Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, the online streaming act currently before the Senate provides a useful and rare opportunity for us to look at the Broadcasting Act as a whole to see what improvements can be made. To that end, I have three major concerns that we can fix as we take this opportunity to review the Broadcasting Act.

My first issue of concern relates to the requirement in the Broadcasting Act that the CBC should “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.”

Honourable senators, you have heard me speak in the past about the actions of the CBC in the early days of the COVID pandemic when it failed to serve the needs of the regions. On March 18, 2020, which, as you will recall, was a time of no small uncertainty and worry, the broadcaster announced the suspension of local evening news programs.

Now, I have already described the circumstances of Prince Edward Island that made this decision particularly unfortunate: the lack of any alternate source of local television news, as CBC’s “Compass” is the only television news program produced in the province; the fact that Prince Edward Island has some of the slowest internet and worst coverage in the country; and the large proportion of people who identify as seniors. But there is a broader issue at play. The public has a right to expect that their public broadcaster will keep them informed at all times, but especially during an emergency like the COVID pandemic.

Honourable senators, in a time of crisis, Prince Edward Islanders were abandoned by CBC Television as a direct result of a decision made at CBC headquarters in Toronto. To be clear, CBC local radio and television broadcasts form an essential service in Prince Edward Island that must continue to receive the support and funding necessary for it to perform its vital function.

In spite of that, once the CBC had decided to cut local news service, there was no formal mechanism to compel them to reverse their decision. They eventually backed down in the face of public outrage, but there was no governmental or regulatory authority that could have either prevented the cuts in the first place or forced the reinstatement of local newscasts. This, even though the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — the body that regulates the CBC — acknowledged that in cancelling local broadcasts without prior CRTC approval, the broadcaster was in violation of its licence agreement, which committed the CBC to broadcast “at least seven hours of Canadian local programming per week.” The only exceptions are special sporting events or statutory holidays. Moreover, the CRTC noted that “the CBC cannot reduce the level of local programming under seven hours without Commission approval following a public process.”

None of that happened: no public process, no approval.

The current provisions of the Broadcasting Act afford the CRTC very little in the way of powers when it comes to enforcing its agreements and regulations on the CBC. For example, under section 25(1), if the CRTC determines that the CBC has acted in contravention of its licence agreement, the CRTC’s course of action is limited:

. . . the Commission shall forward to the Minister a report setting out the circumstances of the alleged contravention or failure, the findings of the Commission and any observations or recommendations of the Commission in connection therewith.

Elsewhere, in section 24(2), the Broadcasting Act states that the commission may not suspend or revoke the CBC’s broadcast licence, “except on application of or with the consent of the Corporation.”

Think about that for a moment: A penalty can only be imposed with the consent or, better yet, at the request of the CBC. This casts into doubt any concept of enforcement. If the CRTC is to act as a true regulatory body vis-à-vis the CBC, there must be some teeth behind the licence agreement.

Part 3 of the Broadcasting Act deals with the establishment and operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, including its finances and revenues. This relates to the second issue I wish to raise: that of the use of so-called branded or sponsored content by the CBC. Put simply, this is advertising that tries not to look like advertising but rather appears to be news. I noticed a print example of this a few years ago as part of my work on overseas tax evasion. In February and March of 2017, a number of very positive articles appeared in newspapers and online across Canada bearing titles like “Federal programs in place to address offshore tax avoidance and evasion” and “How Canada is cracking down on offshore tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.” It is likely the best press the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, ever received.

However, as it turned out, the CRA didn’t so much receive that press as produced and paid for it themselves. The Canada Revenue Agency later admitted that it paid almost $300,000 to place these so-called articles in six print and digital newspapers. This sponsored content did not come from reporters but was instead produced by writers hired by a company paid by CRA to produce stories favourable to the agency.

Unable to earn any positive media for their well-known incompetence in fighting overseas tax evasion, they decided to buy some positive media coverage and try to pass it off as legitimate news, which is the problem inherent in sponsored content. It is why I object to the CBC, through its marketing arm Tandem, attempting to incorporate such content into its digital news platform. That initiative has proven controversial with over 500 current and former employees urging the broadcaster to uphold what it once described as the absolute church-and-state separation of advertising and editorial content.

If a private broadcaster and newspaper want to conduct business in that way, that’s their decision. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a different entity with a mandate that goes beyond the bottom line, and it should act accordingly.

The third issue relates to CBC staff. Section 44 of the Broadcasting Act grants the CBC the right to employ such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the conduct of its business and pay them at such rates of remuneration as the board of directors deem fit. I have no quarrel with any of that, but I do have a concern about transparency. As a public broadcaster largely funded by taxpayers, the CBC has a greater obligation than private broadcasters to be open about how it spends that money.

One area in which the broadcaster could improve is that of salaries for senior management and on-air personnel. The CBC provides some information about what salaries it pays, but very little and only in the most general terms. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to compare the CBC with its British counterpart, the British Broadcasting Corporation, or BBC. Since 2017 — and I’ll come back to that in a moment — the British Broadcasting Corporation has released the names and salaries of its highest-paid on-air talent, including news readers. Currently, they provide the employee’s name, the program they appear on and the individual salaries to within £5,000 — about C$7,000.

By contrast, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation rarely provides an average salary for all employees within a C$50,000 salary band. So, for example, while we know that Nick Robinson at the BBC earns between £295,000 and £300,000 to host the BBC “Today” show, we only know that five CBC staff earn between C$250,000 and C$300,000 with an average salary of C$342,000 — no names, no programs and, more importantly, no information on gender. That last part is significant.

You will recall I said that the BBC only instituted this policy in 2017, and even then it did so with great reluctance. Their key objection was that if other broadcasters knew what they were paying their talent, they would lure them away with better offers. The BBC operates in a competitive market, and the BBC said at the time that this will not make it easier for them to retain the talent the public loves. That was the decision of their director general in 2016.

But what the release of salary information in the U.K. uncovered was not so much a discrepancy between the BBC and private broadcasters as the sizable gap between what the BBC was paying its male and female talent. Does anyone care to guess who was making more? The BBC has made strides to remedy that in the intervening years. One on-air personality was immediately called into the office and given a significant raise just before the information went public, having been there for 12 years only to find out her co-host was making almost double. I’m not saying the same gap exists within the CBC but, without knowing the facts, who is to say?

For these reasons, and because the concerns I have raised are not covered by the legislation before us, I shall be proposing amendments to this bill that would achieve the following.

The first is that the CRTC should impose a penalty of $2 million per day in the event of the cancellation of any local TV newscast by the CBC without meeting the conditions of their broadcasting licence, which, among others, include public hearings and approval from the CRTC. The amount of that penalty would be paid to local libraries in the area where the CBC newscast was cancelled.

Second is that the CBC should not be allowed to compete with privately owned media corporations by running sponsored or branded content disguised as journalism on any of their platforms.

The third is that the name and total compensation, including salary, of all staff at the CBC receiving compensation greater than that of a Canadian senator should be made public. After all, a senator’s taxpayer-funded compensation is disclosed and, in the spirit of transparency, so should those employees of the CBC.

Colleagues, I believe the amendments I am proposing will lead to a more open, responsive and accountable national broadcaster, which would be to the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.