THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the local services provided by the CBC/Radio-Canada.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker.
We keep repeating this message each time that we get together because we had some incidents earlier in the year. It is our responsibility — all of us collectively — to make sure that we follow that so that we protect each other. Thank you for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons from Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Wilson: Senator Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Senator Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Senator Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
We are meeting today as part of our study on the local services provided by the CBC/Radio-Canada. The committee had begun this study in 2024 under its general order of reference in the previous Parliament. We have revived it to complete this important work.
[Translation]
With that context, today the committee is hearing from executives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
With that, I would now like to welcome Marie-Philippe Bouchard, President and Chief Executive Officer; Brodie Fenlon, General Manager and Editor-in-Chief; Jean Francois Rioux, General Manager, Regional Services; and Bev Kirshenblatt, Executive Director, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs.
[English]
Thank you all for joining us today. I would now like to invite Ms. Bouchard to give her opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. Should you wish to ask a question, please alert our clerk who will add your name to the list.
Marie-Philippe Bouchard, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Good morning, chair and senators. We appreciate your interest in the CBC/Radio-Canada and the work this committee has done to date.
[Translation]
While I was not yet in this job when your study began last fall, I understand that we shared information about our services with you. We hope to use this opportunity with you today to underscore just how important service to communities is to our mandate, our connections with Canadians and to our future.
Since this committee last met on this study we have continued to increase our presence across the country, adding journalists in more than 20 communities which did not have a local CBC or Radio-Canada presence just last year.
We have three goals: to provide trusted, accurate information; to have journalists on the ground to connect with the communities they serve; and to make sure their content is available on all of the platforms where Canadians are spending their time.
There are now 91 communities who have a local CBC or Radio-Canada presence; 27 have both. This presence is especially important in minority language communities and in the North.
We’ve added free local CBC streaming channels and podcasts to reach more Canadians. CBC/Radio-Canada has daily local newsletters in 17 communities and 18 regional video journals.
This local connection is critical. It’s where people get the information that affects their lives most directly. It builds trust. It helps us to share local perspectives with the rest of the country. And as you’ve heard, local news is in trouble.
The hollowing out of local news by global digital platforms is one of the biggest policy challenges we face. Foreign platforms now capture more than 90% of all digital ad revenue in Canada. That revenue used to sustain a diverse news ecosystem of journalists at community newspapers, radio and television stations. Now local news outlets are disappearing.
At the same time, the influence of social platforms is growing. It contributes to polarization. More and more, people are no longer sure which information is accurate.
[English]
A public broadcaster serving all Canadians with trusted news and supporting Canadian culture is more important than ever. But it’s no longer enough. In this environment, the CBC/Radio-Canada needs to become a national public service, bringing Canadians together, supporting Canadian and Indigenous cultures and supporting the Canadian media ecosystem.
This is what I’ve been hearing from Canadians across the country. It is reflected in the new strategic plan that will guide our decisions over the next five years.
Our strategy has three pillars: The first is proximity, being present in more communities with content relevant to their lives; the second is digital agility, ensuring that our content is easily available on whatever platforms Canadians use and leveraging new technology like artificial intelligence, or AI, for the public good; and the third is bringing people together, finding ways to build understanding and creating opportunities for shared Canadian experiences.
We will do this by offering content and perspectives that serve current users as well as those who may not currently use or value what we offer, particularly children and youth, newcomers to Canada and those unhappy with our current service. We will do this by being a better collaborator with private and community media to support a healthy media ecosystem. We will be a pollinator, not a competitor.
We’re working with communities. Through our Collab program, we’re partnering with more than 250 local public libraries. We offer events tailored to what the community wants from us. There are workshops on video production or how to make a podcast: sessions on spotting fake news. We also record television and radio programs with a community audience.
We’d like to do more. There are still 26 communities with a population of over 50,000 who do not have a local CBC/Radio-Canada presence. I believe that strengthening our local connections will increase our value to Canadians and to the country.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bouchard. Before we move to questions from senators, I would like to remind colleagues to keep questions concise and state which witnesses they are directing their questions to.
I would like to invite the deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question. Then we have a special question that we’ll allow Senator Cardozo to ask because he is going to be present for a short period of time and then will be replaced by Senator Hay, if I understand correctly.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
We embarked on this study last year in the last Parliament, and it was a fulsome study. We had 10 meetings and 30 briefs altogether, so we really dug into the topic. Inevitably, we went beyond the topic of local services to the corporation as a whole, including its future and the visions that people had for the CBC — a lot of very relevant topics.
Following from that, my question is more general. It refers to the five-year plan that you mentioned briefly just now, specifically your focus on children, youth, newcomers and those who aren’t satisfied with the CBC or those who don’t use the CBC. I am very interested in those two categories of people who are not satisfied and those who don’t use CBC services. Can you tell me who those are? Can you drill down and tell me which Canadians fall into those categories — first of all, a granular approach?
Second, what are you going to do to appeal to them? Is it programming, messaging or platforms? What have you learned about them that will bring them to the CBC? That is with the caveat that some people never will, I would guess, but that’s another fact of life. Those are my questions.
Ms. Bouchard: All we can do is offer. The idea is not to force anybody to use services, but we want to make sure we have the format and topics in locations that will generate interest.
Going to your first question, we know that among younger Canadians, there is already a very established practice of going to social media or other foreign platforms to get informed. We also know from our continuous relationship with audiences and our surveys that there are some areas — and I have heard this from people while I was travelling — where people feel there is a disconnect, sometimes, between the content we’re offering and what is going on in their lives.
A big part of the answer is getting back to being closer to communities. For instance, our push for re-establishing journalistic presence in a number of communities where we had no presence before is a way to get closer to where people live, what concerns them and what types of issues are happening in their lives and see those reflected.
The second issue is to make sure we are present with our content on the platforms that they consume. If you’re spending 100% of your time on YouTube, which is true for a large segment of the population, you have to be able to find the CBC content that would be relevant to you on that platform. It’s a matter of offering our content where people consume it.
Finally, it is to be open. I was reminded recently — and this has been my experience for all the years that I’ve been with the corporation prior to my coming back as the CEO — that everybody has an opinion on the service, and that’s valuable because we learn from it. We have to be open to those opinions and questions because they demonstrate that people expect something out of a public good that they own. It’s really important to have that attitude.
I will call upon my colleagues to give you examples in their respective markets and responsibilities as to how we are listening to the audience and communities. Maybe I can start with Mr. Fenlon.
Brodie Fenlon, General Manager and Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Thank you.
To answer the first part of your question, I think it’s everything you cited. It is about format, story choice and platforms. We need to be able to tackle all of those. The expansion of our service into places we have not been before brings us closer to people who may not feel that their views, communities or perspectives have been reflected in our coverage.
The other thing we look at is how we might have the opportunity to elevate these local stories to national audiences. We take very seriously the role and the mandate to reflect this country to itself.
It’s about being in more places and then using the network that we have the privilege of running to elevate those stories to better reflect the people and the times that we’re in.
Jean Francois Rioux, General Manager, Regional Services, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: If you look at our first mandate, it is to serve Canadians. Every time I go into a community — I travel a lot across the country — people tell us that they want to see themselves, not them personally but other Canadians like them. They will intervene or tell you what is happening in their community and what the problems are.
It goes back to what Ms. Bouchard was saying about being open. We have to listen to people.
I travel. I was just in Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec last week. Before that, I was in Sept-Îles. I’m going to Regina in two weeks. Every time I ask people how we can improve what we’re doing, there are a lot of examples in our communities that should be available to other Canadians, so that’s what we’re doing. Last year, we launched a new newscast from Ottawa that is basically serving all the regional stations across the country at 6:30 p.m. On that show, it’s not about what the news is; it’s how we can put the news in context. We have a little less coverage, but we go deeper into the stories. Those stories are from all over the country.
We do that on digital platforms as well. Platforms are fundamental. Five years ago, we decided to go on cellphones with vertical videos. We decided to go on short newscasts, not for those people watching the six o’clock news — because we know that they are watching the six o’clock news — but for those who are not watching. There was tremendous success. We tripled the engagement, meaning that the time they spent on that application — and it’s going to sound small — was one minute and 30 seconds. However, on digital platforms, one minute and 30 seconds is an eternity.
We tried that on Facebook when we started and realized very quickly that Facebook was not the right platform because it was six to eight seconds.
So we’re trying a few things to reach other audiences.
The most important thing in all of this is the ability to adapt and try to serve as many Canadians as you can. You’re right: We’ll never get everyone; that’s impossible.
Senator Wilson: I’m new to this place and this study. In reviewing the materials, one of the things that really stuck out to me was a comment made in November last year by Pierre Tousignant, the President of the Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Radio-Canada. He testified before this committee and said that it would be good to see more collaboration between the French and English networks of the CBC/Radio-Canada. According to Mr. Tousignant, their respective leaders manage in silos and make all possibilities for co-production between the two networks impermeable.
I’m interested in your comments on that, in particular with respect to the requirement, as I understand it, to maintain separate editorial structures for both Radio-Canada and the CBC English service. It seems to me that particularly now when national unity is so important, a greater understanding in English Canada of what is happening in French Canada and vice versa would be a huge value that the CBC could add. I am interested in your thoughts on that.
Ms. Bouchard: It’s a good question. I’ve been travelling as well to our stations in the West, Quebec City and the North. I understand the position taken by our union representative in the Province of Quebec, but if you travel across the country, you’ll find in the CBC/Radio-Canada stations an incredible amount of collaboration between both, and that’s indispensable. If you go to Moncton, Vancouver or Edmonton, you will find that teams are working on assignments together, and they share information about what stories are being covered. They all have different objectives, because they have different audiences to whom they are speaking. However, often, especially in French-language minority communities, it’s a blend because people watch both the CBC and Radio-Canada. We try to complement between the two services the variety and diversity of news content they will get.
In order to be efficient, we often send one camera to an event and share the pictures. There is an awful lot of collaboration.
There is also an awful lot of collaboration at the network level. If you think, for instance, in terms of our deployment abroad, we have specific reporters, but there is a lot of sharing of information and strategy on how we will cover this or that crisis so that Canadians get a full complement of information available.
There are many points of contact, and I would dispute that there are silos in that respect in terms of impenetrable silos.
I have been to Belgium where there is a French and a Flemish broadcaster; those are the two official languages of that country. There is a wall between those two. That is not the situation with the CBC/Radio-Canada. We are one organization trying as efficiently as possible to reflect the diversity and the original nature of culture in both French and English and in eight Indigenous languages. We work together at it, though.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Senator Hay, for giving me your spot for the first hour. I’m on another committee at the same time, but, like everybody here, I care passionately about this issue. Ms. Bouchard, we had a chance to discuss this earlier, and I appreciate our discussion when you were first appointed.
There are a lot of things that the CBC does right, but there are things that can be done better. There are three things that I’ll put to you, and I want to ask you how you would do those things, regardless of whether you get a huge increase in funding. Often, people say that we have to have more funding like they do in Europe. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Regardless of whether it does, we still have to do these things.
The first thing is local programming, which you talked eloquently about. It’s not about using the Google money or the extra $150 million to do it, but instead fundamentally changing the nature of the corporation so that it’s more focused across the country rather than at the headquarters in Toronto and Montreal.
Second, you used the term “pollinator.” I have heard the term “creative commons” being used. In the debate we had in the chamber last fall, Senator Miville-Dechêne talked about the idea of sharing the content being paid for by taxpayers, should that content not be shared freely with other media.
Third, there is an issue of bias, which we haven’t talked about yet today. There is a sizable part of the population that believes that the CBC is biased — that they have a political approach and are preachy. How do you deal with that? A portion of our population are rock-solid detractors who believe you’re not in touch with them. How do you deal with those situations?
Ms. Bouchard: I’ll start with the last one, if you don’t mind.
It’s a tough one because we conduct our daily news under pretty strict journalistic standards, practices and guidelines that are, in fact, ensuring a pluralistic approach, a diversity of points of view and fairness in our coverage. That’s our “church” and that’s how we function. The notion that we are politically oriented is really against everything we believe and the independence that we so importantly preserve, which is protected by the Broadcasting Act and other instruments of the law.
Senator Cardozo: As a strong supporter of the CBC, I would say that, by and large, the reporting is very unbiased. There are two or three people who do fact-check opposition members more than they do Liberal government members consistently and quite aggressively. Either you fact-check everybody, or you don’t fact-check everybody.
Ms. Bouchard: I’ll let Mr. Fenlon answer that part, but I want to go back to another aspect you mentioned, which was that we don’t necessarily reflect what people feel is important. That is why the local extensions and going back into areas where we haven’t been are remedies to some extent. If we do a good job, I think we will manage to reflect more realities, points of view and sensitivities than we do from the big cities where we are currently located.
That’s a function of the erosion of our resources over time. Back in the mid-1980s, when I first joined the corporation, there were more outlets and more journalists on the ground across the country. We have had reductions, and we were also working with traditional technology where we needed a studio and more infrastructure to be able to put out newscasts. We are very nimble today. Digital helps us. We keep developing technologies so that we can be producing full content — not just news but also sports and culture — with very light equipment. Therefore, we can imagine a world where we can be in more places where communities live and where events — not just problems — important to them are occurring. That increases the sense of reflection and inclusion.
There are solutions, but they need to fix the right problem. The problem is our lack of connection in some areas with the public because of historical organizational and resource issues, which we are trying to fix. With time, we will see that proximity brings more trust and a greater sense of inclusion and reflection.
Senator Cardozo: That is one of the points that came through in a lot of our hearings. Thank you.
Ms. Bouchard: If Mr. Fenlon wants to address the fact-checking —
Mr. Fenlon: I will address two things. I would like to first pick up on your question about local programming.
I think we have been very diligent about trying to create more local programming within fixed budgets. We have launched local podcasts. We’re at 12, with another one coming. We have launched 14 local streaming channels. Those are building and creating new programming using existing content with new forms, but it’s mostly done within. We realize that’s what we’re going to have to do, and we’ll shift resources to do more of that. We take that challenge seriously.
As to bias, I have worked for a number of different news organizations and private media. I can say that the CBC is the most accountable and is held to the highest standard of any organization I have ever worked for. As I said, I have worked for a number of them: Sun Media, The Globe and Mail and others. We are called to defend our journalism and standards, and we are held to account by an independent ombudsman.
But I hear the concerns about bias, and we take them seriously. We talk about them regularly. Where do we need to course correct, or what is leading to that perception?
I will add that it is a challenge and a criticism that a number of public broadcasters face around the world. We also see this kind of criticism, but we’re open to it. We want to be as good as we can be.
Senator Cardozo: Would you consider a program like “Face Off,” which you had some years ago with a right-wing host and left-wing host? Claire Hoy and Judy Rebick did that some years ago, and I thought it was very successful in terms of discussing issues in depth.
Mr. Fenlon: One of the challenges is that we are committed to providing balance, and you don’t do balance in any single piece of journalism or story; you have to show balance over time. A program like that is very effective at creating some sort of balance, although you can sometimes tip into a false equivalency.
We’re looking at all sorts of programming options. The first option for our journalists is to find the voices and perspectives and achieve balance in their work daily in order to elevate those voices, as well as find the experts and contrarian viewpoints, surface those for the audience and allow them to make up their own mind. That’s the gold standard. Journalism is a human endeavour, and humans make mistakes and aren’t perfect, but I take the point. We are asking what else we can do from a programming perspective to help counter the idea that there is bias in our work.
Mr. Rioux: To give you a couple of examples of how we can adapt to doing things differently with the amount of money we have, I like to say in French to my colleagues, “We have to learn to do things differently with what we have.”
Here’s a simple example. This summer, we put together a cultural show. The editorial was in Toronto. The coordination was in Ottawa. The technical was in Moncton. The show came from a different community every week. We went from Vancouver to New Brunswick to Quebec to Ontario. All of that was done with new technology that we discovered when we introduced vertical videos into our production, meaning we were able to do this show for 10 times less than what we could have done it for 10 or 15 years ago.
Technology plays an important role and so do the people working on the projects and their ability to try things and sometimes make mistakes. That’s how we were able to produce that show.
I’ll give you a second example. It is an example I always give to my colleagues. It is different, but it is about the Sunday morning mass.
We have been producing the Sunday morning mass on Radio-Canada for — I do not know how long. I was a child, and I remember it. A few years ago, someone in Quebec City came to us and said, “Listen, we have a little challenge for you. You will be responsible for the mass. I will not give you any money, but I will not cut any money.”
I looked at him and said, “Great.” I asked, “Can you please put together a plan so that we can have this weekly mass for 52 weeks a year plus Christmas and Easter without money, for as cheaply as you can do it?” They worked on it. The first budget was $325,000. I said, “No.” The second was $125,000. I said, “No, as cheap as you can.”
We have been doing this for 11 years now, and the annual budget is $27,000 a year. That is for a full 60 minutes of television. There are things when you know —
[Translation]
— the road map —
[English]
— because it has been the same thing for thousands of years or centuries, and it is easy for us. We can set up robotic cameras. We can actually control everything from outside of the building if we want to.
It is a matter of defining what your needs are and what kind of standard of production you need to do this thing. If you do not like it, throw it in the basket and start over again. We have to adapt.
I was saying earlier, we have to adapt. These are parts of the ways we can adapt.
Ms. Bouchard: If I can answer your third point about our relationship with private and community media, I have been talking to many local private and community media on my travels. They don’t need the same things. Each one has their own successes, challenges and business models. Sometimes it is going to be about sharing opportunities for training their journalists. We do that. Sometimes it is going to be about sharing costs for conducting a survey before an election. We do that. Sometimes it is about having access to space. We are talking about it. Sometimes it is about sharing content, but not all of them want content. Sometimes they don’t want our content because they want to remain distinct.
We have a flexible approach. When I meet with a leader of a community newspaper or radio station or a private news operator, my first questions are: What is working for you? What do you need? It takes us in various directions.
With the team, we are looking at all kinds of ways to support and shore up what exists. We are also hopeful to be able to support nascent news in new formats. Going back to the regions and being more present in more communities will create an appetite for local content that will help others have their own independent outlets, but maybe not in the form that they used to have. Some forms and some business models have disappeared, and I do not think they are coming back. Other forms of local media can exist alongside the CBC.
We can keep the fire going.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: I am a former CBC/Radio-Canada journalist and producer from back in the days of Alex Frame and Harold Redekopp.
[English]
That’s how old I am.
I will ask three quick questions.
There was an election municipally in Alberta yesterday. The first thing that I did this morning was go to the CBC website to see the results. I did not go to watch a video. I went to the print website, which competes directly with the flailing Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald. I wanted to understand. Some people have said it is not fair that you are putting out a print product in competition with print media and selling advertising on it.
The question is this: What would it cost to take the advertising off the print product, which is the primary way that I consume the news? Could you maintain that print product without the advertising revenue?
Ms. Bouchard: That is a good question. Advertising is sold in various formats. We do have availability for advertising in print. That could be as a video, an overlay or various scripted forms. Sometimes a campaign by an advertiser is hitting many formats. It is not necessarily easy to say what is the value ascribed to a particular type of inventory. I am sure our finance and sales people are able to estimate that, though. That is one thing.
The other thing is the competition for advertising or availability is not necessarily amongst ourselves. It is with the big — yes, it is.
Senator Simons: I understand that.
Ms. Bouchard: The fact that we would withdraw from that may not translate into more advertising being sold by those outlets, unfortunately.
We may discuss how we can be better collaborators on that front. The idea is to also create opportunities for local businesses to have access to Canadians in a secure environment where privacy is respected and where we are not using those practices that you see on some of those platforms and so on and so forth. Having a large availability for local advertisers and Canadian businesses to access Canadian markets is also a factor.
I don’t have a full answer to your question. This is something we can look at and see if there are models where we could collaborate more across local businesses with the broadcaster.
In fact, we have had discussions with some of the regional news providers to see how we can coordinate better or raise or increase the market for Canadian media without necessarily it being a quid pro quo — none for us and, therefore, more for you. It is not going to happen that way. We are better if we grow the pie and hope that they benefit better than to simply say we’ll withdraw and hope for the best.
Senator Simons: This is the second question: There was a time when regional stations produced much more feature content. I am thrilled to see the investment in regional bureaus in Alberta. I see the postings all the time because all my friends work for the CBC. I see the postings. You are opening up more regional bureaus. That is terrific.
One thing that has diminished is things like pickups of symphony concerts and recordings of theatre events. There was a time when the CBC-2 network was filled with local arts and culture content, which was not that expensive to produce because it was already happening live.
Has there been any thought at the big blue building about returning to a day when we showcase local artists on the national network?
Mr. Fenlon: First, you are talking about original programming. We certainly feature local arts, culture and music consistently throughout the day on our programs in those local markets.
Senator Simons: I’m not talking about local markets; I’m talking about there being a time when you had locally based producers who grew talent and produced symphony and jazz concerts — things that, then, got played to the network. There are few arts and culture programs that now come from the regions. For example, there used to be a network show that came from Edmonton which was a comedy show called “The Irrelevant Show.” It is gone. All of that programming is now coming from Toronto. There used to be a time where you would come to the Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival, the largest theatre festival in the country, and do live recordings of shows — they tended to be one-man shows — and then broadcast them nationally. You would record concerts by the Calgary orchestra or Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. That doesn’t happen anymore.
Mr. Fenlon: I would not agree that it doesn’t happen at all; we have about seven regional music programs, for example, that serve regions, and then —
Senator Simons: I am asking about taking local content to the network.
Mr. Fenlon: Yes, and I was going to say that there are another 14 regional network music programs that are based in the regions and run nationally on CBC Music or on CBC Radio One. There are some, but there is no doubt that there is less than what was done in the 1990s and before my time. However, those would have been a matter of choices as budgets were cut. I do —
Senator Simons: I am wondering why those choices were made.
Mr. Fenlon: I cannot answer for that time.
Ms. Bouchard: I was around, but I was not in a leadership position at the time. I witnessed the dwindling of local to national productions in a variety of genres.
We have been trying to reinstate some. Mr. Rioux, I don’t know if you have some examples for Radio-Canada.
When we are down to saying that we have to re-establish journalists in areas where there is a population of 50,000 that is not being served, we are starting from ground zero. Then, hopefully, we can build more in terms of diversity of reflection, not just from a news angle but also from cultural, sports and community perspectives.
However, the resources available to the corporation today compared to the 1980s and 1990s is a small portion. That had consequences. The choices were made based on, I assume, what made sense at the time in terms of ensuring basic services to as many Canadians as possible. It is not the rich service that we would like to be able to deliver.
Senator Simons: You mentioned using AI, and that sent a chill down my spine. I wonder what that means. I hope you are not talking about using AI to write news stories or present news stories.
Ms. Bouchard: Not at all. I want to reassure you of that. I had the opportunity yesterday when I was before the committee at the House of Commons to talk about that and how we see AI, which is as a means to sometimes accomplish some things with more velocity but not at all in terms of replacing the human creativity or the human judgment of delivering information.
There are uses of AI that allow you to go through vast amounts of data that humans would take forever to do. There is still a human at the end of the process in order to verify and challenge that information. It allows us to do work that would not be humanly possible to get done.
There are principles around our use of AI. One principle I want to highlight is the preservation of intellectual property and the respect for the creator. For music, literature, writing and artistic expression, we know machines can create stuff, but that is not human creation. It is important that when other humans witness those, they are able to distinguish between the two.
It’s about transparency around what we use AI for, the protection of intellectual property and trying to combat — with AI — AI’s manifestations that have been more troublesome, such as fake news and polarization. We are actually working with AI tools and international public service partners to develop an approach where we could host civil conversations. I do not know if you have been on an X feed recently or in any other social media comments, but they are sometimes frightening. They frighten me.
We want there to be the opportunity for people to actually have a conversation as opposed to rewarding violent and extreme positions. I think we can reintroduce that, and, with our partners from other public service media — large organizations — we have been shepherding that project and testing it in various cultures. This phenomenon is worldwide. Having the learnings from the Germans, the Australians as well as the Swiss — and our learnings in both French and English — creates a wonderful experimental workplace.
If we can roll that out and reignite in people the value of learning from each other and having a conversation, that is of value. People feel invested when they can comment. We want to continue encouraging them, but we want to take them away from what is toxic.
That is a use of AI that allows us to work toward the public good. We are looking at AI for public good.
The Chair: Madam President, could you take that subject initiated by Senator Simons and put something on paper — short, concise and to the point — and get back to us within the next few weeks? We will talk about when.
Many of our committees are looking at the AI issue. For some of us, including me — I always call myself “Fred Flintstone” — having the opportunity to learn from people who are experiencing it at this particular time would be helpful. It would not have to be a long message, but a fulsome answer would be great.
Ms. Bouchard: I have just conferred with the gentleman who is taking on the job you just tasked us with, and he has agreed. Yes, we will relay that to the clerk and supply something to answer your request.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Osler: I am asking this question on behalf of my colleague Senator Réjean Aucoin.
[English]
What is the CBC/Radio-Canada’s plan to enhance the delivery of its services, both nationally and regionally, to francophone minority communities across Canada, given that the corporation’s core mandate toward francophone minority communities has been reinforced through the modernization of the Official Languages Act and the Government of Canada has formally recognized the decline of the French language and culture and has strengthened legislative obligations to consult these communities to prevent any adverse effects of its decisions upon them?
Also, could you speak to the plan to do this on both traditional and digital platforms?
Ms. Bouchard: Thank you for the question.
Service to francophone minority communities is at the heart of what we do. It has been at the heart of my career because between stints at the CBC, I was working for TV5 Québec Canada that had a similar mandate to serve francophones across the country and in relation to the wider Francophonie worldwide.
This is something I know a bit about.
I have been in touch with most of the associations already, and I have sat at the leadership table this spring. Whenever I visit any of our stations — and through my contacts with the community — there’s always time spent with francophone institutions and francophone community leaders so that I understand what their needs are. We take the consultation process very seriously, and we are assiduous in that respect.
You are absolutely right: The service to francophones today is the same in terms of the issues of shifts in media consumption. We have to adapt to what a modern Francophonie means.
It is also a diverse Francophonie, because immigration has helped maintain the communities. We have to be aware of that reality as well.
I will ask Mr. Rioux to go into some examples of what we have been adding and how we have been adapting to the needs of the communities.
Mr. Rioux: Because of the nature of the topic, I will answer in French.
[Translation]
Personally, I started my career in Regina, Saskatchewan. My wife is Franco-Saskatchewanian. Our three children were born in Saskatchewan. I would have a hard time in my own home if I did not fulfill Radio-Canada’s mandate and I would not hear the end of it.
That mandate is at the very heart of who we are.
I still think that the sustainability of public service depends on communities outside major centres and on minority communities in particular. That is why a few years ago, we started to accelerate the transition to digital, which provides more opportunities to promote our narratives. Local strength lies in being on the ground and talking to people on the ground. We had the “glocal” concept of taking global narratives and telling them locally for a number of years. Now we have “lobal” and we are elevating local narratives onto the global stage. That is what we are trying to do.
Digital platforms allow us to do that. If we look at the numbers — because the great thing about digital is that everything is tallied up and everything is measurable — we quickly realize that often, a story will break in Toronto or Vancouver, British Columbia, and a large segment of the audience that will look at the story comes from outside the province, mostly from Quebec. People in other parts of the country are interested in what is going on, not just about francophone communities in the news, but also in gaining a deeper understanding of how francophones experience life within their communities.
New Brunswick was already ahead on that. I am sure Senator Cormier would confirm that. New Brunswick has always had cultural programming. This has now been extended to western Canada and Ontario, with television programs that are thriving on ARTV promoting francophone culture. We need to emphasize this: It touches everything that has to do with the francophonie.
The issue here — and Ms. Bouchard touched on that — is that even though the share of francophones in Canada has dropped in percentage points, their number has gone up in absolute terms. There are more francophones in Canada now than in the past. The challenge is how to connect with them. Most of them came here through immigration. For example, when I visit my in-laws in Saskatchewan and I go to the high school and see that the Regina high school basketball team won the municipal championship, all I can say is, wow! When my children attended that school, there were only four per class and now all of a sudden, I realize that the entire team is essentially made of people from other parts of the world who immigrated to Canada. We must connect with them. That is the challenge.
As Ms. Bouchard said, we often meet with associative groups. I was in Winnipeg with my boss, Dany Meloul, on what was her first visit to a regional station. We had about 20 people in front of us and she asked, “Who has cable at home?” No one raised their hand. I would say that 75% of the people present immigrated to Canada and none of them had cable. So, how do we connect with them? Often, the challenge is that they are not really familiar with the public broadcaster or broadcasters in general. They stay connected to their countries. That is all well and good, and it is understandable. The challenge is compounded by the fact that people are disconnecting from traditional media and turning to digital media.
[English]
Senator Osler: Can you drill down some more? You have spoken about the importance of consultation and maintaining services. You have spoken about the diversity of the modern Francophonie within Canada. How will you get into those communities?
Ms. Bouchard: One of the answers is that our strategic plan will answer some of those priorities via the three pillars. The first is proximity, being there and understanding what the community looks like and what is happening there. The second is digital agility, and Mr. Rioux was talking about that. That means having the right content on the right platform. If you are trying to get people who are new to Canada to discover the services of the public broadcaster, you are probably better off on YouTube. You are more likely to find them there than to reside on your own platform and stay there.
There is outreach for different reasons around which we need to be deliberate.
That doesn’t mean we do away with our platforms because there is fundamental value in having a critical mass of French content available digitally. I believe in that very much. It might not be the same rationale for English-language content in a global perspective, although Canadian content, even in English, deserves pride of place. Regardless, French content being available in a critical mass in the digital format somewhere that is understandable and reachable has a value in terms of creating a reliable touchpoint for all members of the francophone communities.
Then bringing people together is about empathy. It is about bringing the local story to a national audience. It is about making Quebecers, who are the largest group of francophones watching and listening to our content, more aware of what is going on in all of those very rich communities. That is not just from a problem perspective but also from creation, richness and what-we-can-learn perspectives.
Those three pillars address the very important responsibility we have from the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Rioux: It is also important to provide visibility. I am thinking of television drama series like “Mont-Rouge” and “Troubled Waters”, which was produced in Northern Ontario. There is also “En direct de l’univers” that we produce every year for the Francophonie Week and the special on Édith Butler or an artist from another province. All these things are important.
Going back to what Mr. Fenlon was saying earlier, what really matters is not necessarily just one opportunity — it’s the accumulation of things and more importantly, the progress that’s possible. I have been with Radio-Canada for a long time. We have seen a change in national programming over the past six or seven years. For example, there is the TransCanada platform where francophones across the country can join the host to discuss current affairs.
We also need to trust, and celebrate when things are going well, and offer encouragement for things to work better.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Good morning. Welcome, Ms. Bouchard, and congratulations on your appointment.
Like most people around this table, I am passionate about CBC/Radio-Canada. I also had the great privilege of working there.
To continue promoting and advocating for CBC/Radio-Canada, we need accurate data and evidence as well as relevant information. My questions will focus on the relationship between CBC/Radio-Canada and independent producers in official language minority communities. I have two questions and I will ask them because I don’t want to be cut off.
My first question is on CBC/Radio-Canada funding, which has decreased by 2% compared to the 2023–24 period. Under the conditions of the renewed licence that the CRTC granted the CBC for the 2022–27 period, funding for independent producers must increase from 3% to 6%. Given the current budget situation, how will you ensure you fulfill this obligation?
My second question is more specific. I did some research in public documentation from the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC, and found that there is a real issue concerning the calculation method used by CBC/Radio-Canada in its reports to the CRTC to compute expenditures for Canadian shows in French by independent producers from OLMCs.
The APFC wrote to the CRTC secretary general on September 16, 2025, and stated as follows:
Radio-Canada’s reported expenditures for official language minority communities should only reflect the proportion of licence fees held by OLMC producers, and not the total fees paid for co-production projects with non-OLMCs.
I am thinking about co-productions with Quebec, for example. I will continue:
At this point, the information provided by Radio-Canada does not seem to accurately reflect this distinction. Investments made specifically and only with OLMC producers need to be known to determine whether, first, CBC/Radio-Canada is complying with its conditions of licence and second, whether the broadcasting system is fostering the vitality of official language minority communities.
My question for you is this: How will you address that? This information is very important and if it is not fair and accurate, it will determine how exceptional contribution is really recognized. I commend all the projects with independent producers. However, how will you course correct to ensure that the calculation method is a true reflection of CBC/Radio-Canada’s actual investments in independent producers?
I think that if this information is available, it would be very useful to get it for our study because obviously, we are committed to the well-being of CBC/Radio-Canada and want the very best for it.
Ms. Bouchard: Thank you for your question. I would just like to start and then I will turn the floor over to my colleague Bev Kirshenblatt with regard to information and reporting requirements related to our conditions of service.
Obviously, we have meetings with APFC members, and I have engaged with them on an ongoing basis in recent years. This is important because the meetings provide a forum to discuss the needs of producers in minority communities so they can continue to develop their businesses, acquire new skills, and retain production capacity through talent; and also for us to see how we can help through our network of producers from Quebec, abroad and minority communities, and to give them more capacity to develop and showcase their work.
These consultations are important and we participate with the utmost diligence. We engage in tangible and actual discussions that focus on how we can get projects off the ground and producers can continue to showcase their talents. In essence, their goal is to create projects that are both engaging and diverse.
While they may not always have access to some aspects, we can serve as a go-between to some extent. Indeed, these linkages with producers from Quebec can be an opportunity for independent producers in minority communities to create projects that they may otherwise not be able to create on their own. Sometimes, independent producers from minority communities are matched with one another. Overall, it is a fairly positive dynamic.
Now, the commitments we made during our last renewal were aimed at increasing the proportion of production expenditures allocated for producers from minority communities during the licence term. These commitments are related to annual reporting requirements.
I would ask Ms. Kirshenblatt to explain how these production expenditures are calculated.
[English]
Bev Kirshenblatt, Executive Director, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Overall, the starting point of how we have historically reported and how the CRTC has established and set our obligations for subsequent licence terms is the following formula, just as a starting point.
For our 2022 licence renewal decision, it’s the total amount that we spend on Canadian programming, and the numerator is a certain amount that we are required to spend on independent production — the starting point.
Then for independent production, the commission has set levels to ensure that we have independent production from official language minority communities. Those thresholds are established by the commission, and we must meet them annually.
With respect to how we calculate that — and that’s really the nub of your question — is the inclusion of what I’ll call co-productions. These are co-productions that would include a producer from outside of Quebec, and it may include a producer from within Quebec. We have historically included those productions. When the commission established the appropriate level or spending threshold, they included that amount because those are based on historicals.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I understand that it’s included, but those expenditures are earmarked for Quebec and not for official language minority communities, and that’s the nub of the issue here.
If these expenditures are not officially going to official language minority communities, why are they calculated? This skews the data. It does not give us an accurate picture of the situation, and that is my biggest concern. If you are investing in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, then you need to have an accurate picture. If there is any ambiguity in your calculation method, I don’t know how you intend to address that issue. I believe that’s important, so I would appreciate a specific answer.
Ms. Bouchard: I will try to answer as clearly as possible and Ms. Kirshenblatt can correct me if I’m wrong. I think the point she is trying to make is that when all of this was determined before the CRTC, we, along with the CRTC, started on the basis of our expenditures at the time. Our expenditures at the time included a certain number of co-productions and in that context, the total expenditures for independent co-production were included and we continued with the same method thereafter. If we want to separate it now, we would need to go back to the original calculation.
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Bouchard: We would have to see what difference this would make.
There is another issue that is quite important to me. We have business relationships with producers and the confidentiality of our unique production arrangements must be preserved. For example, when we have small pools with five productions, we cannot go into all the minute details because that would disclose business agreements and could be detrimental to the stakeholders we deal with. We need to keep that in mind if we want to start to undo things. We must also work in partnership with the CRTC because we are dealing with a system that was approved on both sides.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer. I hope you find a solution to this issue in collaboration with the CRTC because I think it is essential. This is not just to point a finger at Radio-Canada, but on the contrary, to outline the actual investments that are being made in communities.
Ms. Bouchard: I would like to remind the committee that eligibility for production funding under the Canada Media Fund or other funding requires that the majority ownership resides with a producer from that minority group.
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Bouchard: The producer will therefore look for the majority of the funding. However, producers from outside the minority setting are often involved due to operational and practical considerations. They do not have effective control over the production, which is held by the producer from the minority setting. As such, even if we did some parsing, it would still show that the majority of the funds go to producers from minority settings. That being said, we have an operational issue. If we want to find a solution, then we are going to have to do it in conjunction with the CRTC.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Ms. Bouchard and your team for your presentation on the strategic plan.
[English]
In that presentation, I found it refreshing that you talked about how it’s especially important for the CBC to be present in language minority areas in the North. Part of the strategy would involve being present in communities and bringing content forward that is important in those communities’ lives.
Is part of that plan going to involve looking at how the structure and the governance of the CBC works? Currently, for the journalistic policy decision making affecting my province of New Brunswick — and other provinces such as Quebec and Atlantic Canada — there is a senior management director for all of that based in Montreal. When it comes to journalistic editorial direction of news programming for New Brunswick, that person is located in Halifax. Is part of the plan to devolve some of those responsibilities to the local marketplace?
Ms. Bouchard: I’m not there yet, because sometimes those structures have been made for efficiency purposes. You can understand that. I can attest to the incredible value of our current managing editor for Quebec and the East; she is seasoned and aware of all the different market realities and in tune with that. From a personal point of view, I don’t have any worries. I understand from an image point of view, it creates a different picture.
Mr. Fenlon: The daily editorial decisions — what people are going to cover and how they are going to program — are all made locally. Some of the people you mentioned are managers. They are responsible for strategy.
I want to be clear: We’re a highly decentralized organization in terms of the daily decisions that are made around how we are going to cover stories and what matters to the community. Those are managed locally.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that. It’s fair for me to say in speaking to some of the folks who work for the CBC in my province, they have raised this type of issue with me. They are concerned those types of things are happening from afar.
Frankly, being Atlantic Canadian, we often look up the line and see things happening in Toronto and Montreal that affect our lives in Atlantic Canada. We seem disconnected.
Coming back to the other things you said throughout the discussion this morning, you talked about looking to see how the CBC will move toward having presence where you didn’t have presence before. My question is: How do you re-establish presence where you used to be?
If my colleague Senator Percy Downe were here, he would talk passionately about what has gone on in Prince Edward Island. I can talk somewhat passionately about what has gone on in New Brunswick. Decisions were taken in the past. We have all gone through budget reductions. We have done things we thought were the right things to do.
Some of your commentary made me think you may look back and say, “Those were the decisions at the time, but they are not reflective of what the reality is today.” I won’t say mistakes were made, but they were decisions taken back then. I’m hearing your strategy, and your leadership is saying, “We are going to get back into some of those marketplaces.” Is that a fair thing? You’re going to come back home?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes, I love that expression. That’s my life.
We’re going to do it in a modern way. We’re not going to re-establish the big stations we used to have where everybody was working in-house. This is not the way, I think, today. We need to be more nimble. We have the capacity from both a manpower and competency perspective, as well as from a technology perspective, to be much more flexible.
Going back to local markets starts by having boots on the ground. You need humans.
Senator Quinn: Yes.
Ms. Bouchard: You need humans to live there and to have a relationship to understand what is going on and to be relatable on the receiving end of “I didn’t like this” or “I loved that” — we get both, I assure you. That makes us more approachable.
It makes CBC Gem something people can relate to as opposed to being one other logo that is distant. Having boots on the ground is the first thing, and then having the capacity to reflect that community to itself and to the rest of Canada through digital and various formats of program, such as audio and video, and having a local presence also in terms of the business community by understanding the business community, being aware of their triumphs and challenges, and with local media. That’s how you build and rebuild in some cases, establishing trust and rebuilding trust. That’s where it’s going to go.
Senator Quinn: My final question is with a strategic plan, there are usually subelements to that, such as goals and things of that nature. Is there a document or information like that? What are the near-term goals of the corporation against that strategic plan and maybe the mid-term goals? That would be something to help us better understand where you’re going.
Ms. Bouchard: It is a cliffhanger.
Senator Quinn: Is that a new production?
Ms. Bouchard: I wish. It would be a little boring.
Senator Quinn: I’m still stuck on the mass at $27,000.
Ms. Bouchard: We have a new set of indicators that we have developed and socialized with our board. We still have some discussions with the board in terms of how we are going to present those indicators. Let’s say they are about more dimensions than we used to measure. They are about our reach. How many Canadians do we reach on a weekly or monthly basis? They are about the engagement. How much time do people spend with us? Get away from those silos of what share we have in a market and look at what time people spend. Then we can measure across platforms. That’s more significant.
Senator Quinn: Will that eventually be shareable?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes. Then we look at what is the perception. We do survey Canadians — one of the most robust surveys out there in the media landscape. We survey Canadians about how they feel about their services and the services they own that are delivered to them on a number of dimensions.
Then we look at our economic footprint. We look at the value we create as an economic force. The studies that we have recently had done by Nordicity show that for every dollar invested in the public broadcaster, we generate $1.72. We are net positive in terms of economic activity overall.
We’re an incredible source of promotion for Canadian musicians. We generate work for independent productions outside of our 7,000 employees who also buy groceries and live somewhere and so on. Measuring our economic footprint and impact is important these days.
Finally, we also want to measure what value we bring to our employees — 7,000 people is a lot of people. We want to have a good culture and show how we are developing talent, representing Canada as it is today: the diversity of Canadian society from a cultural point of view and also from a geographical point of view. Where are our employees? Where are they located? We will track that.
On this value framework, we’re still fine-tuning it. In terms of setting goals, this is an upcoming discussion we’ll have with our board.
Senator Mohamed: Everyone here could tell you a story of how the CBC has impacted them. I came to this country and I remember the first thing my parents would do in the morning is turn on the CBC. When I lived abroad, it would be the first thing I would do.
You talked about trust and the people we trust to give us news, whether it’s Nahlah Ayed or Matt Galloway. I go to bed with the sound of Adrienne Arsenault. There is this element of trust; you’re right.
I wish to pick up on your comments around trying to diversify your audience in terms of growth, content and delivery. I wish to speak specifically about young people.
This summer, I went to the Stratford Festival for CBC’s “Ideas.” Then I went to Toronto last month for CBC’s “Ideas” with Alex Neve for the Massey Lectures. In a couple of weeks, she will do that here as well. As I looked around the room, there weren’t any young people there in any mass numbers. Yet that’s where the trusted conversations land in those spaces.
To your point about listening, travelling and hearing, can you share with us specifically what you are doing to engage young people because this is a growing audience, I would hope? What are you hearing specifically? What is that turning into aside from — which I want to acknowledge is super important — the fact that the presenters look different or the people we’re seeing on our screens or hearing in our ears might sound different? What other concrete steps are you taking to engage young people? What have you heard of note from these young people as you have been travelling?
Ms. Bouchard: We try to engage with all generations. We have school programs where we invite various schoolchildren to our facilities so that they can experience how you make a short newscast or how you make a vertical video. We also engage with universities. We have sessions and discussions about fake news and about various things that affect their relationship with media, but I’ll tell you that it is a tough nut to crack.
It is common to all media: traditional media and especially public media. It’s a conversation we have with all of our colleagues. I think it’s a multitactical approach. We need to include more young people in our creative process. I mean, I love experience. It saves you from a lot of mistakes, but it doesn’t necessarily bring the philosophy and the concerns that younger people have, so we need to build that into our creative processes and our approach to how we’re going to serve our future. They are our future. Maybe our colleagues want to add, because they would have concrete examples.
Mr. Fenlon: As Ms. Bouchard said, this is one of the biggest challenges facing media. There is a complete generational divide between where people start their information journey. The programs you mentioned are linear programs first and foremost. They have an average audience age of 60 or 62 — that was not a judgment.
Younger Canadians begin their journeys for content on social media, networks and aggregators, and they consume from multiple sources and sometimes don’t even know which sources they are consuming from because it’s being served by algorithms. We need to be in both those places and do it well.
It can be a platform challenge. For example, “The National” will be watched on an average day by about 1.2 million Canadians on television. You will see another 400,000 views on YouTube. For that television audience, as I said, the average age is about 60. For that YouTube audience, the average age is about 45 to 50. If our host Adrienne Arsenault tells a version of her story for TikTok, now we’re screening to an audience with an average age in their twenties.
It doesn’t mean that everything we do on one platform works on the others because then you have to be mindful of format and style. The conventions of each of these platforms are different.
The first challenge is the platform. You need to be in those multiple places because the audiences of different ages are there in different pockets. Then you have to be smart about what they’re looking for. What are the stories that resonate with them? That’s different as well, so it’s not easy, but we’re working hard to try to figure it out.
Mr. Rioux: It is a challenge that all broadcasters around the world are facing. You can look. Many studies have been done to see what younger audiences want. They want less politics or more family economy. They want this and that. We have to adapt part of our strategy to those priorities for younger audiences.
We also have to change the way we tell the story because we cannot put someone who has been a TV anchor for 30 years on TikTok and have him do the same thing he does every day at six o’clock. It doesn’t work. We tried it; it doesn’t work. We have to also let younger people — new journalists — help us create content in a different way while respecting all our five basic rules of journalism. That is a little bit of a challenge because resistance is part of the process.
I think we’re doing fairly well actually because what Mr. Fenlon was saying for YouTube is also true on the radio side. I was in charge of radio 15 years ago, and the average age of the audience was 53. We were proud of that, but still we were saying that we had to get a younger audience because otherwise they would get old with us, which is true because today it’s about 62.
However, if you go on our audio app, the average age is 44. One of my daughters listens to the radio every day but on her cellphone. As soon as she gets into her car, she puts it on and it’s on the app. We have to be able to balance our linear programming and our digital programming not only to serve people of a certain age — not to give any ages — but also to cater to the younger audiences. It’s not an easy balance. But we’re working on it for sure. The results are there. We see it on digital. It is obvious.
Mr. Fenlon: May I give one more example? Andrew Chang was the host of “The National,” then he began a digitally minded program called “About That.” It’s an explainer series. It is tied to the news. He and that program have built a significant audience on YouTube. It speaks to a different demographic, so some can learn to do it in a new way. This has been very successful, so we’re learning all the time about what works and which formats work. We have seen some success.
Senator Mohamed: I do want to acknowledge that I think the CBC has done a great job on the diversity angle. Many of the people we just talked about really do bring that. For newcomers or for those who are struggling to find where they will get their news and what they want to trust, I think that is an important element. I want to acknowledge that.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here. I feel very privileged to be part of this fascinating discussion. I’m sad that I am a new senator, so I wasn’t privy to the other conversations.
Ms. Bouchard, I really liked your answer about working with local private companies. I think that is key in markets such as Moncton in New Brunswick where we are seeing — not with Radio-Canada — a real decline in our local media. It keeps me up at night as a former mayor, thinking about this decline in democracy and in engagement among our population. It really worries me.
To your comment about being nimble, I recently did an interview with Radio-Canada. I arrived, looked around and asked, “Where is the van?” No van. The guy was on a bike with an iPhone. I’m not sure if you can be any more nimble than that. It was pretty fantastic.
I think what we have heard around the table and in our society right now is the importance of democracy and the importance of national cohesion. I’m curious: Would it be helpful to be declared an essential service? What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Bouchard: It’s funny. I have to give some thought to it. I have always felt that the way the Broadcasting Act was drafted, our responsibility among a diversified broadcasting system set a very special place for us, with a very special responsibility. It ensures our independence from government, which is important for our credibility and our relationship with Canadians.
I have always felt secure in that environment, but I grew up in it. I don’t know, Ms. Kirshenblatt, if you have any thoughts on a framework that would be more explicit — certainly in our strategy, we are expressing the view that we have to act as an essential public service. That is what is needed for today’s world and Canadians’ needs. I don’t know how the act itself could be amended to reflect that in a more explicit way; I have not given it a lot of thought. I don’t know if Ms. Kirshenblatt wants to add comments in that regard.
What is important is to preserve the independence. That has always been the key to define and to ensure that public service media is that essential service that belongs to the people.
Ms. Kirshenblatt: The only thing I would add is that the current Broadcasting Act sets out three elements of the system already: public, private and community. Within the public element, it sets out a very broad mandate for the CBC/Radio-Canada, and it does establish or ensure independence.
What we are hearing, though, is the importance of the types of programming that the public broadcaster is providing. The push and pull is how to do that across all different platforms to appeal to various demographic segments across Canada from coast to coast to coast.
In some ways, it seems clear that we’re hearing how important the role of the public broadcaster is. What you are hearing from my colleagues is how it needs to continue to evolve to remain core to Canadians.
Senator Hay: What a fascinating discussion. Thank you all for being here.
I am going to pick up on my colleague Senator Mohamed’s dialogue around youth.
Since public broadcasters are the only broadcasters in Canada that produce curated content for children and youth, it is kind of the Wild West out there. It is more important now than ever to curate by using educators, professionals and so forth with standards, practices and age-appropriate content. Right now, it is no surprise that there are no boundaries. Young people can consume foreign content broadcasting and AI-generated social media. That’s 24-7 by young people through their gadgets and phones, potentially at 2 a.m.
I might debate you on young people being a tough nut to crack; I can take that offline with you.
I have two questions that are connected. What is the strategy in producing more substantive digital media content for children to reach young people coast to coast to coast — French, English and a dream of Inuktitut, Cree and Ojibway, as that is the potential — so that children can see themselves in the CBC? If they see themselves as children, they will be your consumers as adults.
My second question, which tags up to that, is around Canadian content. What is your strategy for well-funded — not on the backs of — Canadian talent, such as producers, writers, story editors and actors, so that we are fuelling the Canadian landscape with homegrown stories, heroes and those aspiring?
Ms. Bouchard: Let me start by saying that when I refer to them being a tough nut to crack, it is about the problem, not the people. Let’s also be specific in the sense that there are many generations of children, youth and young adults. They each need their curated approach. There are various strategies to deploy for them.
In some areas, we are more successful today; in others, we have lost a lot of ground and that has to be rebuilt.
The group that is probably the toughest to reach — not to crack, but to reach — are teens. They are so exposed to social media; that is where they live. They are all so networked with their friends through these platforms, and those platforms have not been friendly to children and teens.
We have to band together — educators, creators of content, broadcasters and platforms — to be able to address this issue of distress and harmful content that is being consumed and has not necessarily been curbed by anything.
Our approach is to provide content that is valuable. We are not able to intervene in the space of limiting access or disciplining what else is available out there. Other public policy actors are responsible for that. It is either legislation, the CRTC, telecom policy or whatever it is. It is not within our own reach.
What we can do is work with our very close allies and collaborators, which is the private production environment, to bring the tools we have, which is all the data we generate with the contacts we have with audiences of various ages in order to learn more about what works for them, enriches their lives and engages them. We can have a systematic approach of making content that is suited for their consumption.
Again, I’m talking about a variety of generations in there.
We already have some digital products designed for some cohorts. We have CBC Kids News. We have MAJ — L’actualité pour les jeunes that is more for teenagers or younger kids. Then we have Rad targeting older or young adults who consume information in a completely different way than their peers.
It is all a matter of intent and resources. The resources part is an important piece. If we are going to lean into all of these very good, valuable objectives, we will have to make choices with the resources we have. Or we are going to have to mutualize or pool resources with other actors. Or if Canadians feel that it is a good investment, maybe the government can invest more into their public service so that we can reach all of those audiences with appropriate content and the right strategies in terms of platforms.
Senator Hay: To follow up, do you work with young people? Do you co-create your strategy with young people? That might be how to crack the nut.
I would also suggest that if resources are the issue and we, therefore, don’t worry about the resources — although I’m sure you worry about it — we’ll have to get at it some other time, but it is a long game. If you do not build loyalty now with the CBC, when my six-year-old grandson is 35, he won’t even worry about the CBC — I do not know that to be true.
I am curious whether your strategy should include the long game and not necessarily “Today, we don’t have the resources, so we will not engage young people.”
Ms. Bouchard: I am 100% in agreement with you. I believe in this strongly. We are working today to exist for future generations. To provide the benefit and create the value for future generations, we have to worry about it today — yesterday, even. That’s why that group is a key demographic that we have identified in the strategy.
It is not to say, “Oh well, too bad,” or that they will grow into it. I do not believe they will grow into it. That is core to my vision of the services we have to provide.
My colleagues may have concrete examples of how young people are involved in the development of content.
Mr. Fenlon: I will start with one example. We have the CBC Creator Network, which is run through our local service. We partner with up-and-coming young creators who are doing their own thing and often have their own followers and social media presence. We work with them to take their stories and bring them into our programming and support them in that work. That is one example where there is an exchange of ideas and knowledge. It is mutually beneficial because there is a relationship built with the public broadcaster. They can talk to their own audiences that they have independently built themselves about what we do.
Mr. Rioux: It’s basically the same thing.
For example, we still produce a children’s show in Edmonton, Alberta, for francophones across the country. It has been going on for a few years now. Basically, what we do is we visit schools across the country. We talk to children and all of that. As Ms. Bouchard was saying, the challenge is harder than producing a children’s show.
When I started this job seven years ago, I was part of a conference. We had children from a French school in Ontario. They came and gave us a beautiful concert. It was awesome. Then we chatted with them and quickly realized that their cultural references were not Canadian at all or francophone. Everything was American. Some of them even thought that Drake was an American.
Our children are older now, but I can see the challenge is how the education is also part of it, not us. My wife is an elementary schoolteacher. The stories she tells me about children and their consumption on the school bus is frightening.
We were in front of the Quebec Parliament’s commission five or six years ago, telling them they have to start something to initiate people to understand media consumption today. That is a part of the problem. People do not really understand the consequences of the things they are doing when they consume on their cellphones. We have to do something about it.
We can do a good job. We can try. We are one part of it. There is a bigger part to attract people. Things have changed over the years. I’m a Radio-Canada child. That was the only channel my parents allowed us to watch. But we had three channels. Today, we live in an environment where your cellphone can give you access to whatever you want. It is a complex challenge to reach those children now.
Senator Hay: If you could follow up with me on my second part in terms of investing in Canadian talent, such as producers and writers, that might solve the problem of Drake being American, if we invested more in Canadian talent.
Ms. Bouchard: We are the biggest investor in Canadian production today. I expect we will continue to be.
We are about showcasing and developing Canadian talent. The money, time and expertise we put in for the development of a variety of programs and formats so that they will see the light of day is extraordinary. It is part of our job. That is to the benefit of the overall system.
When a show is developed patiently with the CBC or Radio-Canada for a year or two and we get it right, then it explodes and it is available on platforms, and then Netflix or Disney picks it up. That is all good for the producer. That adds to the visibility and to the financing of the brand. This has all come because we have nurtured it.
We take that work seriously. We are proud of it. We are not always recognized for it. That is fine. We know it takes that spark and stewardship to help incredible brands become what they are.
For musicians, we play an essential role in a variety of genres that are in tune with how people consume music. We are offering playlists. We are also mediating, introducing new talent to listeners by the credibility of our hosts. That is invaluable. I could go on and on.
Senator Dasko: I have a couple of questions about funding. You were promised $150 million during the election campaign by the party that won the election. At the same time, in July they came back and said that they would cut $198 million from the CBC. I would like you to square that circle.
First of all, are you confident about getting that money in the first place? Are you planning to or are you getting it? Have you received an indication that you will receive it, and how are you going to spend that? Is it going into general revenues? Is it earmarked for certain projects?
Second, on the $198-million promised cuts, I have the same questions: Where will the cuts come from? Do you think cuts will actually take place?
Lastly, you are getting about $7 million from the Google money. I ask that because this committee spent so much time working on Bill C-18, so I could not help but ask the question. You have that money, so is it being earmarked for certain spending?
The Chair: If you do not have time, please send us written responses to Senator Dasko’s questions.
Ms. Bouchard: I’ll be quick. On the Google money, we invest in local service. We have added 30 reporters in 22 locations on the English side, added about 10 on the French side and added other types of service. It is going to local. Even though it is remuneration for services or production we already do, we have added with that money.
Second, on the $150 million and the planned reduction in appropriation, these are plans. With plans, we plan. We plan around our strategy. Our strategy is like an accordion. It will help us inform all the decisions we make depending on if we get more funding or if we are asked to reduce our dependency on the appropriation. We will make those decisions based on those priorities. This is what we have been working with. We are in the middle. I have no assurances of one or another. This is all cabinet secret. We are independent of the government. We do not know what is going to come down.
Senator Wilson: My question is: Watching the actual broadcast version of any of your programs is an indulgence which is akin to reading a paper newspaper these days.
When I watch it, I am able to watch “The National” in broadcast form, and I would confirm Mr. Rioux’s statistics about the age demographics because you can tell from the advertising.
What I do consume most and do appreciate is the digital content on both the app and CBC Gem. My question is around your digital strategy with respect to Gem and potentially other platforms in terms of download ability. What drives me bananas is the only time that I have time to watch programs like that would be when I am flying 10 hours a week on airplanes, and I cannot download it. It is frustrating. If I wish to watch “North of North” because you do it in partnership with APTN and Netflix, I can download that on Netflix. But I want to be able to download your content. Can you tell me what the barrier is?
Ms. Bouchard: It would be a priority in terms of product development. Let me take that away and talk to our digital teams to find out what is what. I do not think that there is any hindrance. It is what we have prioritized up to now in terms of the functionalities that we offer on Gem. I do not have an answer as to why it is not available today, but I suspect there is no real hurdle except resources and time to develop that functionality with the systems behind it, because it’s a complex issue. I take the comment and will take that back to our digital strategy team.
Senator Simons: I second the motion from Senator Wilson.
In our last round of conversations, Ms. Bouchard, you made mention of your social media strategy.
Obviously, thanks to Bill C-18 — which was ill-advised public policy — Meta is no longer a functional place to share news. But the CBC has made a decision to stay on X. Many of your reporters are on Bluesky. The CBC is not on Bluesky, nor are you on Mastodon which I would argue is the best fit for a national public broadcaster.
I wonder if you can explain to me why you are still on X, which has become a site of primarily right-wing and hateful content. Why are you not on Bluesky where most of the Canadian political conversation is taking place? Have you considered a Mastodon strategy such as starting an instance on Mastodon which the CBC could curate and would give people a non-commercial, non-American-owned platform to share news?
Ms. Bouchard: I can tell you that personally, I’m not on X. In terms of why we’re using various platforms, it is certainly tied to audience consumption patterns and needs. Maybe Mr. Fenlon can elaborate.
Mr. Fenlon: I’m on Bluesky.
Senator Simons: I follow you.
Mr. Fenlon: Great. It is a matter of choices and return on investment.
On the CBC side, we reduced dramatically what we were doing on X, although our journalists are free should they want to be on there. There are still many things that happen in terms of news and governments that release information through X. You cannot simply walk away. In terms of what we are doing on that platform, we are not doing a lot there, to be honest.
Then we look to where is the best opportunity to reach some of the audiences that have been outlined in this strategy. For us, the effort right now is on YouTube and TikTok. It is a shame to be shut out of Meta platforms, because there are still significant audiences, especially on Instagram. It was quite a loss to lose all of the journalism we did there.
We also want to find a way to do this kind of storytelling that you find on social media on our own platforms so that you could open the news app and consume vertical storytelling the way you heard Mr. Rioux talking about.
As for Bluesky and Mastodon, we just assess. We have been watching. We never rule anything out. As you know, platforms come and go. You have to decide what is in the best interests of the limited resources you have to put against those platforms because they all are demanding in terms of time and effort.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Before I ask my question, I would just like to say that I wake up listening to OHdio, go to bed listening to OHdio and have my lunch listening to OHdio. In fact, OHdio is my significant other. That shows you how much this is important to me….
CBC/Radio-Canada’s identity obviously means presence in the regions and presence on the national network in the regions. How can you help ensure a better and larger presence of experts and academics from the regions, who do not appear on the national network? You have to practically live in Quebec to appear on major national programs. I know you’re working on that, but this is a crucial issue —
Ms. Bouchard: I am sorry to cut you off because I can feel how passionate you are. I have to say that there will never be enough, but as a major consumer of our platforms, I have seen a big difference in the past 10 years. There has been an increase in radio in particular. That is amazing. Television is a different landscape with a lot of content and entertainment; news on RDI has a variety of experts and resources and most of them come from our communities. The network is therefore being built up and it is being constructed. There will never be enough, I get that.
I don’t know if my colleague Mr. Rioux would like to add something about strategies.
Mr. Rioux: Perhaps more on the strategic level, certainly.
Over the last three years, we have been working on a common countrywide directory to categorize potential stakeholders from various fields. We have pulled all the resources from all regional stations to create the electronic directory, so to speak. It’s working pretty well. I always say that it’s important to look at where you’re starting from to envision how far you’ve come and where you’re headed. Can we do better? Yes, and we are working on that because the directory shows us the resources used within the network and regional stations.
Keep in mind that quite often, these resources have potential to thrive in other stations, such as Vancouver and Quebec, as we are already doing with the economy, which starts in Toronto. All regions across the country benefit from that every morning. It may not sound big, but it confirms Toronto’s status as the economic capital, with a dedicated journalist that is based out of Toronto. We are therefore trying to communicate and share these resources as much as possible.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for continuing with efforts to contribute to that. In doing so, you are creating celebrities and personalities that we can follow, and when they appear on the national network, it signals a need for more individuals like them from our regions. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Simons: I note, for example, that you are hiring new reporters right now for bureaus in Hinton, Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray and Lloydminster in northern Alberta. I assume there are similar hires going on across the country.
Those reporters will be working very much in isolation. Can you tell me what the plan is to support those reporters in their regional work? How will their work be included in regional and network programming?
Mr. Fenlon: We are mindful of the risk of isolation. We have taken a number of measures including a robust onboarding process. We have a hub and spoke model where these reporters are managed by producers who are tied to a larger system and larger centre.
The goal is to, ultimately, have more than just one person in a location. In a perfect world, we would have at least two, if not more.
We have also made sure to have them located in offices that are generally shared office spaces — a work share — so there is a community around them as well. Then we are doing regular follow-up and training.
Senator Simons: Would a story from a reporter in Hinton or Lloydminster end up on national programming? I want to understand that this is not just tokenism. How will these stories actually be heard?
Mr. Fenlon: Absolutely. It will be both things. First of all, it will be stories for the community about the community. They may just live there. There will always be opportunities to elevate them to national audiences.
In fact, our Oshawa reporter broke a big story that ended up receiving national coverage having to do with the auto sector. It won’t take that. We would like to see more of these stories. I think Canadians would like to see more of these stories. Canadians are intensely interested in each other. This is a great opportunity for us to show more of the country we share.
The Chair: Senator Dasko, do you have anything you wish to follow up on? You are good? Since you are our deputy chair, I wish to cover all angles.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you for your presence today.
[Translation]
You have answered with honesty and sincerity, and we appreciate that.
[English]
I wish to thank you again. Before adjourning, I wish to remind senators that our next meeting will take place in camera tomorrow, October 22, at 6:45 p.m. to discuss future business. We will have our clerk, Andrea Mugny, send something out later today to fill you in on what we will be discussing.
(The committee adjourned.)