Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 14 - Evidence, March 10, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:32 a.m. to examine the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order. Today we are completing our public hearings — 38 hearings I hear from the clerk — on our study into the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Our last witness is Ken Goldstein, President of Communic@tions Management Inc. Mr. Goldstein is one of Canada's leading authorities on media economics and media trends and on the impact of new technology on the media. Through his consulting company, Mr. Goldstein has completed projects for media clients — print and broadcast — in all parts of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, as well as for the government and industry associations. Mr. Goldstein, please begin your presentation. Afterward, senators will have questions.
Ken Goldstein, President, Communic@tions Management Inc.: Thank you. Good morning.
Let's start with two main themes: first, a description of how new technologies may continue to impact the media; and, second, a discussion of whether the CBC is the best mechanism to deliver a public subsidy to support public service broadcasting.
It's not my intention to question the rationale for public service broadcasting, but I believe that any discussion of the CBC should deal with more than short- or medium-term issues. If we ignore the longer-term structural questions, we run the risk of prescribing short-term solutions that might prove to be unsustainable. So let's jump forward 10 years to get some idea of how the media environment might look in 2025.
In 2025, it is likely that there will be few, if any, printed daily newspapers in Canada, and it is also likely that their transition to online digital formats will not match their current scope in print. In 2025, there might be no local-broadcast television stations in Canada. It should be obvious that both of those potential developments pose serious issues for the future of local journalism. In 2025, we will still watch a lot of television, but the structure of the TV industry will come to look less and less like broadcasting and more and more like e-commerce for programs.
In 2025, it will be even more important to be able to give Canadians the tools to produce and to discover Canadian content. In 2025, radio will still likely fit within our concept of broadcasting and, in 2025, the Internet — and multiple devices for receiving it — will have become even more ubiquitous than today.
That future environment should be part of the context for your inquiry into the CBC, and that leads us to an important question: What is the CBC? A Crown corporation? Yes. A broadcaster? Yes. But it is also something else. The CBC is an intervention created by Parliament because it was felt that the resources available in the private market could not fully supply one or more desired outcomes.
But once Parliament's decision to intervene has been made, the debate should not stop there. In fact, a two-stage process is required: first, deciding to intervene; and second, crafting the form of the intervention. However, the CBC appears to have avoided an analysis of how an alternative structure might use the same funds to achieve better results in pursuit of the same goals.
You have received from the CBC something called the "2014 Media Environment," dated November 19, 2014. On page 19 of that document, the CBC states: "Like other countries, the Government utilizes two key tools to fulfill its objectives: public broadcasting (CBC/Radio-Canada) and regulation (CRTC)."
But there are not just two main tools of public policy. There are three and the third tool is pump-priming, mechanisms like the Canada Media Fund and other supports for program production. With that in mind, we should consider whether public funding of a facilities-based corporation, for television in particular, will still be the most effective way to use those public funds.
That same CBC document makes reference to a study from Deloitte about the CBC's value to the Canadian economy and it provides an estimate based on the CBC's current structure. But the CBC Deloitte study then went on to compare the current CBC/Radio-Canada with an alternative that would effectively remove the CBC's parliamentary appropriation from broadcasting. Implicit in this appears to be a CBC assumption that, if Parliament decided to spend that $1 billion in support of public service broadcasting, then the only delivery mechanism worth considering was the facilities-based CBC.
Yet, surely that does the taxpayers of Canada a disservice. Would it not have been possible to test more realistic alternatives to the status quo? For example, here is one possible alternative: Leave CBC/Radio-Canada's English and French radio services unchanged. Leave CBC/Radio-Canada's specialty TV services unchanged. Reallocate most of the parliamentary appropriation that was allocated to CBC/Radio-Canada's conventional television to a super-fund that would help to fund the production of Canadian programming, particularly Canadian drama and comedy.
That is one of many ideas whose economic impact might have been assessed and that would have been far more useful than the CBC decision to only examine an alternative in which the $1 billion in public subsidy was removed altogether.
If we don't examine those alternatives, then we simply come back to arguments about what the CBC should be doing and how much money we should give it. I think we all know that, no matter what the level of funding, the CBC will always say that more funding is a good idea. Let me read part of a statement from a CBC chairman to a parliamentary committee:
Unless further funds come in, it will be impossible to keep the present level of service. It will be impossible to produce as much broadcasting by Canadian artists as is being done at present. And this is apart from the question of needed improvements.
Those words were spoken on Monday, May 19, 1947.
In 1974, CBC/Radio-Canada appeared before the CRTC to seek renewal of its radio and television licences. Then President of CBC/Radio-Canada, Laurent Picard, had this message for the CRTC:
— the times are changing, and so must the network — but the CBC is efficient, up to date, and needs only more money to be great.
This is what this committee was told on February 17 this year, probably in this room, by the current president of the CBC:
To achieve this transformation, significant investments will be needed and, given that our parliamentary appropriations continue to decline . . . we are forced to eliminate some of our services and to give up our talented artisans . . .
The real debate going forward is not whether there should be funding for public service broadcasting; there should be. The real debate is whether that funding should be concentrated in a facilities-based public corporation or used in a variety of mechanisms that might be more effective in our future media environment.
To sum it up in one question: Is there an alternative way to use the same funds to achieve better results in pursuit of the same goals?
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
Senator Greene: You're asking the same questions I've been asking. On the road to 2020 or 2025, to get to the future that you've painted — which I agree with completely as it is the kind of future I also envision — do you see the CBC as a bridging mechanism in any way?
Mr. Goldstein: Not as currently structured.
Senator Greene: What would happen to the CBC? What is its survivability in any form if we were to redirect the funds to another source, to people who produce content, for example?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, I think that the key here is not only to think of the CBC, but also to think of what the CBC was set up to accomplish.
Senator Greene: Right.
Mr. Goldstein: This isn't about preserving a particular corporate structure. This is about making more Canadian content that more Canadians will watch. If I can do it a different way for the same amount of money, I want to do that.
Senator Greene: I agree.
Senator Housakos: Good morning, sir. One of my questions throughout this study has been: In your opinion, should the CBC be customer-oriented or citizen-focused when it comes to programming decisions?
Mr. Goldstein: If you mean whether they should produce "high-brow" versus "popular," there's room for both. I'm less concerned about somebody writing down on a piece of paper "customer-oriented" or "citizen-focused." I'm more concerned about finding the mechanism that gets us the best of both.
Senator Housakos: Many have argued that advertising is diminishing in the marketplace not only because of the quality of what the CBC is producing but also because it's a general problem that has occurred over the last few years. Many have the view that advertising on television will become less and less relevant in the next few years. Do you share that point of view? If you do share that point of view, what would the CBC have to do in order to make up for that inevitable loss of revenue?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, if we do nothing to change the CBC, the CBC will ask Parliament for more money. I think that's pretty clear. That's why I want to get deeper into reform so that we can use the available funds more in a pump-priming way and not be dependent on advertising.
If you believe, as I do, that we're heading towards more and more television programming being delivered to consumers on the basis of what I call "e-commerce for programs," then we're not going to have channels as we understand them today. Think of your TV not as a set of channels but as a store. You're going to go to that store and you're going to say, "I want to watch this series or that event," and so on. There will be exceptions, of course.
In that environment, how do we get the most Canadian content out there? How do we promote that Canadian content? How do we make sure people can find that Canadian content? Those are the questions I want to ask.
Then I want to come back to what the role of the CBC or a CBC might be. I'm not starting with today's CBC as my frame of reference. I'm starting with where I think we're going to be in the media business, if you will, 10 years from now. If we still think we need an intervention, and if the people of Canada through its Parliament say some things will not be provided because of the size of our market or because of the location — whatever the reason might be — how can we craft that intervention most effectively?
Senator Housakos: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the broadcasting industry is becoming more niche-oriented and focused in a certain area — very specialized.
Mr. Goldstein: Well, if you take a look at how we've gone essentially from three channels to 3,000 choices over 30 years, I think that's pretty clear, yes.
Senator Housakos: I share your point of view. I've said publicly on a number of occasions that I find the CBC/ Radio-Canada tries to be all things to all people and tries to compete in too many areas. As the market continues to widen in scope in terms of niche marketplace with specialty channels right across the board, doesn't the CBC need to zero-in and focus on what they should be doing best, which is promoting Canadian culture? What is the best mechanism for them to do it? Should they take the hard decisions in the next few months and years to get out of areas where there isn't a need for the government to subsidize a broadcaster in specific areas? For example news, as I've argued.
I don't feel CBC/Radio-Canada's news content is any more or any less Canadian than all the other private broadcasters; yet they spend, according to their figures, 35 per cent to 40 per cent of their total revenue on producing national, local, or whatever type news.
Mr. Goldstein: The figures, by the way, can be found on the CRTC website. The CRTC has done an excellent job of putting CBC's data on their website. Under Aggregate Annual Returns, you can see what they spend on news and what they spend on all the genres.
To answer your question, yes, it should be focused; but the basic problem with the CBC is that the CBC is incapable of envisioning a way of spending the money that isn't the CBC.
If you say we need more Canadian drama and we are prepared to spend a quarter of a billion dollars to get more Canadian drama, that doesn't mean you just give the CBC a quarter of a billion dollars to make Canadian drama. It means you say, "What's the best way of spending a quarter of a billion dollars to make Canadian drama?"
You're asking the operations person to tell you how to improve his operations, but the question that will never get answered is, maybe the whole operation is no longer relevant. Maybe there's a better way.
Senator Housakos: Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: Let me pursue that a little bit. You would agree that there is merit to telling Canadian stories and to advancing Canadian culture through onscreen programming that helps to enrich Canadian culture?
Mr. Goldstein: Of course.
Senator Eggleton: Okay, so the question then is not the content, since we want that content, but it's how we get people to view it on whatever platforms or screens they may be using now or in the future?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, it's both how we produce it and get people to view it, yes.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. So far, the way the industry works is that the private sector is finding that they can get more viewers and get their advertising sold by popular programs, and most of what they pick comes from the United States. It's a lot cheaper to take them from the United States. Much of the production money has already been spent down there and they're great at promoting so they can get people to watch these programs, whereas telling the Canadian stories may not get quite the same ratings. But we have a public service broadcaster and it is part of their mandate to do that. If we didn't have a public service broadcaster, how would we get those stories across?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, you have to get the stories produced, you have to get the stories distributed, and you have to get the stories promoted.
Senator Eggleton: Right.
Mr. Goldstein: There's no reason private broadcasting can't do that if the economics are made to work.
Senator Eggleton: How do you change it, then? How would you change the economics?
Mr. Goldstein: If you, for example, took half a billion dollars that now goes to the CBC and put it into what I've called a super-fund — what a few years ago was called the public service publisher — you might find that you could change those economics, and you might find that you can marshal many channels to putting out these programs instead of just one.
Senator Eggleton: Notwithstanding the kind of popular programs that advertisers are willing to pay for it, you think this super-fund could help override that? It would have to be a fair bit of money to override the advertising revenues that the private sector has. How big would this super-fund be?
Mr. Goldstein: I think it could be as large as a half a billion dollars.
Senator Eggleton: You would say that would be a replacement for the —
Mr. Goldstein: CBC conventional television, as we know it.
Senator Eggleton: What would the CBC become then? Would it disappear?
Mr. Goldstein: CBC radio would continue, and CBC specialty services, including the news channels. I happen to think multiplicity of news channels is a good idea. But CBC conventional television would morph into becoming a super-fund, a public service publisher.
Senator Eggleton: What about the news?
Mr. Goldstein: Continue on specialty.
Senator Eggleton: Continue on specialty. But you've said something about local news here you didn't think would be of some value. How do you build up national news if you don't have local coverage, people at different places across the country that help to provide —
Mr. Goldstein: There is no reason — I'm sorry, senator. I didn't want to talk over your question. There is no reason that local could still not be done within the context of something.
I mean, the CBC has already asked to turn off its transmitters. The transmitters are going to be turned off. They're going to be turned off either for economic reasons or they're going to be turned off for spectrum reclamation for wireless purposes. We're going to have to work on models that use an Internet-delivered, a cable-delivered or a satellite-delivered channel to get local in there, as well. All of the broadcasters are going to have to grapple with that, not just the CBC.
Senator Eggleton: You talk about a facilities-based public corporation. How do you see that evolving? You say that in another 15 or 20 years you think the whole scene is going to be quite different.
Mr. Goldstein: Ten.
Senator Eggleton: Well, the world is full of predictions that have only become half true or not true at all, so we don't know, but okay, that's your guess. How would you see these facilities as they are now evolving? Of course, you say we would still have radio broadcast so we'd still need radio studios and that kind of thing. How would you see these facilities evolving from where we are now to where you see it being in 10 or 15 years, or whatever?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, the CBC has already said that it will need fewer facilities.
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Mr. Goldstein: What I'm saying on the television side is that, if you followed my suggestion, they'd need much fewer facilities.
Senator Eggleton: For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Centre in Toronto. How much of that do you think could be reduced?
Mr. Goldstein: Almost all.
Senator Eggleton: Can you be more specific of what you would keep?
Mr. Goldstein: No.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. I see. We'll just fly on the predictions. Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you for your presentation and for being with us this morning. Your contribution is very informative.
Since the beginning of our hearings, some witnesses have stated that the French portion of CBC/Radio-Canada performed quite a bit better than the English side. Some even said that the francophone sector would probably be better positioned than the anglophone sector to face new technologies.
Going back to your concept of the super-fund, would you go so far as to advocate a two-tier system, in a sense, for the francophone and anglophone sectors?
[English]
Mr. Goldstein: Well, we have obviously within broadcast regulation within the CBC today a separate French and English approach, because the markets are different. I can see absolutely no reason why that wouldn't be preserved in any intervention of a funding mechanism.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I imagine that you have found the same thing through your studies and analyses, that is that there is a significant difference in the performance of the French network and that of the English network. Do you have anything to add on this?
[English]
Mr. Goldstein: I agree. I think that you have a situation in the French-language market where there are fewer private alternatives of similar size and competitive weight, and that's reflected there.
Senator Unger: Mr. Goldstein, your presentation is very interesting. I'd like to go back in time just to understand an earlier time in our history when the CBC was apparently collecting an annual licence fee paid by Canadians with radio receivers. They asked Parliament to be freed of that responsibility. Was that the only way that they got paid, or was the government funding them at that time?
Mr. Goldstein: The original funding of the CBC, when it was only in radio, was through the licence fees collected from the owners of radio receivers, radio sets, plus the CBC radio also sold advertising. I believe by the late 1940s or 1950 the radio receiver fee was about $3 a year. I stand to be corrected, but I think it was something in that range. In 1952, or leading up to 1952, the CBC produced its plan for television. They went to cabinet and said, "If we continue with the licence fee as they've done in the United Kingdom, the licence fee would have to be $10 for television." Some of you here have some experience with politics and you know that, when you're sitting in a cabinet and somebody comes in and says you're about to impose a $10 levy on everybody for watching television, they said, "No, we have to find a different way."
So the licence fee was done away with. Phasing out around 1959, though a little bit may have extended into 1960, CBC was financed and the expansion into television was financed through allocating the tariff on the importation of television sets. Plus, they sold advertising. Then, only beginning in about 1959-60, did we get to something that resembles today's parliamentary appropriation. That's the kind of capsule history of how we went from what was originally sort of the British model plus advertising to our own particular version plus advertising.
Senator Unger: Thank you. That's interesting. So, since 1959 to 1960, it went from zero public funding to where we are today, which is about a billion and a half dollars, plus advertising?
Mr. Goldstein: I would say about $1.1 billion would be the appropriation from the most recent year. You have to include the capital, as well as the operating appropriation.
In a sense, it was public funding. What was going on, though, was that the government was saying, "We're collecting a particular tax here, and that will be allocated to the CBC." But, broadly speaking, yes.
Senator Unger: Would you include Telefilm Canada and the Canada Media Fund as revenue for CBC?
Mr. Goldstein: I wouldn't include them directly as revenue for CBC, but, obviously, they are helping indirectly to the extent that they help to create programs that are shown on the CBC. But I wouldn't say they are revenue for CBC per se.
Senator Unger: I'm from Alberta and I've always felt that CBC doesn't really provide a service that reflects my province and, indeed, the West. In fact, recently there was a headline in one of the newspapers where people said "CBC is not Canadians' broadcaster; it represents their view of the world to Canadians." I certainly agree with that.
Knowing that there is a difference between French and English, and for English TV in particular, we have a lot of other choices. I don't watch CBC television, so, naturally, I don't support the idea that they get more money, which is a perennial ask, I think. Basically, I wonder what you would think about the idea.
We've heard some very adamant people who insist that they need more funding and that they should stay, but why should people who don't watch it — I'm talking about television — pay for something that we don't want and don't watch?
Mr. Goldstein: I have a feeling that, if I try to answer that question, I'm going to unravel our entire system of governance, because I suspect there are those who don't like certain government programs who could say the same thing about that government program or another government program, and I won't do that. I will not unravel our system of governance. It has served us well.
What I will say is that there are debates to be had and to be held over whether a program is good or bad, and there are debates to be held over whether we should do more or less of a certain kind of programming, or whether all opinions were expressed on a given show or on a given newscast. All of those debates are part of a healthy democratic process.
The issue I want to focus on is how we get the maximum amount of Canadian content out there for the amount that we invest, so that we can continue to have those debates.
Senator Unger: Just one last question, Mr. Chair. As to the super-fund that you talked about, if I had any direct say in that, it would be that more Canadian history be featured because I know that Canadian history is no longer taught to any great extent in schools today and that young Canadians don't know much about our country. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein: If I were given the time to answer that question, we would be here for a week because I completely agree with what was just said. We do not teach enough Canadian history.
Senator Demers: Good morning, Mr. Goldstein.
You mentioned throughout your very special presentation that, while right now it's happening on a regular basis, by 2025 the papers will be discontinued, most of them or probably all of them. We've had some witnesses talking, a couple of times, about fewer people — more than ever it's a younger population — watching television and all of that. Where do you see this coming up in the future? What's your thinking on that, sir?
Mr. Goldstein: Young people are watching video, if you will. They're watching television programs, but they're not necessarily watching those programs on that set in the family room, in the living room or in the recreation room. They're watching it on this, and they're watching it on that, and on any number of devices. Sometimes they're using two devices at the same time, and sometimes they're using a third device to communicate with somebody while they're watching, "What did you think of that?" So multiple platforms are a given.
We are all learning how to deal with this abundance of choice and this abundance of content. I think one of the important things we should be doing is spending time worrying about the process of discovery, of how we find programs. The CBC has put on the public record something called "a space for us all." I've read it on their website. There are 18 pages on the website, and the word "digital" is there 36 times. I did a keyword search. You can do that now.
I found nothing in there about the process of discovery. I think that's something we should be worried about. We should be thinking about how we get people to find out that the stuff is available. It used to be easy. There were three channels. They promoted themselves. You clicked around among three channels and, thank you very much, it was either there or it was not.
Now, I can almost guarantee that, other than some news, every single individual in this room watched something different last night and that's an issue. I don't want to get too philosophical about this, but the issue that drives me the most and concerns me the most in this hyper-fragmented world is how a modern democracy functions when we all have less in common. To me, that's the issue of the coming generation. What we're talking about is part of that issue. I'm sorry; I went on too long.
Senator Demers: No, no. Thank you so much, Mr. Goldstein; I appreciate your answer.
Senator Greene: I was watching PBS last night —
The Chair: You got one covered. He said we were all watching something different.
Senator Greene: I was watching PBS last night, and it was a very interesting program because what was on was the Nova Scotia Tattoo, which takes place in the early part of July each and every year. They were showing it on PBS. Obviously, it wasn't live because the thing takes place in July. They were also in a fundraising period. They were using the Nova Scotia Tattoo to raise funds among Canadians, like me, who were watching, but also Americans.
The American presenter — I don't recall his name at all — said that the producers of the Tattoo had told them that they were unable to get the Tattoo on the CBC or on any other Canadian channel. I was just amazed by this.
Do you think the CBC is doing a good enough job in presenting live cultural events in this country?
Mr. Goldstein: I don't know if I can give you a definitive answer, because if I had to look at all the possibilities and what was being carried, one could work out a proportion and so on. I think it's a shame that you couldn't see the Tattoo on CBC, particularly because I love pipe bands. I have to get a plug in here: The Winnipeg Police Pipe Band is one of the greatest in the world.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear. Absolutely.
Mr. Goldstein: I had to get that on the public record.
To the more serious question, there will always be somebody's idea of a good cultural show that there won't be time, room or money for. I don't know that I would make a blanket criticism in that department.
Senator Greene: Fair enough. I just thought the whole thing was amazing.
I've got another question that has to do with the CBC's mandate and its ability to fulfill it. Assume for a moment that the technological revolution wasn't upon us and we were in the age of network television, which would pertain for a long time. In that context, is the CBC fulfilling its mandate, in your view?
Mr. Goldstein: The CBC can't really fulfill its mandate once we've moved beyond that original broadcasting environment, and I'm talking about television, based on scarcity. Once we came to be a multiplicity of services, its mandate had to evolve and it really hasn't evolved.
I might say, I noticed an exchange between the chair and you. You mentioned watching something and the chair mentioned listening. I think it's worth it for this committee to know something. I have said much of what I'm saying in other fora on other occasions.
Invariably, people will stand up afterwards and say, "Don't touch CBC Radio." They will make no pleas for the future of CBC television. I think that CBC Radio, to a remarkable degree, has evolved as it should. We have to give credit where credit is due.
Senator Greene: The key to CBC Radio, or one of the keys, is that it has no network competitors in the private sector.
Mr. Goldstein: Yes, and there are a whole bunch of other reasons we don't have time for, such as different threshold costs and so on and so forth, yes.
Senator Greene: Of course, we're not alone in the technological revolution that's upon us. It's in the U.S., et cetera. Is the PBS model of subscriptions by individual Americans and Canadians likely to enable PBS to survive a bit better than the CBC, given the change in technology, or would that make any difference whatsoever?
Mr. Goldstein: To some extent, it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. It's just a whole different environment.
Again, if we come back to thinking of television 10 years from now as e-commerce for programs — thinking of television as a store where you're going to buy one episode of something, 10 episodes of something, the right to watch all the games or one of the games, or whatever it might be — there may be some prices at the store if you want advertising and different prices at the store if you don't want advertising. We have to make sure that in that store there's Canadian content. We have to make sure that in that store there's Canadian content that somebody's heard of and what the best way to do it is.
Senator Greene: I agree completely.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Goldstein, it's been great. We've had a lot of testimony over the last number of months comparing the CBC to other public broadcasters, such as the BBC, in particular, as it pertains to funding. I'm curious about your take on the BBC and whether or not it's a true model to be compared to the CBC. Is it a model we should follow or is it a model we should go in the other direction from?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, it's a different model. We started out a little like it, and now we're not like it. I gather some of you were in London and met with some BBC people. I'm sure you're aware that the United Kingdom's House of Commons has just issued a report on the future of the BBC, which pretty much says that the next round of licence fee negotiations will be the last and that after the next renewal of the licence fee there has to be something different.
They, too, are moving away from where they are. They pay an annual licence fee. A lot of people may not be aware that the licence fee is considered a tax in the United Kingdom. We use the words "licence fee," but the Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom, I believe in 2006, reclassified that as a tax. Consequently, it's a regressive tax. Do we want to finance what we are missing and what we think we want to replace through a regressive tax? I'm not sure.
The other reason I don't think one should run to compare with other public broadcasters in other countries is that their geography is different, their demography is different, and their history is different. I think we have to have a Canadian solution that works for us.
Senator MacDonald: Is there, in your estimation, any other public broadcaster that would mirror what Canada's public broadcaster could be, assuming we don't gravitate towards the BBC model?
Mr. Goldstein: Nothing is a perfect model. New Zealand, for example, has a fund with some characteristics of the super-fund that I suggested. Yes, we should know what everybody else is doing, but we're smart enough in this country to come up with our own idea.
Senator Plett: I was one of the senators in London. Indeed, we met with the management of the BBC, with the House of Lords, and with the individual who chaired the committee that wrote this report. I have the report but I have not had the opportunity to read it, and it sounds like you have read it.
You said that this is their last round of licensing. I'm surprised by that, because every witness we heard from said that everybody in the U.K. loves it. I'm surprised that they would want to go in a different direction. In the report, did they indicate at all what direction they were going if it wouldn't be this model?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, first of all, they have said that the next round of negotiations will still lead to at least a seven-year period of the licence fee still being in place. After that, they're anticipating that that form of financing will not be tenable. I haven't read the full report yet, as it came out recently, as you know.
Senator Plett: Yes, it did.
Mr. Goldstein: But they are saying we have to come up with something different.
I would point out, by the way, that the United Kingdom also uses pump priming for television production. I don't know if you know that one of the most popular shows around the world now is called "Game of Thrones." That receives quite a few pounds from the British Government in terms of production assistance and it has nothing to do with the BBC.
The Chair: The clerk will be sending a link for this report after the meeting, so everybody who wants a copy can download it.
Senator MacDonald: I just want to go back to your proposal about the super-fund and about leaving radio unchanged. A couple of years ago, the CRTC gave some permission to both CBC and Radio-Canada to do some advertising. I have my opinions on this. I'm curious what yours is. Do you think CBC Radio should be left commercial-free?
Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: So do I. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein: I would add also, by the way, and you might be interested in this, and thank you very much, senator, for mentioning this, that the CRTC in 2013 gave the CBC three year's permission to sell ads on radio. It expires on August 31, 2016, which is a little over a year from now. They said to the CBC, "If you want to keep doing this, you have to come back and tell us how it's working. You have to tell us what the impact in the marketplace is, and you have to tell us how you've maintained the uniqueness of what we want from CBC Radio."
One thing you might put in your report, he said, by the way, is should the CBC come back to the CRTC next year? It might not be a bad time to reopen a whole bunch of their licence. You have to remember that that entire licence proposal was based on a situation that doesn't exist anymore, namely the carrying of hockey. The entire basis for the CBC's licence renewal has kind of been made irrelevant by events. Should they come back next year to the commission, I would hope that the commission would reopen a few things.
Senator MacDonald: I would hope so, too. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you, Mr. Goldstein, for your presentation. I'd like to thank, via the airwaves, the hundreds of witnesses we've had over the last 38 or 39 meetings for their presentations.
We now have a challenge. We will be meeting tomorrow night in Room 257 of the East Block to start talking about how we get to the report. The analyst will be preparing for us a table of contents of what issues should be addressed. I'm hoping people will come in with recommendations and, after that, we will try to have a timetable on how we go forward with the report.
Also, not necessarily for tomorrow, but we will have a few months after this report is over to talk about potentially another study before the adjournment in June. If people want to think about what subject we could be addressing, feel free to start thinking about it.
I know Senator Housakos has something he wants to table before we adjourn.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, chair. Given that fact that we're in a period of reflection going forward with the report, I want to move that document entitled "Direct Taxpayer Funding of Canadian Content and Programming" be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee. I have done some research, and I have put together some tables and charts of the various organizations and taxpayer funding that goes into public broadcasting that I think will portray a better picture of exactly how much Canadians put into public broadcasting.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm counting on the clerk to distribute that as quickly as possible, before tomorrow.
Senator Plett: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes. Can I free the witness? We only have another one or two minutes.
Mr. Goldstein: Do you mind if I sit?
The Chair: No problem.
Mr. Goldstein: This is as close to the Senate as I'm going to get.
The Chair: You never know.
Senator Plett: Maybe I misunderstood what you said now. I heard you to say that you were hoping we would have recommendations tomorrow night already?
The Chair: No, just opinions so that we can start framing the report. We have to give guidance to the analysts. They're going to give us guidance, and it's not going to be an easy job. We know that. This is going to be quite a challenge, for them and for us. The more we come prepared: Cutting? Do we abolish the CBC? Do give them more funding? As long as we can get rid of the extremes, we will focus on what we want to deal with.
Senator Plett: If Senator Eggleton and I would not be there, we would get rid of the extremes? Is that what you're saying?
The Chair: We would certainly have a shorter meeting.
We will be reading into the report the 2,586 emails we got through Senator Greene as an annex to the report.
All joking aside, there is no dinner tomorrow, so be prepared to expedite quickly through that meeting.
This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)