada. Let's give these people a framework and let them find their recipe.