Canadian Heritage Committee on May 29th, 2008

[Bramwell Tovey]

Dr. Fry, I see you every Christmas Eve, and I've been waiting for my chance. I'll take it now!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Actually, I wanted to thank you for coming.

I think, Bram, that you have probably explained better than anyone else I've heard the difference between using the CBC Radio Orchestra and other regional symphony orchestras for guest performances. I hadn't heard that explanation; I think it's a very good one.

I am hearing from most of you the idea that we should look at the CBC Radio Orchestra as an infrastructure piece and not a programming piece. I also note that Bob D'Eith mentioned the fact that it could find ways of funding itself through film production, etc.

Do you believe, then, that if we looked at the CBC Radio Orchestra as an infrastructure piece and as being able to make itself financially stable, it could fund itself along the way? And do you see it as a distribution arm for Canadian music down the road in its production capacity? That's the first question.

The second question, actually, is about something that Mr. Sunter talked about. In our review of the CBC, we suggested that as we increase their funding, we would actually look at writing a new memorandum of understanding. Do you believe this memorandum of understanding could therefore seek to provide greater accountability for the CBC through asking them, every time they want to make substantive changes, to have public consultation?

[Bramwell Tovey]

If I may, Dr. Fry, I think that last point is absolutely crucial. There must be some public consultation.

There was internal dialogue. There were management consultants brought in. I was actually consulted privately by these management consultants about the state of the network—not about the changes, but about the state of the network—before the changes were announced. But I was as astonished as anyone when the changes were brought about.

I don't think anybody in this room denigrates for one moment different genres of music. There are many different types of music. All kinds of music need to be played on our airwaves. I think there are difficulties with the fact that everything is trying to cram itself onto Radio 2, and what we desperately need, I think, is the opportunity to have dialogue.

Political interference is a bad thing for the CBC, no question about it. I don't think anybody here thinks it's a good idea at all. However, I'm a member of the public, and it's my democratic right to say what I damn well please to CBC, and they must listen to it. But they have no format to do so; and that I think is the cornerstone of what many of us feel is....

I'll let somebody else address the question of the CBC orchestra.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

While you were deciding amongst yourselves who would speak to this, there was another question that Bram touched on, and that was the idea of converting analog to digital. The CBC said they couldn't bring in another radio station because there was insufficient bandwidth left for them to go on an FM band to produce a second station.

Could converting from analog to digital allow them other ways of getting that distribution going and of getting that out there, as opposed to just using the old bandwidth? Or am I asking a stupid question?

[Bramwell Tovey]

I'm not sure that anyone in this room feels they have the expertise to answer such a question. But might I raise one particular red flag here, and then perhaps dive under the table for cover?

At the moment, we have Radio-Canada playing on our airwaves, which is a wonderful thing. It came on about six or seven years ago. However, there is often a duplication of style of music between Radio-Canada and CBC Radio 2.

Would it be beyond the realm of your committee to suggest at some particular point that perhaps they might even talk to each other to ensure that the listening public does have the alternative? Those of us who actually speak both languages can flip back and forth, and even people who can't, can enjoy the music on Radio-Canada. At the moment, we have unnecessary duplication all over the place.

[Bob D'Eith]

My only comment on digital versus analog is public access. When you say “digital”, are you talking about Sirius, about satellite radio, or are you talking about digital cable? Right now, the number of people in the country who have access to digital cable and digital radio is nowhere near as high as access to FM radio. So it may be a partial solution, but I certainly don't think it's a total solution.

[Gene Ramsbottom]

Maybe I can add to that about digital and analog.

Part of my preparation for this was to discuss with a technology expert that very issue. I had to omit it from my brief because it was far too long in the 10 pages. However, the idea came up, why not divide the country in half? Arbitrarily, anything south of Winnipeg gets converted to digital.

The CBC is faced with an international effort to convert to digital by a certain year. The United States, by February 2009, has to do that and will do that. The CRTC has set a soft deadline of August 27, 2011.

Again, Bob D'Eith's point is that not everybody will be in a position to receive that digital. The digital transition must and will happen. The only arbitrariness is about the date.

The unique problem Canada faces is this extraordinary geography that no other country has—except Russia, probably. The transition to digital in the northern areas will have to take longer.

I submit to you that you might want to consider putting together a plan that calls for a hybrid system of analog and digital. I know your report covers it and suggests to that end and the expense thereof. Any switch of technology is a costly transition, whether it's coal gas to electricity, and so on. Society has undergone many technology changes and will continue to do so, and we must help the CBC in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Richard, be quick, please, if you could.

[Dr. Richard Kurth]

I have one quick point about Dr. Fry's question about the economic viability of the CBC Radio Orchestra. I think you've received a brief from Laurie Townsend. She's not speaking to this committee here, but her brief includes an analysis of why the CBC Radio Orchestra was very efficient economically as a way of producing the kind of music that it did. It's the cheapest way to do that. It may not be profitable, but it's certainly more efficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We move now to Mr. Malo, please.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Ah! That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought we were starting with the other side.

I would just like to hear what you have to say about a minor issue. We have been told that classical music will be given more space on Internet. Will that compensate a little bit the changes made to Radio 2?

I also have a question of clarification for M. Ramsbottom. When you talked about the change that you wish to be made to the radio orchestra, I was wondering if you were speaking about creating an independent CBC radio orchestra?

[Gene Ramsbottom]

Working backwards on your questions, no, the independence is as a subsidiary, as a division within CBC. I mentioned that it is within the power of President Lacroix to recommend to the board to create a corporate division within CBC, given its own governance, a special funding stream, perhaps with the assistance of Heritage Canada. But let it no longer be a radio program, which is what you're wrestling with under subsection 46(5). We've had a seven-year audition period. It is time to move on to a more institutionalized approach to that orchestra.

As for the digital part, fine. Any more evidence for digital is fine, except that Mr. Stursberg's own testimony on May 1 illustrated that 12% of listenership listens to digital sources, whereas the Auditor General's report illustrates that CBC Radio covers 99%. So what they're proposing is a shell game. Yes, we will have more classical music on a digital format, but that means 89% of the country will no longer be able to hear it, because only 12% are listening to the digital format right now.

[Bramwell Tovey]

Speaking to the first part of your question about classical music being on the Internet, I don't know about you, but I don't have the Internet in my car. When I pick my kids up from school, I don't have my laptop going. When I'm going for a drive out in the country with my children, I don't have my laptop with me.

The Internet is separate, and it's really very much in its infancy. We're talking about family listening within a kitchen or within a dining room area. We're talking about driving in the car, which is where the vast majority of people hear classical music on CBC. Listening on the Internet is a wonderful thing if you want to catch up on programs or if you want to hear some of the new podcasts, but I think broadcasting on the FM network so that people can actually get it in their daily lives is at the crux of what we're feeling about the loss of classical music on Radio 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead, sir.

[Bob D'Eith]

I just wanted to say that we probably wouldn't have taken the position in regard to broadening CBC Radio 2 if Radio 3, which is an Internet-based radio station, actually had some reach. If what's in Radio 3 could be actually broadcast to the public, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because Radio 2 could continue to do exactly what it's doing. That's the problem.

I agree with what everyone is saying; it's trying to do too many things for too many people. But if we turn it on its head, we already have Radio 3, and it's great--don't get me wrong, I love Radio 3--but it doesn't have the same impact as FM radio at this point. It's not even close.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead, sir.

[Robert Sunter]

With rare exceptions, the quality of sound from the average computer is not suitable for classical music.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We now turn to Mr. Fast, please.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for taking up our offer to speak to us today.

I must confess my own bias. My own family, as well as my four daughters, have all been raised and weaned on classical music. Two of my daughters have graduated with piano and violin performance degrees from university. The girls have also been weaned on people like Jurgen Goth, Eric Friesen, and Howard Dyck, who bring a Canadian perspective and flavour to the music we hear.

I'm concerned. I think you're finding lots of sympathy for your position, at least the six of you who are very upset about what's happened with the classical music programming and with the CBC orchestra.

That having been said, I want to return to the issue that's perhaps the most problematic and is the elephant in the room: the fact that probably the best this committee can do is provide a report with very strong recommendations to the CBC. The minister and our government are likely in a similar situation. We cannot compel CBC to act in a certain manner. They have that programming independence.

Let me throw this out to you. Let's assume we come out with a report that makes very strong recommendations--and that looks more and more likely to be case--and CBC says, “You know, thank you for that report, but we know better. We've done the research and we've done the statistics; we have a plan, and we're going to implement that plan.” Where do we go from there?

There was a suggestion from Mr. Abbott. Are you willing to actually make statutory changes to allow for more intervention on the part of government and/or this committee? I think your general feeling was that we don't want to go down that road.

Are you suggesting that the current board be fired? If not, other than some of the structural and governance changes suggested by one of you, where do we go from there?

I'll throw that open to one or two of you to comment.

[Jane Whiteley]

I think one real question here is, who is running the show at CBC? I don't think anybody at the table wants direct government interference in terms of programming--that does seem like a bad idea--but who's been appointed and is attempting to run the CBC in that fashion? Those people have accountability to somebody.

Mr. Tovey is suggesting, rationally, that perhaps we--the shareholders, the people who listen to the music--are the people to whom they have some accountability. Surely those people have some obligation to listen to what is occurring here. They're not running a little dictatorship, or ought not to be.

[Bramwell Tovey]

Might I echo that point?

At the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, we're federally funded--very well, as a matter of fact--through Canada Council, the B.C. Arts Council, and the City of Vancouver. There's no direct censorship on the kind of programming we do, but there is certainly a great deal of pressure brought to bear on us, particularly by Canada Council. On the other hand, there is the constant obligation for dialogue to justify the spending of public money by these three levels of government.

There seems to be a profound--and I use the word advisedly--lack of accountability at the CBC. These mandarins are, let's face it, all nice bureaucrats with fat pensions, unlike the freelance musicians they rely on for the broadcasts. These people seem to have no accountability--not to the taxpayer and certainly not to the Canadian government. Yes, they should be free of influence, but where is the accountability?

At the present time, with this self-confessed hit for listeners between the ages of 35 and 50, as I've already said in my statement, we have not seen any kind of presentation by the CBC that embraces the over 100,000 children across the country who learn musical instruments and who count as children. There are probably over a quarter of a million, maybe even over half a million, who sing in choirs across the country; there is no programming for them. There is no programming for young people. Education of young people is out the window. There is no accountability. There's no pressure on them to have to respond to such a request.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Bramwell, if I could just interrupt for a second, because my time is short, what you're saying might be true. You referred to accountability, but the reality is that the time is short. It is critically short, especially with respect to the CBC Radio Orchestra, and also with the programming. Once you cut some of this programming—and I understand that some of it is already being cut—it is much more difficult to re-attract those listeners.

Let's assume it is an issue of accountability. But it's not a quick fix. If we're talking about governance, that takes time; it takes statutory changes perhaps. The same thing is true for any other kind of intervention the government might want to take.

So I am looking for some other suggestions, perhaps, because you are right that our hands might be tied as a committee, and our government's hands might be tied, without taking some very dramatic steps to turn this around.

[Dr. William Bruneau]

You asked whether or not you should fire the lot at the board. It seems to me that's an attractive proposition, I must say.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!