Now don’t get me wrong, my inner nerd is happier than a kid on Christmas about all this social media stuff. It just seems a bit, uhm… contrived.

I hope his office has the staying power to really keep up with it.

Beyond that I really think Lapointe has made a effort to set up the channels in order to be open and transparent here; and that’s truly commendable.

As the first post on the site says:

The CBC belongs to the people of Canada. As the public broadcaster, the CBC plays a unique role in Canadian journalism. At the CBC information is a public service. The Ombudsman is here to ensure CBC upholds its standards and practices to provide you with information programming of the highest quality.

We recognize your right to accuracy, fairness and integrity in CBC’s journalism. And we recognize your right to hold CBC accountable for the quality of its information programming.

What do you think of the new ombudsman site?

Maybe you’re puzzled at losing the hockey anthem, or you’ve still got a bone to pick about the new format on Radio 2?

Maybe you’re wondering what direction the corporation will take in the future?

Now you’re chance to put your questions directly to the CBC executives that run the corporation.

On Wednesday between 11am and noon (ET) the corporation is holding its Annual Public Meeting by webcast.

The speakers at this event include Hubert Lacroix, the president and CEO, Timothy Casgrain, the chair of the board of directors, and Suzanne Morris, vice-president and CFO.

You can submit questions in advance via a form here. You have to register to submit a question.

Here’s what I sent in:

What does Richard Stursberg’s departure mean for the future of the CBC; will there be less of a focus on the size of the audience, and a renewed focus on “programming that informs, enlightens and entertains,” as defined by the Broadcasting Act?

If you’re keen to see this question answered, or if you have your own question, sent it in, the site says that if they can’t get to it during the alloted 60 minutes, they’ll post answers to the most “frequently asked questions” on the site following the meeting.

Never mind. The federal government probably would have asked me to take down video of the committee hearing.

(UPDATE: As Mike mentioned in his comment, the Heritage Committee has now posted the video online.)

After the jump, the text of his speech.

Relax, enjoy, and smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to come to talk with you today about CBC/Radio-Canada’s plans and priorities. We appreciate your interest in, and your support of, public broadcasting.

Before moving to the main topic of our meeting this afternoon, I would like to take a few moments to talk about your recent study on the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada.

Since becoming President and CEO, I have spent a lot of time listening, reflecting on written materials and ideas, talking with our employees and meeting with various stakeholders who work in our broadcasting environment, and focusing on the issues that are currently confronting your national public broadcaster. Obviously, I have also read your report and its 47 recommendations. I must tell you that I find many of your conclusions and recommendations absolutely on the mark.

So, first off, thanks to all of you — for your efforts, and for your success in capturing the views expressed by Canadians across the country about public broadcasting and CBC/Radio-Canada. In doing so, you have successfully highlighted the importance of public broadcasting in our country, and the belief, that I strongly share, that CBC/Radio-Canada should continue to play a pivotal role in the social, cultural and democratic life of this country.

It is particularly significant that so many of your report’s conclusions are unanimous. Interestingly, you clearly recognise the importance of secure funding for the Corporation over more than its current twelve-month cycles. And your call for a cost of living adjustment to this funding is a necessary first step towards stable financing.

Most importantly, this Committee has made a clear call for a new relationship between CBC/Radio-Canada and Canadians, which would be articulated in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

I cannot overstate the importance of the MOU proposal.

This document will clarify for all Canadians the services we will provide and the resources necessary to deliver them, and it will allow us to meet Canadians’ expectations. It will enable CBC/Radio-Canada to evolve as a critical cultural institution in this country — according to the needs and objectives identified for it by Government and Parliament.

This is imperative. If public broadcasting is to remain relevant in the modern broadcasting environment, it cannot stand still or offer a less compelling package of services to Canadians. Its competitors are not. Their new programs, products and technological offerings are not. Your national public broadcaster cannot stand still. Status quo is unacceptable. CBC/Radio-Canada must move forward. It must grow. It must adapt to the changing cultural diversity of Canada. It must be flexible .

I believe your MOU proposal will enable us to do so, to meet the needs of Canadians in an effective manner, and to be accountable for it.

From an operational viewpoint, an MOU based on a seven-year period is the framework that we need. This longer-run horizon will enable us to plan more efficiently, organise ourselves more effectively, better forecast capital spending, re-think our infrastructure, and therefore link our strategic objectives to our resources over the entire seven-year period.

Overall, your report is a blueprint for action and we are ready to work immediately with the Government to begin developing the Memorandum. We, like you, are looking forward to the Government’s response to your report at the end of June.

I would like to emphasise the urgency of implementing your recommendations and, in particular, putting in place the MOU.

The CRTC’s proceedings on the renewal of our seven-year licenses will likely take place in the second half of 2009. In the interests of good governance and efficient planning for all of the services we offer to Canadians, the contents of the MOU should set the stage for the CRTC proceedings.

We therefore suggest that work on the drafting of the MOU begin as soon as possible.

Now, let me move to our plans and priorities.

In the four months since I became President and CEO, I have begun a number of formal initiatives that I believe are vital for our company. All of these initiatives are focused around three key priorities: our people, our programs and the need for this company to push forward strategically if it is to meet the challenges of the new broadcasting environment. All of our actions and decisions will revolve around these three “P”s: people, programs and pushing forward, all in ONE national public broadcaster.

At CBC/Radio-Canada, everything we do — Television, Radio and digital content; programming ideas and journalistic excellence — everything depends upon the creativity, intelligence and dedication of our employees.

Our people are therefore key to our success. We will only succeed if they are engaged and supportive of our directions and initiatives.

In January, I began meeting regularly with employees from across the company. I visited various facilities from Vancouver to Québec City, walked the floors and spent time in mobile units and production facilities. I will continue to do this throughout my term.

What I am discovering is that, not only do our employees have a commitment to excellence in public broadcasting and a passion for CBC/Radio-Canada, but that they are also committed to change as they all realise what is happening to our environment. They are ready for it. They are willing to embrace it. We need to show them how to get there. They understand that if we do not keep up with the rapidly changing environment, we will be left behind.

Harnessing the enthusiasm for change that our employees have expressed is essential in helping to shape our strategic directions — not just within each department, media line or linguistic side of the company, but across the entire company and each of its components.

Because, while CBC/Radio-Canada carries out numerous activities, is present on numerous platforms and works in a very big country, we often forget that we are part of one company. We must think and act as a single entity if we want to achieve our strategic objectives.

This way of acting provides us with numerous advantages and permits us to distinguish ourselves from our competition. Let me give you a concrete example of this.

When I was in Vancouver, our News team there had just produced a story on the use of tasers by police. The journalist was a bilingual Francophone based in British Columbia. The cameraman was a bilingual Anglophone working for Radio-Canada. The researcher and Radio producer were Anglophones living in Toronto. Their story ran that evening on both French and English national Television networks. The following morning, it was adapted for English and French national Radio. There was more in-depth information on our French and English websites, including streaming audio and video and podcasts. In the end, their story was picked up by other news organisations around the world.

The point is that by working together, pooling our strengths and resources, we provided a better service to Canadians — a service that no other broadcasting entity can offer in this country. Great things do happen when we work together. This is where we become distinctive, this is where we have an edge, this is what your national public broadcaster will exploit.

As I indicated, strengthening this aspect of our operations is now one of our key priorities.

You have just finished studying our mandate. You know that the broadcasting industry is defined by change: changing technology, changing audiences, changing demographics, and thus changing demands on the public broadcaster.

You also know, as we do, that when it comes to their public broadcaster, not all Canadians are comfortable with change. You have heard some of the reaction we’ve had to our upcoming changes to CBC Radio Two, and to the disbanding of the CBC Radio Orchestra.

We are sensitive to that. But we cannot shy away from making the tough choices and, consequently, the changes we think are necessary for us to serve all Canadians.

In a few weeks, CBC/Radio-Canada will showcase our athletes as they compete against the best in the world at the Summer Olympics in Beijing. It is the pinnacle of our commitment to Canadian athletes all year round. For some years now, we have been the recognised leader in developing new and more efficient and effective technology for our coverage of the Olympic Games. This is one of the ways in which our expertise clearly stands out.

At the same time, we must continue to use our limited resources in our daily operations in a way that ensures our services remain relevant to the changing needs of Canadians.

We are currently trying to find the resources we need to enhance our services; to make the transition to digital and high definition television; and to make more programs. Our parliamentary appropriation is lower today, in real terms, than it was ten years ago; yet the number of platforms on which we are expected to deliver our services continues to grow, and the cost of making programming has exploded. We have had to adjust. But we cannot stop innovating or taking risks. We need to make sure that the widest range of unique Canadian programming is available to Canadians when and how they want it. In this regard, the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) is a crucial resource.

While I am President of this organisation, we will pursue this creative agenda as one company, building bridges between our employees, building bridges between Canadians, innovating, and serving the interests of all in this country.

Now, we would be pleased to answer your questions.

Canada’s national public broadcaster welcomes CBC/Radio-Canada: Defining Distinctiveness in the Changing Media Landscape, the report issued this morning by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

“It’s positively encouraging to see the Committee recognize the value of public broadcasting to Canadians – on all platforms, old, new and emerging,” said Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada. “In the face of sweeping cultural, technological and industrial change, Canadians need a place for distinctive Canadian content. This report to the Government asserts the meaning and importance of public broadcasting for all Canadians, and shows how it improves our democratic and cultural lives.”

From the report itself: “The Committee regards CBC/Radio-Canada as an essential public institution that plays a crucial role in bringing Canadians closer together… The vast majority of the evidence stressed the distinctiveness of CBC/Radio-Canada, reflected in the quality, originality and creativity of its programming. Being distinctive should not however mean being inaccessible. Its services must be accessible to the various elements of the Canadian public.”

CBC/Radio-Canada is especially pleased to see that the Committee’s report calls for a new relationship and a renewable arrangement between Canadians and their public broadcaster: their proposed Memorandum of Understanding would establish a seven-year plan which would set out what services Canadians could expect from their public broadcaster and the resources necessary to provide them.

“The proposed seven-year cycle – with increased, committed funding indexed to the cost of living for its duration – would go a long way to help fulfil a new promise to Canadians and ensure that people’s expectations of public broadcasting may be measured and met against collectively set goals,” said Mr. Lacroix. “In all, the Committee’s report has very aptly captured the challenges facing public broadcasting in Canada and provided valuable recommendations for the future.”

CBC/Radio-Canada looks forward to working with this Committee, the Government and the public to develop a new long-term arrangement. Meantime, the Committee’s report recognizes that the continued health of public broadcasting requires a more urgent response on a couple of fronts, including the funding of the transition to HD, and the financing of new digital content.

“I commend the Committee for having produced a thorough and, more importantly, a truly actionable blueprint for the future of public broadcasting in Canada,” said Mr. Lacroix. “And I think I speak for all who believe in Canadian public broadcasting when I say that we look forward to the Government’s response.”

The federal Heritage Committee is recommending that the CBC’s funding be increased from $33 per person each year to $40 — and that the funding increases each year as per the cost of living. It further recommended CBC-TV be less dependent on advertising revenues.

(The CBC has not had a permanent funding increase in more than 30 years, not even to account for inflation.)

In its long awaited mandate review report, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage says the CBC’s mandate should cover seven years. It will begin public consultations on the recommendations soon.

It also recommended that the CBC and federal government “work toward decreasing CBC Radio-Canada’s relative dependency on advertising revenues for television programming.”

The committee has also given its support to a plan to increase the number of regional radio stations throughout the country, and wants the Broadcasting Act kept up with the times, including digital media and emerging technologies as a way to reach out to Canadians. It further wants resources put in place to provide closed-captioning for 100% of its television programming.

Canadian Media Guild Response

The Canadian Media Guild, which represents the majority of CBC employees, says it “strongly supports” recommendations and urges parliament to move quickly to implement the committee’s recommendations, particularly those that call for enhanced
funding.

“This feels like the first real moment of optimism for the CBC in recent memory,” says Lise Lareau, national president of the Canadian Media Guild. “An all-party committee has said yes to the CBC, yes to expanded radio coverage, yes to more CBC programming, including on the internet, and yes to more money to properly fund these important initiatives. Let’s get on with it.”

The CMG took credit for some of the recommendations, saying the report “echoes many of the proposals the CMG made when it appeared before the committee last spring, including an increase of per capita funding from the government.”

Conservative MPs Reject Recommendations

The Conservative Party wrote its own opinion rejecting, among other things, a proposal to keep the CBC’s television prime-time schedule all-Canadian. It said it considered recommendations like it (like the requirement of submitting a detailed HDTV implementation plan), amounted to micro-managing. “If CBC/Radio-Canada was [sic] bound to follow this particular recommendation they would not be permitted to show classic Christmas movies during prime-time on Christmas Eve, unless it happened to fall on a weekend.”

The party also rejected many recommendations seeking additional funding for specific projects, like HDTV implementation, saying that “stable-long term funding” was more appropriate than one-time grants for specific things. However, it also rejected the long-term funding proposal recommended in the document, saying it wanted to see a proposed budget from the CBC first. “Our members are disappointed that the report doesn’t recommend that CBC/Radio-Canada be invited to provide a full costing of the other recommendations of the committee report. We believe that responsible leadership involves costing out these recommendations before assigning fixed amounts to fund them.”

New Democrats Seek “Skill-Based” Approach to Hiring Presidents and Selecting Board Members

NDP members, in a supplementary report, said Board members and the CBC president should be hired based on skill and competence-related criteria, and that Board members should be non-partisan and better reflect “the regions of Canada, majority and minority language communities, First Nations, men and women, and ethnic and other minority groups.”

Currently, while the gender split is even among board members, all come from major cities. All but three of the 12 are from the Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa regions.

Highlights from the report are still ahead
or have your say in the comments.

Highlighted Recommendations from the Report:

• Prime-time hours, from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. [sic], Monday to Friday, on the CBC/Radio-Canada’s television networks, should be reserved for Canadian productions.
• The Committee recommends an increase in the variety, drama, news, public affairs and documentary programming produced by the regional CBC/Radio-Canada stations and independent producers.
• CBC/Radio-Canada should devote a greater share of its programming to the arts (music, books, film, dance and theatre performances) and that these programmes reflect the cultural diversity of the regions.
• CBC/Radio-Canada should develop a digital media strategy to be submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage. The plan should include cost estimates for the
  development and expansion of the Corporation’s new media endeavours relative to the goals of its mandate.
• The Department of Canadian Heritage should prioritize its response to the CBC/Radio-Canada plan and provide one time funding for the capital costs associated with the transition to HD/DTV and recurrent funding to cover the increased operational costs of transmission and distribution of HD signals.
• CBC/Radio-Canada should play an increased role in the development, promotion and distribution of Canadian feature films.
• CBC/Radio-Canada should give the regions greater prominence in all its services.
• The CBC should take inspiration from the BBC’s accountability model, rooted in results-based management and would provide a comprehensive report on its programming and financial information for each of its individual services.
• The Ombudsman should be someone other than current CBC/Radio-Canada employees, or persons who have not been employed by the Corporation within the five years prior to the proposed date of employment.

Infop0rn

He notes that while the first line of the CBC’s mandate says all CBC shows should “be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,” the popular sit-com Little Mosque on the Prairie deliberately excludes any references to Saskatchewan, where the show is filmed.

Justin quotes from an interview in the Regina Leader Post in which LMOTP producer Zarqa Nawaz tells an NPR reporter that they write out any Canadian references because “they hope an American audience will reference it as taking place in North Dakota and because ‘sales are important.’ ”

Just feels this practice should be banned. “No program that receives tax subsidies should be able to do alternate takes to disguise the fact that it is Canadian.”

The issue, I think, is whether or not Canadians are seeing programming that references Canada. I don’t have a problem if the show shoots different takes for different audiences (“That’s why it’s always cold in Saskatchewan” for the Canadian version; “That’s why it’s always cold here” for the American version).

I would have a problem if the show shoots one version sans Canadiana then airs it here. Does anyone know which way it is?

What do you think?

Rabinovitch’s opening remarks and the CBC news release are available online. One focus of the discussion was the integration of media and media lines:

We can no longer think of ourselves as a Television and Radio company with an Internet presence. The fact is: we are a content company. We need to create content that, from its inception, is designed for multiple platforms. We are working hard to entrench this philosophy in all of our services, and to have it guide us in all that we do. French Services’ integration is well underway and is yielding results, and much the same can be expected to follow from the recent announcement concerning the integration of English Services.

Rabinovitch suggested the CBC needs a 10-year mandate and firm funding commitments to make such changes. And he suggested that up to $150 million more should be added to the budget to cover expenses such as high definition service.

Richard Stursberg was questioned about his suggestion that CBC needs to be more like Tim Hortons and less like Starbucks.

“The purpose of the metaphor is to capture what the CBC is trying to do,” Stursberg said. “Hortons is … the service that has broader public appeal.”

More on the story at CBCNews.ca Arts.

Federal politicians started meeting this morning to develop a report for the Heritage committee on the future role and mandate of the CBC.

The CBC is currently operating under the mandate approved by Parliament sixteen years ago. That Act tells the CBC it should provide programming that:

• Is predominantly and distinctively Canadian.
• Reflects Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
• Actively contributes to the flow and exchange of cultural expression.
• Is in English and French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community.
• Strives to be of equivalent quality in English and French.
• Contributes to shared national consciousness and identity.
• Is available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose.
• Reflects the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.

Why does it need changing? Partly because of the large-scale changes in media technology, the Internet, media concentration, and so on. The world is pretty different today than it was in 1991, when the Broadcasting Act was passed.

The Toronto Star says it believes several major questions are on the minds of politicians through this process:

First, should CBC television focus all its energy on trying to win large audiences as Richard Stursberg, the current executive director of English programming, believes? Last year, he cancelled a raft of Canadian drama shows because he didn’t believe their ratings were high enough and veered away from public broadcasting with a series of reality shows and lusty dramas such as The Tudors, a co-production with Ireland about the life of Henry VIII. Such shows draw bigger audiences and ad dollars but tell Canadians little, if anything, about themselves.

Second, should it stick with part of its mandate by running programs like the Royal Winnipeg Ballet even though they are ratings disasters?

Third, how much money should Ottawa give to the CBC? Now, the broadcaster gets $950 million a year from the government. Another $550 million comes from advertising and other revenues. The amount of tax money is substantial, but Ottawa’s grant has fallen by 20 per cent in the past 15 years when inflation is taken into account. Indeed, only the United States and New Zealand give less government money per person to their national public broadcasters.

Fourth, is a public television broadcaster needed any longer now that private broadcasters, although dominated by foreign content, produce some popular Canadian shows such as CTV’s Corner Gas?

The Star noted that the Commons committee will likely study a 2006 Senate report that recommended “CBC Television should be more like CBC Radio, focusing on high-quality news and information programming, services not available on other stations and better regional programming.”

What do you think about the current mandate? Would you like to see changes?

NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: This post/thread is about changes to the mandate. Not about how the CBC should be shut down, etc. The usual “I hate the CBC” comments will not be approved.

Richard Stursberg, CBC’s head of English television, told the commission that the Canadian media industry has reached levels that “in any other country would be considered unacceptable.”

‘Hogwash,’ replied the Canadian Association of Broadcasters*, a lobby group representing most of Canada’s private/commercial broadcasters. “We see no diversity deficit in the Canadian system,” said Glenn O’Farrell, president of CAB, pointing to the many ethnic and cable TV channels that exist on the dial, despite all the mergers going on at the corporate level.

So far this year alone, three major mergers/acquisitions have occurred in the Canadian media space:

• CTVglobemedia Inc. bought CHUM Ltd for $1.4-billion
• CanWest and the Goldman Sachs Group bought Alliance Atlantis Inc.* for $2.3-billion
• Astral Media Inc. bought radio giant Standard Broadcasting Corp. Ltd. for $1.1-billion

The CBC’s position is this: Public broadcasting needs to provide a counterbalance to consolidation of large commercial broadcasters. But it needs more money to do that. Also, Stursberg said there should be, restrictions on the amount of market share that cable companies can amass, since they can control access to TV sets and Internet distribution.

(The CBC receives less than $1 billion from the federal government each year to operate. It raises about $400 million on its own through television advertising. The CBC has not had an increase in funding for 30 years — not even to adjust for inflation — and yet is expanding its reach for Canadians into many more platforms including satellite radio, podcasts, and the web.)

The CRTC is trying to decide if it needs to tighten up the rules.

The Globe and Mail recently talked about a system in Australia where media concentration is measured using a points system.

Each media operation in a given market – including newspapers, commercial TV stations and radio stations – is worth one point. If any company owns multiple outlets, its collection of media assets counts as one point combined.

If a particular market in Australia is found to have less than five points in total, it is deemed to have an “unacceptable media diversity situation.” In smaller, non-metropolitan markets, the threshold is set at four points.

As well, if any single person or company controls a TV station, a radio operation and a newspaper within a given market, that is considered an “unacceptable three-way control situation.”

Australia’s government reserves the right to prevent future media deals in any market it considers to have an unacceptable ownership situation.

Personally, I don’t understand why alarm bells aren’t ringing at the CRTC.

Major media firms in this country keep trying to widen their pie. But how much profit does a company need? I know very well that they need to continue to increase shareholder value (hell, I used to be CEO of a publicly traded company) but, really, is that all there is? Is that the only value that matters?

I guess that’s what keeps me at the CBC.

We tell stories for and about Canadians, not shareholders.

But, as Dennis Miller used to say, “That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.”

What do you think? Where does the CBC fit in this consolidated media landscape?

* Disclosures: I have given a keynote address to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I used to produce a weekly web TV show on technology for Alliance Atlantis’ now-defunct blogtv.ca. I was paid for both of these.

John Cruickshank, currently publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times and chief operating officer of the Chicago Sun-Times Media Group, has been picked to to lead CBC News as publisher.

He is expected to take up his new position within the next three weeks.

The newly created position will report to both the VPs of both radio and television.

Cruickshank has been with the Sun-Times organization since 2000. From 1995-2000, he was editor of the Vancouver Sun. Prior to that, he was with The Globe and Mail from 1981-95, from 1992-95 as managing editor.

The CBC is confronting the biggest crisis it has faced in its more than 70 years of existence. In spite of CBC executive cheer-leading assertions that the public broadcaster is “by no means beleaguered,” it nevertheless is under assault from a horde of fateful challenges:

• From sharp-elbowed private broadcasters who lust after CBC-TV sports and other money-earning CBC programming;
• From the skepticism bordering on contempt of Prime Minister Harper;
• From the suicidal inclinations of some inside as well as outside the CBC who seem to have limited understanding of the purpose of public broadcasting;
• And from a shrinking and largely discontented creative staff.

Altogether, it’s far from an encouraging environment for the CBC and certainly smacks of beleaguerment.

I hate to sound like a grumpy old sourpuss prattling on about the so-called “good old days,” but to me, as an ardent but saddened advocate of public broadcasting, the odds these days appear to be running against the CBC.

It won’t collapse with a big bang but rather, I fear, with a painful whimper as it is dismembered, piece by piece, with target number one being English language television. The CBC’s basic problem is that it is under-funded and over-mandated. The reality of that dilemma is now being studied by the House of Commons heritage committee, which is examining “The role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.” CBC President Bob Rabinovitch says he’d like to see such a study done every 10 years to spell out what Canadians expect from the CBC and with a government commitment to finance those expectations. Not a bad idea. Actually, we’ve been doing this kind of CBC role examination since the Aird Report of 1929, followed by the Massey Report, the Fowler Report, more recently the Lincoln Report and a dozen or so other major reports, studies and Royal Commissions. But for the most part, the recommendations have carried a price tag the politicians are reluctant to acknowledge and rarely, if ever, provide.

To help strengthen our sense of nationhood, we need to develop a sharply defined public broadcasting mandate with a realistically calculated budget. The prospects are limited, however, because the political and public support that gave birth to the CBC in 1936 is hard to find today. No longer heard are the 20th century voices of influential CBC champions such as Mackenzie King or Mike Pearson, Graham Spry or Alan Plaunt, Davidson Dunton or Leonard Brockington. They recognized that to maintain cultural independence from the giant next door, Canada needs a publicly-financed broadcast system that tells our own Canadian stories, showcases our own music, drama and comedy, and provides news and public affairs with a Canadian perspective.

The purpose is not to prevent Canadians from watching American TV, but rather to provide a home-grown creative experience.

That experience has been haunted by government budget cuts amounting to 20 per cent in the past 15 years. Canada, in fact, is among the world’s lowest per capita spenders on public broadcasting. This at a time when publicity is needed more than ever because of the fierce competition on our fragmented airwaves. As a result, we have a pallid star system and a reduced awareness of what CBC programming is available.

But the ultimate question is: Is the CBC worth what it costs?

Are we content to save the money, relax and succumb to the lure of the mostly American shows that private broadcasters offer in prime time? There is nothing wrong with our thirst for American shows, but are we satisfied with being a little Sir Echo to American programming displaying all the lifestyles of our southern neighbour and little of our Canadian culture?

Culture defines a nation and a country that does not respect its own culture is a country that is for sale.

Knowlton Nash, a member of the Osprey Writers Group, is the former anchor of CBC’s The National.

What do you think? Do you agree with Nash’s essay?

News of the funding came Friday when CBC president spoke to the Heritage committee. He told them if CBC is to “reach its potential and be the public broadcaster Canada needs, it needs a new contract with Canadians.” This contract would lay out the obligations that CBC/Radio-Canada owes to its 32 million owners over a ten-year period. It would be based on the following:

1. The broadcasting system should remain a mixed public/private system;
2. The public broadcaster should have programming independence;
3. Its programming should be distinctive;
4. It should serve all Canadians;
5. It should have the resources needed to meet the agreed-upon requirements.

“CBC/Radio-Canada is at a turning point that no one-year answer, no one-dimensional response will resolve,” Rabinovitch said.

What do you think of that proposed five-point contract with Canadians? Should CBC’s programming be distinctive, or should it offer programming similar to the current fare offered by private broadcasters? Should CBC continue to find private sources of funding to supplement its programming needs, or should Parliament offer more money to the Corporation?

What would you like to see done with the CBC, considering the review the committee has planned?
I definitely think a review is needed. The CBC has done some things very well but where are we challenged today? English television.
     It costs a lot of money to put on good domestic content and we have a situation where we are beside the biggest cultural industry in the world, and we don’t even have a full market because out of the 30-some million Canadians, nine million (in Quebec) are watching a completely separate market. So about a third of our market is watching their own programs, which is great for the Quebec market but it puts further challenges on English television.

And you’ve been on record asking for more or stable funding for the CBC.
Since the cuts in the mid-’90s, the CBC just can’t fulfill the job it has to do. We wanted to set a standard for domestic drama, but how is it going to do that when we also want it to be a voice in the regions, where it does play a very vital role.
     We’ve talked about the need to return to CBC television’s roots – the supper hour shows have basically disappeared – and to compete in the multi-channel universe as well and get ready for high def.
     It simply doesn’t have the money to do that, so I believe we have to increase the funding. Next to the United States we provide about the lowest level of support of any of the western nations for (public) broadcasting.

From bottom up I think goes to U.S., New Zealand and then Canada, per capita.
So it’s an issue, because when CBC-TV does well it’s like CBC radio, where everybody listens to it.

And then you’ve seen the loss of local programming in your own riding firsthand. When I was growing up there, we had a separate hour newscast based out of Timmins. It was done around the corner from my house, actually, because I lived in the shadow of the old CFCL towers, but as you know that’s all gone now. There’s a reporter there still for CTV but I’m not sure there’s a CBC reporter based there anymore.
Radio-Canada has one there but they don’t even have an English CBC radio reporter in the region. So, it’s a challenge, especially in terms of regional programming, I’ll tell you. A couple weeks ago one of the transmitters went down and so they were feeding my part of the region the morning show out of Toronto. I don’t know what else you can do quicker to get an audience to turn off but waking up in the snow and hearing about the Don Valley parking lot – people won’t listen.
     At the end of the day, viewers at some level want to see themselves reflected – whether it’s domestic drama or whether it’s regional news programming.

What do you think? Have you seen examples of silos being removed? Do you feel less segregated from your colleagues in other media lines? How should the CBC become even more internally connected?

(Read the full article by clicking the “More” link below.)

A CBC contract with Canadians
Robert Rabinovitch

Where is Canadian television headed? Next week, we’ll be closer to finding out, as the CRTC opens hearings on how to keep Canada’s television broadcasting system strong and growing. Canadians are changing their viewing habits as fast as new technologies can tempt them, and none of us watches television the way we did a decade ago.

None of us who make television, or radio for that matter, can continue to operate as we did a decade ago, either.

At CBC/Radio-Canada, we are in a period of rapid, exciting change. Yesterday, we had a radio service and a television service with some Internet activity. Today we are a content provider, supplying a wide array of news, entertainment and sports programming to Canadians on seven television networks, four radio networks, the Internet and cell-phones, through satellite radio and iPods, in one-minute episodes on your Blackberry and with Christmas-wrapped DVDs through the mail.

Tomorrow is coming into focus. We need to become an integrated media content provider whose raison d’etre is not to make a buck but to connect the country together by ensuring there remains a place where Canadians can share their stories, feed their culture and debate their issues in this new media landscape. Make no mistake: No other organization exists with that mandate. CBC/Radio-Canada is the single largest provider of Canadian media content.

To adapt, we are ripping out the silos and barriers that have segregated our activities, and building an organization where programming is conceived for television and simultaneously adapted to other formats. Hockey Night in Canada is great TV, but it should also be a highlight reel on video-podcast, and Coach’s Corner should be on your cellphone.

Times are changing and CBC/Radio-Canada is hurtling into the future fuelled by a combination of adrenaline and Gravol. Because while we know where we need to go, the regulatory framework to get us there is creaking.

In television, the advertising-based business model on which conventional broadcasting has relied is at risk due to the number of channels vying for the same revenue; commercial skipping and the migration of marketing spending to the Internet and other platforms.

Despite this, television remains the most pervasive medium and the most effective means of tying the country together culturally and democratically. Conventional broadcasters continue to be a nightly destination for 90% of Canadian viewers and the source of 75% of original Canadian programming. Conventional broadcasting will need to remain the cornerstone of the broadcasting system if we want to achieve the country’s policy goals in culture. That is why the CRTC hearings are so important.

But these hearings suggest another opportunity for the government to bring balance to an industry that has grown increasingly “unlevel” over the past decade.

This opportunity is to institutionalize a regular review of CBC/Radio-Canada.

But don’t we do that already?

No. Every seven years, the CRTC reviews how its broadcasting licenses serve the mandates of the Broadcasting Act, but it does not review the goals themselves. And one thing is sure: The goalposts of the broadcasting system are moving and putting unprecedented stress on broadcasters.

Earlier this year, the Hon. Bev Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, suggested the government conduct a review of our mandate. The Minister is absolutely correct. Right now, there is no official forum for such a deliberation. The 1991 Broadcasting Act is really the last setting of the rules by which the broadcasting system operates.

Since then, a handful of studies and reports have been commissioned on the future of Canadian broadcasting, but have led to no practical change in CBC/Radio-Canada’s status. I want to go one step farther. I believe we should create what I call a Contract With Canadians, following a regular, formally instituted government-led mandate review spelling out what Canadians should expect from CBC/Radio-Canada in terms of public policy objectives.

Both the process and the contract would be transparent and would have a fixed term. On a predetermined timetable, likely every 10 years, the process would automatically unfold.

CBC/Radio-Canada would be even more accountable to its shareholders, the public; it would also be more sustainable because it could plan its development with some certainty.

This concept isn’t new. Every 10 years, the British government holds policy reviews with the BBC, asking the big questions. In Canada, neither the public nor their representatives in government have the opportunity to ask the big questions and to decide the best use of the airwaves we own collectively.

A regularly mandated review would ensure Canadians are better served. But mandate review or not, the CRTC hearings next week are an essential first step in finding the new equilibrium in the system needed to ensure its continuing contribution to Canada.

- Robert Rabinovitch is CBC/Radio-Canada president and CEO.

In mid-September, Heritage Minister Bev Oda met informally in London, England, with a group of British academics to pick their brains about directions to take regarding the CBC. The industry minister, Maxime Bernier, is said to be well disposed toward considering a move to liberalize foreign ownership restrictions in broadcast media.

Could an annual tax on television sets be far behind?
Seriously, though, perhaps a shakeup is just what the media landscape needs. As the article notes, three years ago, a parliamentary committee concluded that CBC is “underfunded, unfocused, and lacking in accountability.” (The Committee made 97 recommendations. So far, Parliament has ignored the report and chosen to not implement a single recommendation.)
Maybe a kick in our collective ass isn’t such a bad idea.

The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission was created in 1932 out of fear that if left unchecked, the private broadcasters would fill the airwaves with Amos ‘n Andy, which they were happily doing to great financial success. The first grant for the fiscal year of 1933-1934 was $1 million, $1.5 million short of what they needed.

What’s your first memory of the CBC?

(Excerpts from the first part of the interview were published here Oct. 17.)

In the new publication, Rabinovitch talks to Cartt.ca publisher Greg O’Brien about transmission technology, CBC Sports, local news and the 2005 lockout.

On the need for transmitters:

One of the phenomena that’s happened since satellite’s been introduced into Canada is we always used to talk about the underserved areas in terms of channel selection as compared to the (urban) areas. If you look at the numbers – and it’s in our (TV Policy Review) presentation – the larger number of people who don’t have satellite or cable delivery are in urban areas. They’ve chosen not to get it. If you go into the hinterlands, it’s almost all now satellite or cable.

On pro sports coverage:

We are committed to stay in professional sports – for a couple of reasons. Number one: It connects the country together. We feel that’s one of our responsibilities.

Number two: It helps finance our amateur sports programming. If it wasn’t for that, I don’t know if we could afford to continue to do amateur sports, because amateur sports are not cheap. We’ve always said our philosophy is when you see an athlete at the Olympics, it won’t be the first time you saw them because we’ll have shown them already. And you know, that is quite different from what you see on the specialty sports channels.

So, we are committed to pursuing professional sports. But we’re also committed to not overpaying.

We think it’s absolutely wrong for us to compete with the private sector to win professional sports by writing a big cheque. I’d like to win these things the way we did with FIFA, where our number was, I won’t say much less, but it was less than I know the private nets bid for it.

On CBC bidding on CFL rights:

Football – you know, whether we get it or not – I’m not so certain is that important anymore. We’ll have to have the Grey Cup, but when you look at the whole schedule and alternatives, maybe it should go only on specialty channels. We’ll see what happens.

On how soon after broadcast CBC could offer shows on demand:

The answer to that is that it’s going to be “soon.” It’s going to be like (ABC has shown) Desperate Housewives, literally the next morning.

In fact, the big discussion right now, or a big discussion right now with Nielsen’s – is in counting audiences and counting eyeballs. The people who watch it the next morning or two days later or three days later, should they be counted, from an advertising point of view?

The consensus right now is to say yes for the first three days. And BBC’s way of doing it is to say “the first week you’ll have the programming for free, after that you’re going to have to pay a price for it.”

On staying in local news:

As I said at the Committee, our numbers in local news are abysmal. I can’t say it in a nicer way. So the question is should we be in local news, or should we abandon it? Right now, my operating assumption, in my working with the board is that we want to be in local news. But if we want to be in local news, we’ve got to do it well. I think that’s something the public broadcaster can do, as more and more you’re finding private broadcasters are beginning to withdraw from local news because it’s not the profit centre it once was.

On the effects of the CBC lockout:

I still think there are people who are living in the past, very few. But when I talk to staff, the lockout is not an issue. In fact, some of them joke and say “lockout or strike, you call it what you want, which they wouldn’t have done a few months ago.”

It’s not something one wants to do very regularly, but… the fact of the matter is at the end of the day, we are very satisfied with the contract that we negotiated. We think we have the flexibility to move forward, and I think if people read the contract they will see that we did quite well. And I’m not boasting because I think the employees did very well as well.

We saw the headlines before, from both CBC and in the press, but here’s your chance to drill down and see for yourself who said what. And it’s pretty interesting stuff.

Here are some excerpts that you might not have seen elsewhere:

Jane Chalmers (on CBC Radio’s reach):
We envision traditional, over-the-air broadcast, combined with more on-demand content, to reach more Canadians, and one that expands its commitments to local communities across the country. On that, I will end by telling you that means more stations. Six million English Canadians in urban centres across our country have no local service and no consistent conduit to our national airwaves. It is for us an unacceptable void in our service.

Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib., on the Q&A format):
Five minutes? We’re going to decide the future of CBC in that time?

Robert Rabinovitch (on reaching younger audiences):
The iPod story is very interesting. Our audience for radio skews old, to about 50-plus years of age. But as we’ve been accused sometimes, we don’t have to dumb down to capture a young audience. On the contrary, a young audience-my kids-would be insulted if you told them that you have to dumb down to get them. What we’re finding with iPods is that young people are discovering some of our more complex radio programs, such as Quirks & Quarks and Ideas. These are the programs they are downloading from us.

Sylvain Lafrance (on labour relations at SRC):
I can state that things are going rather well. This is one of the main areas where we would like to see some improvement. Over the last three months, we signed two significant collective bargaining agreements for which the rate of acceptance was rather high. Both sides have shown a great deal of maturity. Currently, we are negotiating with the directors’ guild, but we have no reason to believe that there will be any particular difficulties. There are many negotiations underway with the artists’ unions. We are also maintaining contact with the guild.

Sylvain Lafrance (on problems with the CTF):
When we appear before the Canadian Television Fund, the only thing we can negotiate are licenses, we cannot negotiate any other rights tied to other platforms. This, in my opinion, does not correspond to the needs of the 21st century. When we decide to commit to a significant production, it is important to know how we will best be able to make use of it. Will we be able to run it on DVD, broadcast it, broadcast it on the radio or in some other form?

Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, CPC, on Prairie Giant):
Let’s assume for a moment there was a movie made. The movie claimed to be in the year 2006 and was a movie about the CBC. In this movie there was a character who portrayed the role of the president of the CBC, and this character’s stage name in the movie was Robert Rabinovitch. This character was portrayed in the movie to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and clearly, sir, you are not. This character also was portrayed in the movie to be an alcoholic, and I can only assume, sir, that you are not. Also, this character in the movie, let’s assume hypothetically, was portrayed to be a corrupt individual and someone who was engaged in many illegal activities. I can only assume, Mr. Rabinovitch, that if this movie aired you would be very much offended by the characterization and the tarnishing of your reputation, particularly since many people in this hypothetical situation consider this movie to be factual.

Robert Rabinovitch (on the Montreal and Edmonton news pilots):
…we never got beyond the mock-up stage–in other words, trying to put together shows we thought would be different and distinct. We worked in both markets with the people, and we never were satisfied that we had made the progress necessary to have a distinctive, different type of show.

Mark Eyking (Sydney-Victoria, Lib.):
I’m from Cape Breton, and northern Cape Breton has a real lack of CBC coverage. There’s a community called Pleasant Bay; they’re even willing to get land for you to put up a tower-they have a request in.

Robert Rabinovitch (on whether union agreements hamper creativity):
…it would be grossly unfair, I think, to say that the problems we have in terms of bringing in new talent and new programming people are due to the union structure and the union contract. The problems we have are due to a company that has been shrinking for the last twenty years in terms of number of employees, amount of money it has, and it’s only right and fair that union contracts be written to protect existing employees. Sure, it’s frustrating because of bumping rules and all that–and that’s one of the reasons we are quite satisfied–but I must say that the current contract we have with the CMG allows for more contract employees, more temporary employees, and in that way at least young people can come in to help ventilate the place, help develop new programs and with time actually become permanent employees.

Richard Stursberg (on financing Canadian shows vs. American simulcasts):
The CBC, as Bob pointed out, is the only broadcaster where deep prime time is actually available for Canadian shows. Having said that, the economics of this is brutal. To give you a very straight-up example, if I want to buy an hour of high-end dramatic programming right now, I can buy an American program that would cost $3 million to $4 million an hour to make, for $200,000. At $200,000, I can put it on TV and make $425,000 in revenue. A parallel Canadian program, even if I’m not even in the same ballpark–despite the fact that whether we like it or not, we will be judged by the same production standards as American programming–is going to cost me, say, $1 million to $1.5 million to $2 million an hour. What can I recover by way of revenue? Maybe $120,000 to $150,000, because of the relative performance of the programs. Big problem.

Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, NDP):
I always wonder how you guys do it, because when someone doesn’t like something on CTV, they change the channel. If someone doesn’t like something on CBC, they phone Charlie Angus, their local, their regional, their national heritage critic, and they demand accountability and say they don’t want their tax dollars being spent on this.
For example, this summer I had a letter of outrage about your pro-Israeli coverage and they wanted me to check out a news show. Two days later I got an almost similar letter demanding action on your pro-Lebanese coverage. And each one ended with, “I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on this kind of outrageous programming.”

Robert Rabinovitch (on whether SRC would consider helping CTV broadcast the 2010 Olympics to francophones):
If you are talking about our French-language program, the answer is yes, but we will not simply use their signal.

Richard Stursberg (on programming in English and French Canada):
We live in two different worlds, utterly different. Everything goes, frankly, very well in French: people watch Canadian television shows; they watch Canadian movies-it goes very well. In English, it goes very badly. And that is not a new problem; it is an historical problem, and we find ourselves struggling in very difficult circumstances.

And a tip of the hat to Joe Clark for alerting me to this transcript. Thanks!