Can a Government review of CBC mandate save English TV so it matters to us again?

Patrick Gossage • January 16, 2024

CBC English TV mattered a lot to anyone alive in the sixties and seventies when comedy programs like Wayne and Shuster were must watches in households in Canada and on the Ed Sullivan program in the US. The 11:00 pm news anchored by hosts like Eral Cameron and Stanley Burke dominated the airwaves. The seventies brought the popular The Beachcombers which enjoyed a lifetime of heavily watched 350 episodes. No longer.

CBC TV seems to enjoy the same much diminished popularity as its chief benefactor, the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who drastically increased CBC’s government funding now at $1.3 billion a year. Viewing numbers for English TV are grim. In the last five years, its prime time viewing audience dropped to only 4.4% meaning most Canadians don’t tune in at all. Pierre Poilievre hits a nerve when he promises to defund CBC English. Some ask if it is beyond saving.


CBC does have strengths. It knows how to do popular and high-quality radio and the results speak for themselves - English radio has 14.1 per

cent of Canadians listening with CBC morning radio is regularly at or near the top of their markets: CBC Toronto enjoys a 12.3 per cent; Montreal, 14.9 per cent; and Vancouver, 10.9 per cent. How can TV too find a way to produce quality programming that people want to watch?


Political Will


With Olivier threatening its very existence, it has now dawned on the government in the form of its Heritage Minister Pascale St. Onge who in a New Year’s interview said now’s the time for the Liberal government to begin working with Canadians and experts to define what the CBC should like over the next year and decade. “Canada’s news and cultural sectors would be at serious risk should the Conservatives form government under leader Pierre Poilievre,” she said. “(Conservatives) have shown they think that the arts and cultural sector should be left to the free market… “ And we know that with foreign companies and foreign entities that take so much space online, it means that we would basically abandon our cultural sector in Canada.” Now a relevant CBC English is a political issue.


It is interesting that St. Onge’s preoccupation with preserving a strong Canadian presence amidst the deluge of high quality largely US movies and programs on streaming services echoes the 1928 Air Commission’s findings that led to the CBC’s creation. Then private Canadian radio stations were not only beginning to fall into American hands but were unable to offer a popular Canadian alternative to programming that was flooding across the border from the US. We face a similar situation today. With the added challenge that a well-funded CBC English service with the exception of radio seems challenged to make high quality programs that appeal to Canadians.


It’s not that in the not-too-distant past CBC has proven it could to just that. Programs like Little Mosque on the Prairie, Kim’s Convenience and

especially Schitt’s Creek have been huge successes with audiences here and in the US as well as breaking new ground in the way only the CBC

can.


More funding not less?


However, if CBC is to retain its very broad mandate of virtually being everything to everyone - i.e. its age-old mission to “inform, enlighten and entertain” as well as maintaining French services across Canada, a northern service with indigenous languages, five discretionary television channels and four Canada-wide radio networks, it is going to require more public funding not less. This need falls precisely at the time CBC is in dire financial troubles with a $125 million budget shortfall. This forced a recent announcement of a 10 per cent cut in its workforce and a reduction of its English and French programming budgets for the next fiscal year. About $40 million was cut from independent production commissions and program acquisitions. CBC programming will take a $25 million hit and Radio-Canada will see a $15 million reduction.


It’s well known that CBC Radio Canada’s programming is hugely well received in Quebec – it does not have a popularity problem. Perhaps

this is due to a little-known imbalance in funding between the two networks, English and French. Richard Stursberg, who was the executive vice president of English Services from 2004 to 2010, wrote revealingly last March in the HUB: “Given that Canada’s population is roughly 38 million people, {this means that the} 8 million French- speaking Canadians receive a per capita public broadcasting subsidy of almost 70 dollars, while the rest of the country receives 23 dollars. In effect, this makes Radio-Canada one of the better-financed public broadcasters in the world and CBC one of the worst”. Follow the money but given Quebec’s cultural sensitivities, no federal government would dare change this unfair formula.


Digital CBC


Canadians are increasingly choosing digital platforms for their viewing and listening needs, and CBC English cannot be faulted for not keeping

up with the digital and streaming revolution. Its long-established digital news service performs amazingly at times of enhanced national news

interest such as elections. At the last CRTC CBC hearing the Commission recognized, for the first time ever, the significant contribution of our

digital streaming services – CBC Gem, ICI TOU.TV, CBC Listen and Radio- Canada OHdio – to the Canadian regulated system. More streaming

services are coming: the 24/7 streaming channels CBC Comedy and CBC News BC will land this fall, following last November’s launch of CBC News Explore, and will be followed by more local news channels. Indeed, CBC in this department seems prepared for the future.


The CBC has proven that it can do what no commercial network could and attract huge audiences when it behaves as a true Canadian public

broadcaster. The huge production with both English and French networks Canada: A People's History with 17- fully produced episode, on the history of Canada attracted an audience in its first seasons of over two million per episode and still enjoys an impressive afterlife in school use. This is the kind of ambitious Canadian project could win the hearts and minds of Canadians again.


There is general agreement that CBC TV English News - its unrivalled reach and staff including the almost the only Canadian international correspondents - should be the go-to news service for Canadians. It is not, and if it was there would be less talk of defunding CBC English. The CBC ombudsman in the most recent CBC Annual Report shone a revealing light on a tone in CBC news that turns off many Canadians. Here is his finding: “The prevailing theme of complaints is that reporters and editors are not making editorial decisions based on public interest, but rather to serve a social or political agenda. This comes up frequently in stories relating to the pandemic. But it comes up as well for stories that relate to partisan politics, race, gender, and other subjects related to equity and justice.” Clearly there are major changes needed to bring audiences back to CBC TV news.


What kind of review will fix it?


The question remains – can some sort of yet to be defined CBC “review” as foreseen by the Heritage Minister save CBC English. Bringing back lost audiences to CBC English productions and CBC news is a huge challenge given budget cuts and strong ongoing US streaming competition. But It’s not impossible. We also need public pressure to lobby for the importance of the CBC as a national cultural and information institution. This is a challenge. Unfortunately, there is no longer a robust Friends of Canadian Broadcasting which in the past when CBC faced drastic budget cuts mounted national campaigns supported by labour unions. The historic arguments for public broadcasting are very relevant today. Graham Spry of the Canadian Radio League which was responsible for the launch public of broadcasting under PM R.B. Bennet’s Conservative government are still pertinent: "It is a choice between commercial interests and the people's interest. It is a choice between the state and the United States," Spry said. The same argument works today. The Canadian public interest, particularly the interest of millions of new Canadians welcomed in the last decades is the same: who will tell our stories and explain what is happening in our country? Will US streaming services or mega US social networks increase our knowledge of ourselves and tell our stories.. Unlikely. That is why we will always need the CBC – it’s that simple. At least the federal government understands this. Hopefully a review, faced with the Conservative threat to the CBC, will continue to lead it to strategies that will make it more indispensable to Canadian audiences.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

A New Canada to Fight for Our Survival

By Patrick Gossage • December 29, 2025
There has been nothing like the mobilization of our country since we went to war against Hitler “for King and Country.” Now we are mobilizing in a new war against Trump’s depredations with renewed patriotic fervour. Our building a resilient sovereignty against the word’s most irrational and powerful regime - who believe we have no right to exist - will require an enormous dedicated and concentrated effort to redefine our nation. . Make no mistake. We are not seen as important in Washington, a lesson I learned as the Minister of Information at our embassy in the Reagan years. Like Trump’s disparaging attitude to Justin Trudeau, Reagan had little use for his crusading father, Pierre Ytudeau. The difference is that with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney r Reagan actually became a key figure in establishing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), signed in 1988. Ironically, it is precisely the success of this pact that led to 75% of our trade going to the US, a dangerous dependence which is now under extreme threat. The future of the successor to the FTA is at dtake. The US Canada Mexico Agreement (USMCA) is about to be renegotiated and is by no means secure. Bilateral trade discussions on the sectorial tariffs that are destroying our steel, automobile, aluminum and lumber industries were going well but were cancelled on October 23 after Trump, in a fit of pique was annoyed by Ontario TV ads using a Reagan clip to decry tariffs. Prime Minister Carney clings to the hope that these issues will be addressed in the context of the USMCA talks. They are supposed to begin in January. We live in hope. Make no mistake. Trump recently suggested that USMCA’s future was not certain. His strong belief that Canada would be better as a US state _ “and there would be no tariffs” – seems unshakeable. Perhaps the most striking evidence of what low repute Canada is held in the White House comes from Vice President Vance. He has publicly criticized Canada's our generous immigration policies, blaming them for the country's "stagnating" living standards and referring to our approach as "immigration insanity". Vance pointed to a chart from IceCap Asset Management showing that Canada's GDP per capita growth has fallen behind that of the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years. He argues this stagnation is a direct result of Canada's approach to immigration and not U.S. trade policies. He specifically targeted Canada's multiculturalism model, contrasting it with the U.S. "melting pot". Vance claimed that "no nation has leaned more into 'diversity is our strength’... immigration insanity “ than Canada". The White House recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) which also note how immigrants can destroy our democracies. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist signaled this: “It cites activities by our sister European democracies that “undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. “‘Should present trends continue,” it goes on, “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” These views are totally inimical to Canadian values.  As is this, Trump’s most outrageous recent anti- immigrant outburst as reported by NBC : “For a second day in a row, President Donald Trump launched into a hate-filled rant against Somalia and Somali immigrants living in the US, saying they’ve “destroyed Minnesota” and “our country.” Minnesota, Trump said, is “a hellhole” right now. “The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country.“ The NSC also can affect Canada in its focus on the Western hemisphere. an area to be dominated by US interests. The US will secure critical supply chains in its own interests; and insists on the right of the US to have access to “strategically important locations.” The US National Security Council is to identify strategic points and resources in the Western hemisphere with a view to their protection and joint development with regional partners. Obviously, Canada as a source of critical minerals, will be under US scrutiny. Some observers fear that Trump wants Canada to become a “vassal state”. A December Toronto Star editorial states coldly that “Thanks to Donald Trump, we know that nothing about our country is guaranteed anymore, not our sovereignty, our democracy, our prosperity.” We now know the Canadian policies standing in the way of a new USMCA agreement. US Trade representative Jamieson Greer said our online Streaming Act, which will make profitable US streaming services support Canadian programming is a major irritant as is our sacrosanct supply management regime for dairy and poultry products. These both are very difficult bargaining chips for Canada to play. Trump’s love affair with tariffs is unlikely to subside so Canadian products may continue to be frozen out of the US. Prime Minister Carney’s ambitious strategy of finding alternate markets for these may work. And his new policy framework for rebuilding a successful economy, major infrastructure projects and attracting important foreign investment is a significant redefinition of our national political priorities. He enjoys wide public support for his strategy which also receives good business and media support. There is already some optimism about the economy in 2026 - take Bank of Montreal’s recent outlook paper: “We’re looking for a stronger economy in 2026 than 2025. Consumer spending has helped prop up the economy. The “Buy Canadian” campaign has helped, and more people are travelling closer to home. Also, there’s no question that federal government spending has also supported economic growth. As we move into the latter part of the year—boosted by firmer economic growth and lower population growth—we expect the unemployment rate to fall in the second half. “Canada’s position in the trade dispute isn’t as bad as it appeared earlier in the year. The average Us tariff rate on imports of Canadian goods is between 6% and 7%, compared to the 17% rate the U.S. charges the rest of the world on average. (these rates are goods under the existing CUSMA) Sectorial tariffs are heavily focused on certain targeted industries, such as steel and aluminum, lumber, and auto imports and non-USMCA auto parts. These are important sectors, but they represent a relatively narrow slice of the economy. “ In addition there is good news on the overall trade front. Canada’s trade swung to a surplus of C$0.15 billion in September 2025 from a C$6.3 billion deficit the month before and well above expectations for a C$4.5 billion deficit, Exports rose 6.3 C$ 64.231 billion, the largest monthly increase since February. Nine of 11 product sections posted gains. Metal and non-metallic mineral product exports jumped 22.7% driven by a 30.2% surge in unwrought gold; aircraft and other transportation equipment rose 23.4% and crude oil exports climbed 5.8%. We just may have a more resilient economy than we thought. Nevertheless, we cannot count on Trump agreeing to a new trade regime that is as good as the original NAFTA – and the cost of reducing tariffs on key sectors may be too high, Trump’s love for tariffs and distain for us won’t change. We can only hope that a smart, well connected and determined Prime Minister can rebuild an economy that will be immune to the vagaries of our neighbour.

Immigration – Too much of a Good Thing

By Patrick Gossage • September 17, 2025
Welcoming newcomers, especially those fleeing wars, has been a widely accepted Canadian virtue. Now, after 25 years of a very open door. there is increasing evidence that we have too much of a good thing. And admittedly, it has been pre-PM Carney Liberal policies which have us in this situation. Where we are now was exemplified by PM Carney recently at the caucus retreat in Edmonton where said recent levels have not been "sustainable" and a more "focused" approach is required. "It's clear that we must improve our overall immigration policies," he said. It had been easy to be caught up in Justin Trudeau’s unabashed enthusiasm for high immigration levels exemplified by his warm personal welcome of the first Syrian refugees in December, 2015. On the fifth anniversary of his memorable event he happily announced: “In the years since, the Government of Canada has worked closely with Canadians, the business community, and civil society to resettle nearly 73,000 Syrian refugees in more than 350 communities across the country.” Few questioned our generosity and thousands of ordinary Canadians sponsored families. But opening our doors wide soon got out of control. In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the population, were, or had been, a landed immigrant. Canada’s population grew from 38 million to 41.5 million, representing the highest annual population growth rate since the post-war boom of 1957. Immigration now accounts for virtually all of Canada’s net labour force growth. It then became of public concern that temporary residents, including record numbers of temporary workers and foreign students accounted for 3 million of that number. In total, since 2015 we admitted 15 million temporary foreign workers in agriculture, hospitality and some manufacturing and processing jobs. They were seen to be exploited with lower wages and few rights. Foreign students with limits on hours they could work swelled these huge numbers. Inevitably, public support for high immigration levels dramatically flipped, where 58% of Canadians now believe there are too many immigrants being admitted to Canada. An Environics Poll in 2024 showed that f or the first time in a quarter century, a clear majority of Canadians say there is too much immigration, with this view strengthening considerably for the second consecutive year . Canadians’ express concerns about the arrival of so many newcomers contributing to the country’s problems with housing availability and affordability; this view is much more prominent than a year ago. Immigrants placing pressure on public finances, taking jobs from other Canadians, over-population, and insufficient screening are less prominent. Along with rising concerns about immigration levels, an increasing number of Canadians are expressing doubts about who is being admitted to the country and how well they are integrating into Canadian society. The new Carney government took action, gradually reducing permanent resident admissions to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027; introducing caps for temporary residents, including students and workers at 673,650 in 2025, a notable decrease in new international student admissions with only 163,000 new study permits projected for early 2025. This has led to serious financial shortfalls in many post-secondary institutions. There will be a decline in the overall Canadian population in 2025 and 2026 due to the projected outflows of temporary residents.The number of new temporary residents arriving in the country — made up of international students, foreign workers and refugee claimants — declined in the first six months of 2025, compared to the same period last year. These immigration statistics have been closely watched, with critics arguing the Liberal government’s high immigration intake has contributed to Canada’s runaway population growth and is straining the housing market and health-care system. In response, the government slashed the 2025 intakes of new permanent residents by 21 per cent to 395,000; new study permit holders by 10 per cent to 305,900; and new work permit holders by 16 per cent to 367,750. Accommodating the needs of refugees for resettlement and shelter has become a major issue and embarrassment. In the summer of 2023 many asylum seekers in Toronto ended up sleeping on the street. What a way to welcome them to Canada! Since September 2021, the number of refugee claimants housed in Toronto shelters has increased more than tenfold, from 530 per night to a peak of almost 6,500 per night by August 2024. Recently there were about 3,500 refugee claimants in the system, about 40 per cent of all clients. The mayor recently wrote a letter warning that Carney’s government had agreed to cover only 26 per cent of Toronto’s estimated costs for housing asylum seekers in its shelter system this year. Refugees are a federal responsibility, yet reduction in federal support leaves the municipality $107 million short. We still welcome asylum claimants unreservedly. From January-June 2015 over 57,000. The leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, is now determined to make immigration a major political issue. He is calling for a tougher stance, saying he wants to see "very hard caps" on the number of newcomers allowed into the country. Poilievre says the country has struggled to integrate newcomers and he wants to see more people leaving than coming in "while we catch up." "We have millions of people whose permits will expire over the next couple of years, and many of them will leave," he said. "We need more people leaving than coming for the next couple of years. He would scrap the Temporary Foreign workers program altogether. BC Premier David Eby also calls for the end of Canada's temporary foreign worker program — blaming Ottawa's flawed immigration policies for filling up homeless shelters and food banks. "The temporary foreign worker program is not working. It should be cancelled or significantly reformed," Eby said. "We can't have an immigration system that fills up our homeless shelters and our food banks. We can't have an immigration system that outpaces our ability to build schools and housing. And we can't have an immigration program that results in high youth unemployment,“ Despite these concerns, there is a bedrock of strong support for immigration which was manifested recently in Torontonians where over 150 teachers,.labour union members and families organized a noisy counter demonstration against about 50 right wing flag waving Canada Fist anti-immigrant demonstrators. They chanted “there is no space for hate at Christie Pits”, the site of the clash which led to many arrests. Torontonians enjoy the benefits of living, the world’s most multicultural city with its amazing variety of foods and cultures, and daily evidence from immigrants that their children are doing very well, thank you. But we await the end of the hopelessness that is apparently part of the lives of so many new arrivals, particularly refugees, and the needless exploitation of many other newcomers in menial and low paying jobs..
More Posts