LaCroix before Heritage Committee
CBC president Hubert T. Lacroix spoke to Parliament’s Heritage Committee Thursday afternoon. I was recording the speech on my computer as it streamed but, uh, I ran out of hard disk space. <sigh>
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.



















May 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am CDT
Why not just repost that link from the last post? You can watch the hearing there on demand.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm CDT
I just finished watching the proceedings before the Standing Committee. I thought there was a fair bit of opposition by the MP’s to the Radio 2 programming changes and demise of the CBC Radio Orchestra which crossed all party lines. Bill Siksay, NDP MP from Burnaby was again opposing quite effectively. I was, however, particularly pleased to Ed Fast - Conservative MP from Abbotsford and Michael Chong, another Conservative MP come out against the marginalization of classical programming on CBC. At last, we’ve heard from members of the Harper Government and they seem to be against the changes. Hopefully, the press and CBC management will pick up on this.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm CDT
During the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meeting where Mr. Lacroix made this statement, Mr. Bill Siksay (Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas), asked whether the CBC executives had any market share data available to judge the success of their programming changes. Mr. Stursberg stated that no erosion had been seen in the Radio Two audience, and none was expected!
Mr. Siksay asked whether audience erosion had not occurred in Vancouver and Mr. Stursberg replied that it had not. Mr. Stursberg also stated that the CBC would not have a clear sense of the CBC’s market share “until the beginning of next year”, after the new programming had been launched in September.
Mr. Siksay then asked: when did the changes to the CBC Radio Two programming begin? Mr. Stursberg, replied that some “small changes” had been made in the past year.
Mr. Siksay then asked whether the CBC did not survey its audience to determine the reaction to these changes and Mr. Stursberg replied that the CBC does not survey its audience, relying instead on the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. Mr. Stursberg reiterated the point that the CBC has not seen any erosion in market share.
I find Mr. Stursberg’s remarks preposterous. Of course the CBC executives have access to market share data and of course they can assess the impact of the changes in the programming on CBC Radio Two’s market share! They have a full year’s worth of data to assess, from the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot, when “Music for Awhile” and “In Performance” were replaced by the crapulent “Tonic” and even the more crapulent “Canada Live”. Unfortunately, members of the public do not have access to this data. While it is true that the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) provides access to its “Top Line Radio Reports” to the general public, the fact is that this data covers the entire time period from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday to Sunday as one single figure - hardly granular enough for a member of the public to determine if, for example, CBC Radio Two has lost listeners in the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot during weekdays. One would expect that if the effects on audience share of the move away from classical music would have been felt, it would be in this timeslot. And, the fact is, the BBM have compiled a full years’ worth of data for the CBC to analyze - and the CBC, as a subscriber to their service, receives data that is much more specific than is available to the general public. If the changes in CBC Radio Two’s evening schedule, first launched on March 19 2007, were such a smashing success, as the CBC executives would have us believe, doesn’t it make sense that the CBC executives would be willing to highlight this success? Or perhaps this experiment has not been so successful after all, and the CBC executives are unwilling to admit this?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm CDT
In response to James Wooten, while I agree about the flaws in the ratings systems, attempting to measure the success of Radio Two after only a couple months is probably not going to provide useful data. When undertaking sweeping programming changes that reach out to a new audience, it’s unrealistic to expect it will find the audience overnight. I’m not saying the New Radio Two will be a success, but if the targeted audience is not currently listening to Radio Two in the first place, how will they ever find out about the new programming except by word of mouth, which takes some time?
That’s why I was extremely disappointed when the show jPod was canceled so abruptly. jPod was attracting such a different demographic of viewers, most of whom did not watch CBC regularly and hence had no idea the show existed at first. Then just while word of mouth was reaching these people it was cut!
I think when approaching these kind of “audience swings” the CBC is currently undertaking, they should recognize it takes time for word of mouth to percolate, and build that into their expectations.
Canceling jPod after only 8 episodes was a ludicrous decision. It alienates CBC’s younger viewers - the very demographic they are trying to attract (and did attract).
May 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm CDT
Chad, thanks for your comments. The changes in the CBC Radio Two programming that I was referring to were first launched on March 19, 2007 (yes, 2007, not 2008), and so the CBC has had a year’s worth of data to judge how successful “Tonic” and “Canada Live” have been.
You can see the data for yourself at the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement’s web site.
S2 2007 covers the period April 16 – June 10, 2007, S3 2007 covers July 2 – Aug. 26 2007, etc. until the most recent survey, S1 2008 which covers Jan. 7 – March 2 2008.
My point is that if “Tonic” and “Canada Live” have been such a resounding success – with four quarters of survey data to prove it – why does CBC management not highlight this fact? Why are they so reticent with their data? Is it perhaps that the data does not back up this assertion, and they prefer to keep it secret?
I have previously asked Mr. Maffin if the CBC would be willing to release the BBM statistics for the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM timeslot on weekday evenings to the general public via this site, and this request was turned down by the CBC. Now that we have a years’ worth of data, it would be an interesting exercise to analyze CBC Radio Two’s market share for this timeslot, comparing S2 2006 – S1 2007 with S2 2007 – S1 2008. This would tell us how successful “Tonic” and “Canada Live” have been, compared to their predecessors, “Music for a while” and “In Performance”. Mr. Maffin, would you be willing to try again? (If this will just get you in trouble with your bosses, or if you already know the answer that you will get, then please ignore this request.)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm CDT
If I have to listen to anymore easy-listening novelty numbskull songs being slipped into the daily schedule on Radio 2 my ears are going to bleed!!!! Please, for the love of Joni M. and Colin J. give us classical fans an ever-loving break until the dreaded September 01.
My stomach turns when I realize the day may come when I am ambushed by my brother-in-law’s sophomoric ’song’ with lyrics about peas and girls and true love being played on Radio 2. Now there is can-con for you; quality adult muzac, adhering to the mandate of 3 P’s–”people, programs, and pushing forward” (see above article). Perhaps they could just push on out the revolving door at Head Office. I’d gladly donate to their pension above and beyond my standard taxation to get rid of the lot!
I truly am sick about this–I listen every week day from 6:30 am to 6:00 pm (now that there is no news or Music for a While). I use to listen a lot more on weekends but most of the regional classical disappeared and was replaced with that waste of 2 hours, Key of Charles, and inside the music (reruns). The shift to all-internet-all-the-time doesn’t help those of us who don’t hang around the computer all day paying union dues and working on a pension. Put this new adult music on Radio 1 or web where their cherished target audience might hear it.
It may sound hard to believe but I also love blues, roots, rock, some pop, and ripping accordian tunes. All this I am able to access on channels (CKUA, Alberta) already, and this fine station is also available over the web. CKUA has fabulous hosts that actually know about the music, new and old, dead and alive, Canadian and otherwise (reminds me of Tom Allan, Catherine Belyea, Eric Friesen, Jorgen Gothe Danielle Charboneau etc).
There is no chance that the rocket scientists (apologies to all scientists) can even come close to the quality of CKUA with this playlist. I think back to the vital days of Radio 1, with a mix interesting talk, current events, and music. Then DNTO blew in with it’s corny ‘hipness’. There is no hope, based on Radio 1’s direction, that Radio 2 will survive with any audience.
This doesn’t really address the topic, but all relevant article comment sites have automatically closed.