Canadian Heritage Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, it's not correct to say that radio is being fragmented by new digital media. That's clearly not borne out by the facts. That may be the case for television or other communications media, but it's clearly not the case for radio.

A Statistics Canada survey last August, based on 2005 and 2006 numbers, showed that in fact the audience for commercial radio was growing--and growing far faster than the economy at large. The report noted that ad revenue for commercial broadcasters increased by 8.7% in 2005, and by 5.3% in 2006--far faster than the growth in the Canadian economy in general. Ad revenue for commercial broadcasters is the single most important indicator of audience share. So it's not the case that iPods and other forms of new digital media are hemorrhaging radio audiences in this country.

Second, I think the key issue here is that CBC management has decided to reduce the amount of airtime given to classical music in order to free up that airtime for other genres of music. If that approach would result in a much greater audience and market share for Radio 2, one could argue it's worth the risk. However, I see it as a bit of a half measure. You would end up with a radio station that wasn't focused on one particular audience or another, because I think the audiences for classical music and the audiences for alternative or other genres are quite different. So you'd end up with a brand that wasn't clear.

My worry is that we would end up with the same dismal audience numbers for classical radio that we presently have--around 3% to 4%. These are not very good audience share numbers. I think you could focus a radio station exclusively on classical and get far higher audience share numbers through programming changes.

CBC Radio One's Metro Morning program, for example, in the GTA, has illustrated that you don't actually have to change the content of the station in order to gain market share. You can fiddle with the format and the way the subject is presented to increase market share.

Management has decided to go with this mixed genre for Radio 2, and if we can be assured it will reach an 8%, 9%, or 10% market share, then I'd say great; it's worth the risk. But my worry is that we're not going to do that.

Here we are as a committee once again looking at the CBC and trying to figure out how we can improve it. I look overseas. A couple of weeks ago I read an article in the Financial Times of London, and I could only shake my head and wonder why we can't get it right. I noted that BBC radio has an over 50% market share. In contrast, Radio One and Radio 2 in Canada have a 10%, 13%, 14% market share. It just pales in comparison.

In the long term, if we can't get radio right and rise above a 10% market share, when the new onslaught of various digital media really starts coming into play we won't be able to get it right for that either. I think getting radio right and getting audience shares increased on radio are critical to being successful when other forms of digital media really start to take hold.

So I just put those out as comments more than anything else, because I've heard all the comments from the various witnesses.

I think there are rays of hope within the corporation. The CBC has done a fantastic job with Radio One, especially in large markets like Calgary and Toronto. It's a relevant radio station. In fact, it has the largest market share of any morning program in the GTA, and I think that's an indication we can do it right if we put our heads together and we put in place the right mix of programming and formats.

Those are the comments I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I didn't really hear a question out of those. I heard comments.

So I'm going to move to Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I've been here too long as a member of Parliament, clearly, because when I first was elected one of the first things I remember doing was raising money for a public school student to go away to school to study music. That was Measha Brueggergosman, who now I'm having thrown back at me as a national icon. She was a public school student, and the community of Fredericton was doing that around her activity.

An analogy here could be that we have these wonderful new drugs or interventions or tests in medicine that are not covered by medicare because we're strapped financially. Imagine somebody coming here and saying that what we should do is introduce this other new drug, and the way to do that, of course, would be to throw out the other ones that are currently being covered. The debate that would probably cause us to be involved in, forcing us to make choices between things that, frankly, we'd rather not make choices about, seems a wrong-headed way to celebrate new, wonderful things.

I think it's about timing. There's been a lot of reference to the fact that if there were more funding available, or perhaps we should recommend.... We have. I would commend to everybody that as a committee we table a report, which in some ways, if it were acted upon quickly, could make the debate redundant, because at the end of the day it could make resources available for another stream.

If there's any magic in what's happening at the BBC.... Look at the numbers, look at the resources that are going into the BBC on a per capita investment basis compared to what's happening here. I think we should see the opportunities, and not at the expense of the committed audience that has sustained the CBC to this point.

I think we should call the CBC, as part of this exercise, and ask them to explain to us some of the things they explained before, when we were less informed and had not yet had the benefit of your testimony.

What would you as a panel want us to recommend to them? I'd like you to think about all of the things that you would like the CBC to accomplish, thinking about the other members of the panel, rather than maybe the more narrow position that you felt compelled to put when you made your earlier interventions. What would you want us to recommend to the CBC when they come?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That's a general question. Do we have someone to take it on first?

Mr. McGillivray.

[Peter McGillivray]

We're all talking about the new technologies that are going to be coming in. I think the CBC has been studying how it's going to respond to all these new technologies, how it disseminates the content that it wants to provide, and what it wants to reflect of what's going on in this country.

I think this committee and the government and all parties in the government are going to have to have a big say in defining what exactly the CBC is supposed to be. That mandate, which was created 70 years ago in the 1930s when radio was just becoming a technology worth disseminating and regulating, is going to have to change. So I think there's going to be a big study in the next few years about what the future of the CBC and of new media is going to be, and I think there has to be space for all of us in that mosaic.

Obviously, more funding is going to help the CBC make the decisions that we all find more agreeable, but as Mr. Chong was saying, there's a growing audience for radio, and I think we have to take that seriously and not.... The reason we're all here and we're all fighting over these scraps being handed to us is that we know radio is important. It has a captive audience, and we all want a share of that audience. When we talk about new media, we're talking about competing against a global society. We're competing against content from the BBC, Radio France, and Deutsche Welle. We're competing against all these kinds of things.

I'll leave it at that and let somebody more articulate take over.

[Dominic Lloyd]

I would add that it would be important in the preparation for new technologies not to abandon the public airwaves they're still using. We need to make sure that they find a place for everybody on the airwaves.

It was mentioned earlier about the BBC's market share. There are four BBC radio stations, and there are only two on the air here. So if we could increase the number of...did you call them terrestrial—

[Katherine Carleton]

Terrestrial radio. It's a weird way to talk about the airwaves.

[Dominic Lloyd]

That is an important thing. It's not just about embracing new technology or looking for a younger demographic. I see a great age range in this room, all of whom are passionately committed to the CBC, and it's been a part of my life all my life. They need to keep that in mind as they move into the future.

[Katherine Carleton]

I want to speak to what I see as the value of the CBC's role as curator of the very best. Whether it's two streams on terrestrial radio or five, still and all, we've grown to count on the CBC to choose the best from a range of musical genres. Whatever genre it might be, that's been our dependence.

I'm going back to Mr. Chong's comment earlier. I'd say simply that the prospect of having a bit of a neck-snapping experience of listening to the new Radio 2 is a real one as we go from one genre-specific program to another. I think there are real challenges in trying to do what they are proposing for this schedule in September, and that we need to look at diversifying the number of streams they are working on. I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

We have gotten into a broad discussion about the CBC, and that is valid. Canadians are rightly interested in their public broadcaster. As Canadians, we all contribute to it, about $33 a head, as a matter of fact, so we all have a stake in the CBC.

That said, I'm just curious. What we've been talking about a lot and what the study is about is the CBC Radio Orchestra. Mr. Siksay has put forward a number of times that it's a national institution based in Vancouver. There aren't a lot of them there, and the concern is about what is to become of the CBC Radio Orchestra. I have been listening to all the comments, and I have some concerns.

I'll tell you openly that I fit into the 90% bracket Mr. Chong mentioned that doesn't listen to the CBC radio station regularly. I'm quite fond of and regularly attend concerts of classical music and other genres. It hasn't been a motivator for me, and it hasn't prevented me from getting there.

I'd like to put this forward for anyone. How would you classify the loss of the CBC Radio Orchestra? What is it going to mean to artists in Canada? Second, if there is a loss there, where is the opportunity? Who gains by it is the other thing. I've heard a bit of both. I've heard that this is a major loss, but I've also heard that in this loss there's an opportunity.

Sometimes from a business side you evaluate a product and you find that it's in decline. Then you decide either to invest in it and build it back up or to drop it and move on to a new product. It seems CBC made the decision to drop this and move on to a new product.

I would ask you, what are we losing in this institution? Second, who is the beneficiary? Is that a fair trade-off? I don't like it that artists are being pitted against artists, but it seems that the CBC has made this choice.

[Katherine Carleton]

I'm sitting here with the terrifying realization that my light went on, so I'll take the opportunity to speak first on this one.

There are a couple of things that I understand about the demise of the radio orchestra: that the talent budget that was going into musicians' pockets in the Vancouver area has been around $400,000 a year in recent years, which I understand is a decline from historic levels; and that the radio orchestra, like the other radio orchestras that CBC established over time, of which the Vancouver group is the final example, were very active. They needed to be active because there was not a professional orchestral community across the country that was of a calibre, reliably, to be on the airwaves.

At the same time, the radio orchestra essentially acts as a research and development wing. New Canadian works and unusual repertoire that orchestras who are somewhat more exposed to market forces don't dare put on the stage, the radio orchestra has been able to. And it has done it very well. It's a really good orchestra. I would not be doing anyone justice to say “An orchestra is dying. What a good thing.” I'm not going to say that.

In terms of who potentially benefits from that $400,000 being redirected, based on the conversations we've had with CBC personnel, it does not look as though the rest of the Canadian orchestral community is going to benefit. Although we have some assurance that the approximately $700,000 a year that's spent on orchestral broadcasts and recordings, net of the radio orchestra investment, will remain in the coming year, there's absolutely no commitment in the years beyond. The $400,000 has been reinvested into programming.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

So it's not your understanding that this money would then be redistributed across the country.

[Katherine Carleton]

Not to other Canadian orchestras, but it will go into other aspects of programming. Noting that the CBC commitment to hiring professional musicians is diminishing, that money may in fact have evaporated.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

So it's a loss of an economy in some ways, then.

[Katherine Carleton]

I would point particularly to what's going on in Vancouver, where there are a number of musicians who will not have that work any more. As far as I can tell, that is money that has permanently left the Vancouver musical economy. I can't say that's a good thing either.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Right.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Andrews.

[Derek Andrews]

I will try to explain the change, so to speak, because I think you've gone to the place in the question that is very important.

As a representative of the communities that are beneficiaries of that change, I think it's difficult for those of us outside the close proximity of the situation of the orchestra. I'm sure the musicians in that community are really feeling the pain, but the gain for a music community that is already outside of any funding is significant.

I threw some numbers around in my remarks. We're talking about a drop of tens of millions of dollars. I was talking about fives and twenties of thousands of dollars that really make a difference to the popular music community in a different way. I think the CBC has been grappling over this opportunity to try to move the money around to be more equitable, and I think they've done that honestly. It has been a very difficult thing for them to have to do.

The devolving of the last radio orchestra in North America is a reality of the times. I think there are a lot of other orchestras that are also facing a financial crunch, which you're going to keep hearing about as a cultural body watching how society changes. The popular music community may step up and show up on the national broadcaster more than it has in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I would just make one statement to your point, Mr. Andrews. CBC did not indicate when they were here that a funding increase would necessarily mean the continuation of the orchestra, which I thought was interesting. They talked about other priorities they have, including greater availability, new platforms, and so forth, which they were looking to develop.

It's interesting that you're talking about how those funds can really impact.... I think maybe that's something the committee may want to look at in its recommendations moving forward. I think how funding is awarded in the various areas is as important as how much funding we're putting in. That's the other side of the debate that we may want to address to CBC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

I just have to say that I've been very lenient with everyone on their time, but as time is running out, we're going to have three more questions. Try to keep your questions and answers concise, because I will be cutting people off a little more quickly than I have been.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McGillivray, in your opening remarks you mentioned that the CBC young performers competition was really your start in the music business, and that the CBC thereafter showcased and promoted you. I think those were the phrases you used.

Can you tell us specifically what that looked like? How were you showcased? How were you promoted? What did that mean to someone starting their career?

[Peter McGillivray]

Sure. First of all, the young performers competition had a history going back to the 1950s, with the singing stars of tomorrow and young performers competitions, so it really had a history. It's another part of that history that's gone away.

All the competition rounds were broadcast live over the air, over the course of a week. Everywhere I go in this country, people say, “I remember hearing your voice on the CBC on that day when you won the competition.” People remember it, because it was a whole week of exposure.

Being a winner in that has certainly opened up a lot of doors. It was a very prestigious competition by the time it was axed. I have to say that CBC also basically picked up almost every concert I did in this country for about two or three good years afterwards. Any time I was singing the Messiah with a certain choir or Elijah with this symphony, no matter where I was in the country, if I was doing a recital in Calgary or in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, the CBC was there to pick it up, either on local performance programs or what not.

I can tell you we're talking about a decrease of money going to American Federation of Musicians members. I know that my CBC pickups have really been reduced. I know from talking to a lot of choirs and orchestras that they're just not getting the CBC pickups for live recordings that they were two or three years ago. Keeping the same amount of funding going towards live recordings is not necessarily happening.

Just to wrap up, I know we've been talking about what we're losing with the losing of the CBC Radio Orchestra. It's not just that the CBC Radio Orchestra could afford to take a chance on doing an entire concert of new repertoire and new compositions that no orchestra in Canada can afford to do on a regular basis, but they also could afford to take a chance on young artists who don't have a marquee name.

I was asked on a number of occasions to join the CBC Radio Orchestra for different concerts. Unfortunately I wasn't able to work it into my schedule, and now I really regret that I didn't know that it would have been my last chance to do so.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

The CBC Radio Orchestra did have a particular role with the young performers competition and the young composers competition?