The State of Broadcasting or Broadcasting and the State

MR. HERMANT:

Ladies and gentlemen: Our guest of honour today, Mr. Stuart MacKay, is a broadcaster. He has been a broadcaster since he was eighteen years of age but it was not his first choice of a career. His first selection was to discover the world by shipping out on an oil tanker bound for Peru. But instead of leaving from the wharves at Vancouver, where he was living at the time, he wisely decided to cross that unconscious barrier of the Rocky Mountains and catch the tanker in Montreal. He got no further than Edmonton where he took a job as a record file clerk at CJCA Radio in that city.

Broadcasting must get in your blood, because thoughts of Peru and oil tankers were soon put aside in favour of continuing his radio pursuits.

They say that the real news comes over the fence--not over the air--but Stuart MacKay hadn't heard that piece of wisdom and as a result continued his Canadian odyssey, pursuing a broadcasting career in Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver and finally in Toronto. Here he was general manager of All-Canada Radio and Television before becoming president of Selkirk Holdings Limited, one of Canada's major communications companies with radio, television, cable and allied interests in Canada, Great Britain and the United States.

"You didn't sell your soul back in those early days of broadcasting," he is quoted as saying, "you gave it away." But years later, according to Sherry Craig, writing in Marketing magazine, "Though there are other interests and responsibilities, broadcasting is an obsession. Hard to define. Harder still to ignore."

Stuart MacKay has done almost every job in broadcasting. He has swept floors. He has announced. He has sold time. He has managed stations. He has even sung with the band.

"I often wondered whether I was hired mainly because I could hit high C," he says. "You didn't get a job in those days because you were a particular find. The business just seemed to attract a great number of characters who were able to improvise and make up their own rules to fit the situation as they went along. That was the beginning--those were the good days."

Today, Stuart MacKay is concerned about broadcasting and about the attitude of the government to broadcasting. Senator Keith Davey, in his 1971 "Report to the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media" said, "Privately owned radio has often been successful in its own terms: profitability, stability, and unflagging mediocrity."

If you multiply that comment by the number of media critics, both internal and external, it should be obvious that there are areas of real concern to those in the industry.

In addition, there have lately been a number of thorny specific issues--the most potent of which seems to be that of pay television.

As a major cable operator, Selkirk Holdings and Stuart MacKay delivered a brief to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission which went against the established broadcasting position in Canada, which prefers to ignore the entire area until the Canadian industry is in a better position to meet American competition.

Selkirk's brief outlined the alternatives available and pointed out that "Everything isn't always black and white." Despite his somewhat awesome corporate responsibilities, our guest of honour finds time to contribute to his community and is a past president of the Metropolitan Toronto United Appeal, vice-chairman of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and founder of the Migraine Foundation. He views his position at Selkirk as "Just a messenger between different components that all come together here. I am the sum total of their efforts--good and bad."

Sir Henry Thornton wrote, "The future of broadcasting rests with the individual who turns the dial." But how about the industry that creates the product?

"When one publicly appointed body deals with another publicly appointed body, where does the private sector fit in?" Stuart MacKay wonders. "Who is going to speak for the private broadcaster when all the legislators sit down?"

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce to you the President of Selkirk Holdings Limited, Mr. Stuart MacKay, who will address us under the title, "The State of Broadcasting or Broadcasting and the State".

MR. MACKAY:

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: These are troublesome times for us Canadians and, over the past few weeks, as I have thought about what I should say to you today, I have returned again and again to the wish that I could make my theme something like "How to be a Canadian--and not worry." But that's another speech.

I am honoured and most grateful for this opportunity to talk with the members and guests of the Empire Club about some matters in broadcasting that go far beyond my business concerns as a broadcaster and indeed may profoundly affect all Canadians and the very future of this country. Broadcasting has been more important to the social, cultural and political development of Canada during the past fifty years than in any other country in the world. This is a fact which has been dictated by the other two essential facts of Canada--its geography and its political duality. Thus, it is not surprising that when Marconi began his first wireless experiments at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia he was supported enthusiastically by Canadians. From those beginnings at the turn of the century, every technological innovation in broadcasting has been eagerly seized upon by Canadians.

Canadians had the first radio broadcast in the world. We had the first continental microwave communication system and are among the world leaders in many respects in satellite communications.

Canadians have seen broadcasting in quite a different light than any other people . . . as the protector of our cultural nationhood. And this idea has been given legislative expression in the Broadcasting Act, which commands the Canadian broadcasting system, both government and private, to, among other things, strengthen and enrich the Canadian cultural, social, political and economic fabric.

Government has been attempting to ensure that Canadian broadcasting carries out this obligation as governments do, by passing laws and regulations and establishing a bureaucracy. For example, you are all aware of the fact that the CRTC has ruled that Canadian TV stations must broadcast at least 60 per cent Canadian content. These are honest attempts by well-intentioned and intelligent politicians and government employees to shape broadcasting in the best interests of Canada. But, no matter how hard they try--and they do try hard--the results continue to be disappointing to both broadcasters and government alike as Canadians stubbornly keep turning to U.S. programs.

Compounding the problem of "Canadianization by regulation" posed by the citizen's freedom to watch or listen as he and he alone may decide, is the availability of U.S. broadcasting stations.

Enter that phenomenon of the decade, cable television! It seemed so innocent, so undramatic in those early days, just a few years ago, when a handful of cable-TV operators did business in the cities mainly along the border. Then suddenly, cable television seemed to take off. The broadcasting authority, on becoming increasingly aware of its potential, admitted cable television as a broadcast undertaking, permitted its expansion via microwave and more recently a cable-TV network, and issued licences virtually as fast as they could be processed. There were those who had dreams for cablevision, particularly in those early days, as a new, revolutionary means of linking people together over community interests and problems. Maybe this will come to pass in a meaningful sense, but thus far cable has, in fact, been the means of providing Canadians with a wide range of U.S. television stations and U.S. network program alternatives.

Today there are approximately 400 cable companies in Canada, providing full TV service to more than half of all the households in the country. Cable TV provides, in addition to the Canadian stations, the total output of every major U.S. network, some other services, notably FM radio, and these add up to the most comprehensive radio-television service in the world. But, I must add, a comprehensive television service dominated by U.S. content.

Make no mistake about it, cable television in Canada is here to stay and it's growing. The expansion of cable has revolutionized Canadian television so quickly, that it has actually outpaced the regulations which, in the face of the varied television services currently provided, are rapidly becoming outdated and inappropriate to the new television scheme of things. We have so much U.S. programming available to Canadians today that our Canadian system, which was designed to provide a service that would be always essentially Canadian in content and character, has now emerged as a system which is guaranteed to provide a service which is primarily American in content and character.

Can you believe it? Can you understand the frustration of the broadcaster who continues to beaver away at his 60 per cent Canadian content regulation? Canadian programs adrift in a sea of American-made productions. The competition is rough. Let me give you an example close to home: a listing from the TV Guide on Tuesday, October 4 at 9:00 p.m. Nineteen channels were listed--eleven were Canadian--eight were U.S. Only four of the Canadian stations were not carrying U.S. programs.

On that evening in that particular time period, the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement reported an unusually high audience rating: 49 per cent of the total adult population of Toronto were watching TV; 21 per cent were tuned to U.S. stations; 67 per cent were watching U.S. programs on Canadian channels; 8 per cent were watching Canadian shows on Canadian stations and 1 per cent of the audience was tuned to the Ontario educational station watching Greek mythology--Ulysses.

If you're mentally totalling the percentages you'll know that we're three short of one hundred. That 3 per cent represented peripheral stations and the ratings were too low to report.

Has our government's mission then become to further Americanize the Canadian family? Certainly not. And yet, that is the fate that would seem to have been cast for us by virtue of the proliferation of American programs now being retailed or sold to Canadians.

Let me give you another example of what is actually happening to broadcasting in Canada. The city of Calgary used to be served by two television stations. With the introduction of cable, that city is being served by six more stations. The result, of course, is that of the total English-language programming carried to Calgary homes by cable, U.S. program hours hold a more than three-to-one edge over Canadian program hours. The figures for the week of October 29 to November 4 of this year were 214 hours of Canadian program time, and 677 hours of U.S. programs. American stations, I need not remind you, are licensed and controlled by the American FCC and are on the air to serve, not Canadian, but U.S. communities' needs and purposes.

This depressing statistical measure can be repeated countless times over, across the length and breadth of Canada. The political and cultural shock waves of this American inundation tear at every thread of the Canadian social fabric.

Our Canadian dilemma seems clear enough, then. So, what's to do? In attempting to find the answer--and this is now a matter of concern to government, broadcaster and cable operator alike--I begin with the basic, essential goal which is to ensure that Canada has a strong radio and television broadcasting system, a combination, as at present, of both CBC and private stations, and cable operated by Canadians, producing, broadcasting and/or releasing Canadian entertainment, news and information.

A review of the present system reveals that two elements of our broadcasting system, cable and Canadian television stations, have the potential of working, in effect, at cross purposes. For, while cable can often improve the reception of a Canadian TV signal, it also improves the signals of U.S. stations, thus increasing the competition for audience.

My company over the years has consistently attempted to interest the CRTC in the merits of broadcast and cable getting together through joint ownership. It seemed to us, then as now, that the business of cable would continue to affect Canadian broadcasting efforts and that, as a result, there would be considerable merit in the two joining forces, not only for economic reasons, but for technological and indeed social reasons as well.

Madame Jeanne Sauve, Minister of Communications, not long ago indicated there was, perhaps, something to be said for joint ownership and I sincerely hope this will be the case, even though cable companies, like broadcasting stations, now represent very major investments. But the principle is important. Private broadcasting must be allowed to remain relevant to the total structure of broadcasting. With the growing interest of provincial governments in broadcasting, and the continuing expansion of the federally-subsidized CBC, it is imperative to the orderly development of our free broadcasting system that the non-government broadcasting or private sector be encouraged to grow, at the very least, in tandem with the growth of the public sector.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian broadcasting system has been placed under the guidance of the government of Canada as a direct response to the threat of cultural annexation by the United States and the central idea of all our legislation and regulation in Canada is the fostering of our Canadian broadcasting system so that it can develop a sense of unity and shared destiny among all Canadians. Who could quarrel with such noble purposes? But what we now must do is find new ways to the achievement of these purposes. One way, in my view, is through a new kind of service, a Canadian Pay-TV service that could emerge as an alternative to present television services.

We have told the CRTC that if Pay-TV is to be introduced into Canada, it should meet all the criteria enunciated by the CRTC and by Madame Sauve. These criteria, which bear repeating, are as follows:

First, that Pay-TV shall develop to primarily benefit Canadian broadcasting, Canadian program production, and Canadian creative talent. Second, it must not duplicate existing programming. Third, it must ensure production of high-quality Canadian programs that Canadians will watch. Fourth, the system must have the capability of producing programs in Canada that will achieve international sale.

Can all these objectives be attained? Frankly, I do not know, but they seem to be to be relevant to our country's needs.

On that premise, our companies' submission to the CRTC recommended that if a decision was made to proceed with Pay-TV, it should be via a dedicated channel on cable. It should be financed by an additional fee which would be paid by every cable company. Thus, every cable home in the country would receive Pay-TV. The amount of the extra fee would, like other basic cable fees, be authorized by the Commission. Further, we have proposed that the extra fee be turned over to the program agency originating the Pay-TV signal.

It is estimated that if every cable home paid 50¢ a month, a total of between eighteen and twenty million dollars would be available to launch a Canadian Pay-TV industry.

It is our view that not more than two programming agencies should be licensed nationally. (If there were two, one could be English and the other French.) I cannot see any justification for local or regional Pay-TV programming agencies at this time. The programming agency or agencies should be federally incorporated, with revenues going primarily into program production.

What kind of programming? Our brief contends that the object of the Pay-TV system should be to provide Canadian programming. Therefore, for example, American feature films, advertising, and sporting events carried by conventional television would be specifically prohibited on Pay-TV.

Needless to say, there are those who don't think much of this approach to Pay-TV, who think that they might rather enjoy getting into the business themselves, offering a combination of U.S. programs and Canadian. Their views will undoubtedly be considered by the CRTC as it addresses itself to the problem in the months ahead.

It seems to me, however, that what may be at stake at this juncture in the development of Canada's broadcasting system is survival. Here I am referring not to survival of the private Canadian broadcasting sector, nor survival of the CBC for that matter, for this worthy organization can only be put out of business by Parliament. Rather, I am referring to survival of Canadian reality to the extent that it depends upon Canadian broadcasting to strengthen the nation's social, economic, and cultural identity. The addition of an American-model Pay-TV service by itself may not be looked upon by most Canadians as too ominous. Yet, in light of the broadcasting system's decline in Canadian influence under the present tide of U.S. programming, it must be considered a retrograde step--a step toward disintegration of the Canadian sense of nationhood, as witnessed by television.

We envision a model that would be uniquely Canadian. It seems to me, while the economic risks are great, a Canadian Pay-TV service could represent a form of service worthy of such a risk. The Canadian model would start on a small scale and would grow in due course, reaching its level of success based on its ability to attract Canadian viewing. That is perhaps the major reason for the stand we have taken on the Pay-TV question.

A Canadian Pay-TV approach would introduce a new dimension to Canadian broadcasting. Is it too bold, too impractical, to dare to think of a Canadian TV service, an all-Canadian TV service in Canada by 1980?

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid I must conclude on a sombre note. You should be aware that in March of this year the government in Ottawa introduced new legislation, Bill C43, the Telecommunications Act, which is proposed to replace the existing Broadcasting Act.

If enacted in its present form, Bill C43 would undermine one of our basic rights as Canadian citizens, the right to free expression and the concomitant right to be informed.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why the Cabinet feels it should claim this authority when such action would be likely to produce hostile public reaction in support of the normal approach in this country to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Bill C43 deals with aspects of radio and television program content that could fritter away the broadcaster's rights of freedom of expression.

The proposed act would give the Cabinet the authority to decide what may be allowed on air. Further, the Act would appear to place the CRTC in the position of having to enforce whatever the Cabinet decides is best. Given this circumstance, the question arises as to the independence of the CRTC.

When there is no obvious recourse, one must be terribly concerned about the CRTC's role, specifically, and the role of broadcasting in general. While, in our view, it is quite appropriate for the government to give direction to the CRTC on matters of broad policy, we believe that other policies, particularly as related to program content, should not emerge without public consultation. That is the one safeguard the CRTC, and indeed all of us, including the government, should have in order to protect our basic rights.

In the present legislation, the Broadcasting Act--now in danger of being superseded--freedom of speech is referred to as a right entrusted to broadcasters. That same Act declares the right of persons to receive programs. Thus it is quite clear that Parliament by statute recognizes, without special provisions or regulations, our right as citizens to free broadcasting media.

Freedom of expression has, of course, long been recognized as a basic freedom and a fundamental pillar of our democracy. In 1960, it was enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and in 1968, our Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, recommended that freedom of expression be included in a Canadian Charter of Human Rights. He left no doubt that his use of the words "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" applied to broadcasting.

Ladies and gentlemen, under the proposed Bill C43, that freedom of Canadians could be dealt a crippling blow. I find it hard to believe that this bill was ever written, let alone introduced in our Parliament. I would find it harder still to think that such a bill could ever become law.

But, ladies and gentlemen, we had better be sure that our Members of Parliament fully understand the implications of the bill so they can take appropriate action.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, representing the private sector, is planning to discuss various sections of the bill with government officials and I am sure that organizations and individual citizens will do the same.

Lord Devlin, former chairman of the British Press Council, warns us: "If freedom of the press ... perishes, it will not be by sudden death.... It will be a long time dying . . . caused by a series of erosive measures, each one of which, if examined singly, would have a great deal to be said for it."

Those concluding words of Lord Devlin, that the erosive measures which cause freedom to die may each have a great deal to be said for them, are significant.

There is something to be said for a measure intended to improve broadcasting. But you cannot impose the measures as proposed in Bill C43 without safeguards, no matter how great the provocation, without striking at the heart of our freedom as citizens.

The foundation upon which our broadcasting system has been built comprises government and non-government interests. Each has the capacity to accomplish much ... each has the capacity to make substantial blunders. But together they represent and are recognized to be one of the best broadcasting systems in the world. In this regard the single most important contribution to be made on your behalf, by the private sector, is its freedom to always provide another point of view.

The appreciation of the audience was expressed by Arthur J. Langley, a Past President of The Empire Club of Canada.