Using public sources, such as biographical directories and legal statutes, the report examines the processes and outcomes of appointments to the CBC and CRTC during their histories. Major findings:
- Most appointees to the CBC have served part-time and received a per diem; most appointees to the CRTC since 1984 are full-time, salaried staff.
- Various reports and pieces of legislation have outlined non-binding criteria for appointment to the CBC or CRTC; however, there is no formal appointment process.
- The vast majority of appointees known to be politically partisan were affiliated with the governing party at the time of their appointment.
- Women, aboriginals and minorities have been under-represented on both boards, and the lack of public profile of many of the appointees suggests theirs were exclusively patronage appointments.
- The patronage approach may have merit, however, in that it is convenient, encourages participation in political life, and allows the appointment of candidates recognized as competent rather than culling them from a list of unknown applicants.
The report makes several recommendations for further study.
Note: The author of this report, Arlan Gates, completed this project on a voluntary basis while a student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto through an arrangement between the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and Pro Bono Students Canada. The report represents the author’s opinions and not necessarily those of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
As Canada has grown in size and complexity, legislation governing Canadian broadcasting has placed increasing demands on the public organizations that administer it, chiefly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the Canadian Radio-Television and Communications Commission (CRTC). The CBC, as a broadcasting entity, has gone from being merely the national broadcaster to having implicit responsibility for reflecting and promoting the diversity of the nation. Legislation has required the CRTC, as a regulatory body, to embrace similar aims. As expectations have increased, however, not enough attention has been paid to the governing bodies that are charged with implementing them. The questions of who should serve on these bodies and how appointments should be made have remained virtually unanswered in broadcasting legislation from the early days to the present.
This report addresses the composition of the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC. It is concerned both with the expertise and perspectives that appointees bring to their positions, and with the process by which they are appointed. First, the report traces the expectations of the governing bodies that have emerged in several decades of broadcasting legislation. Second, given those expectations, the report proposes a range of skills, experiences, and characteristics – in short, ‘criteria for service’ – that appointees to the governing bodies might or should, as a group, possess. Third, the report surveys the more than 200 individuals who have served the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC and draws statistical conclusions about their skills, experiences, and characteristics.1 Finally, the report reflects upon how appointments to the CBC and CRTC have traditionally been made and suggests that a new appointments procedure – in addition to new, stated criteria for service – might better meet current legislative expectations.
I. GOVERNING BOARDS IN BROADCASTING LEGISLATION
A central feature of broadcasting legislation in Canada is that almost from the beginning it envisioned not only a regulatory function but also a creative one – a national public broadcasting service. Although its origins were in the short-lived regulatory body known as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (which lasted from 1932-6), the CBC was charged with operating a broadcasting service, as well as administering broadcast regulations, from its inception in the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936. Only after the Broadcasting Act of 1958 transferred regulatory responsibility to the newly-created Board of Broadcast Governors was the CBC able to focus its full attention on broadcasting. Although in the last half decade the governing board of the CBC has shown a tendency to take a more active role in management decisions, it has always played a predominantly advisory role.2 According to former chair Patrick Watson, the Board’s main purpose has been "to give good guidance and keep a steady hand on the tiller".3 Consistent with that purpose, some 90 percent of the 142 appointees to the CBC since 1936 have been part time and have received a per diem rather than a salary.
One of the reasons that the CBC’s duties as regulator were transferred to the Board of Broadcast Governors in the late 1950s was the growing complexity of broadcasting regulations. When the CRTC replaced the Board of Broadcast Governors in the Broadcasting Act of 1968, it did so in the shape of a working commission, with administrative and quasi-judicial authority over the regulatory structure. Consistent with this role, some 75 percent of CRTC appointees since 1984 have been full time, and the ratio of full- to part-time positions has increased steadily since 1968 (see table).
|Legislation ||# full-time positions ||# part-time positions|
|Broadcasting Act (1968) ||5 ||<10|
|Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act (1975) ||<9 ||<10|
|Broadcasting Act (1991) ||<13 ||<6|
Also, unlike their counterparts on the CBC governing board, most CRTC appointees receive a salary.
But the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC do share a fundamental similarity. Broadcasting legislation has failed to spell out, for either organization, specific criteria for the Governor in Council to follow when making appointments. Admittedly, there are some formal eligibility requirements, but the formalisms are just that. The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 introduced a conflict of interest clause that has been retained, in modified form, in subsequent legislation. The Broadcasting Act of 1958 mandated retirement at age 70, limited appointments to two consecutive terms, and stipulated that appointees must be and remain Canadian citizens while holding their positions. In 1968, Parliament added the qualification that appointees must be ordinarily resident in Canada. Since 1991, full-time appointees (excluding regional appointees) to the CRTC have also been required to relocate to the National Capital Region.4 (Further information on broadcasting legislation is contained in the tables in Appendix I.) But this is where legislation has stopped, providing few guidelines for selecting the most qualified individuals from among millions of eligible Canadians.
II. CRITERIA FOR SERVICE
The absence of qualitative appointment criteria in broadcasting legislation cannot easily be explained. Many of the skills, experiences, and characteristics desirable in appointees as a group are stated in, or can readily be inferred from, government policy statements, review committee reports, the media comments of informed observers, and even broadcast legislation itself. Enumerating these implicit criteria may be as close as one can come to positing normative criteria for appointments to the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC.
Some of the criteria have related to appointees’ professional experience. In its 1996 report, the Mandate Review Committee advocated vocational and educational diversity, some appointees coming from "business, labour, science or the academic world", others from "broadcasting, journalism or the arts".5 The 1982 Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee recommended that appointments be made with an "overriding concern for the appointees’ experience in the fields of concern of the agency" and a "broad-ranging interest in cultural matters".6 Author and retired CBC broadcaster Knowlton Nash added that it had been a "great sin" not to let "the creative person into the upper councils".7 At the same time, the 1966 White Paper on Broadcasting underlined the importance of "knowledge and experience of management matters"; and the Mandate Review Committee advocated including members "with high level corporate management skills".8
Emphasis has also been placed on the value of diverse perspectives. The 1965 Fowler Committee on Broadcasting stressed knowing Canada "extensively, its present problems, and its future possibilities as a nation"; the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has advocated international experience as well.9 Given the high proportion of appointees who have been "white, mostly male and largely upper middle-class", it has been common to encourage appointments that better represent the ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity of Canadian society.10 Mindful of the politics inherent in government appointments, the Mandate Review Committee also urged that "directors with known political affiliations [ought to represent] the full political spectrum and not just that of the governing party".11
Broadcasting legislation itself has also implied certain selection criteria. The provision of a small remuneration and reimbursement of expenses in the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 probably pointed to an intention not to restrict service to the very wealthy, as was the case for the Senate.12 The continued payment of these funds today suggests the desirability of at least some socio-economic balance among appointees. Reference in the 1968 legislation to the responsibility of the CBC and CRTC to "safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada" implied the need for representation from those communities. Mention in the same legislation of "Canadian identity", linguistic dualism, and the need for Canadian broadcasting to "[serve] the special geographic regions" has implications for both the regional origins of appointees and the extent to which they identify with the country as a whole.13
The Broadcasting Act of 1991 contained yet more inferences. It referred to the need for the CBC and the CRTC to be both "adaptable to scientific and technological change" and capable of seeking out the "most appropriate and efficient means" of effecting change, clarion calls for the appointment of individuals with technical broadcasting and financial and management experience. The 1991 legislation also emphasized demographic diversity, in particular the need to reflect "the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian…women", the "multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society", and the "special place of aboriginal peoples".14
Perhaps most compelling among the possible criteria, however, is what might be called ‘profile’. Reflecting on the initial appointments to the Board of Broadcast Governors in 1958, the Minister responsible for broadcasting remarked that those selected "should be of outstanding quality".15 The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has stressed the need for "a critical mass of people of stature".16 Similarly, the Mandate Review Committee described ideal appointees as those with "real stature and prominence in their communities or professions".17
The criteria identified above are not exhaustive, but they do indicate the range of qualities that in ideal circumstances might be present in appointees as a group. The criteria are a useful basis for evaluating the historical composition of the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC.
III. STATISTICAL SURVEY
The fact that broadcasting legislation has not mandated qualitative criteria for CBC and CRTC appointments does not mean that actual appointments have not been made that meet some or many of the normative criteria outlined above. To evaluate this hypothesis statistically, extensive empirical research was undertaken in December 1997 on the 142 appointments made to the CBC since 1936, and the 75 appointees made to the CRTC since 1968. Data were organized into six general categories: vocation, education, skills, demographics, profile, and politics. Within each category, numerous subcategories were identified. It must be noted that full information was not available on all appointees, and for some, no information was available.18 Percentages therefore represent extrapolations from the sample of those appointees on whom information could be compiled. Conclusions that were not statistically significant were excluded from the report. Raw data tables are contained in Appendix II.
This category was studied by assessing the current or principal occupation of appointees. Each appointee was counted once only. Work or training that appointees may have undertaken in other occupational categories was therefore disregarded, though this information was often included in the skills and expertise category below.
Based on 75 percent information, appointees to the CBC have been drawn heavily from law and business, accounting for 42 percent of appointments overall. Only 13 percent of CBC appointees have had previous employment in broadcasting. One in four of John Diefenbaker’s appointments was so qualified, more than of any other Prime Minister. Almost 42 percent of Lester Pearson’s appointments were academics. One in four appointments by Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien have been lawyers. Almost one in five have had backgrounds in business.
In the CRTC, by contrast, only 23 percent of appointees have been employed in business or law, based on 81 percent information. Some 38 percent of appointees have had previous employment in broadcasting or the public service. Pierre Trudeau appointed the most businesspeople of any prime minister, Jean Chrétien the most lawyers, and Brian Mulroney the most from a broadcasting background. Trudeau’s appointees were most likely to have business backgrounds. Mulroney’s were four times as likely as Trudeau’s, and twice as likely as Chrétien’s, to have worked in broadcasting.
Because of the nature of the CBC and CRTC as public institutions, what constitutes ‘broadcasting employment’ may warrant explanation. In this report, the term is understood to encompass creative or administrative work in television or radio, but also in film, and in rare cases publishing or journalism. Most appointees to the CBC and CRTC who have been so qualified have come from public broadcasting backgrounds, though the private sector has also been represented. Among CBC appointees employed in broadcasting, 39 percent worked in the public sector, 27 percent in the private sector, and 33 percent in both sectors. Only 18 percent of CRTC appointees with a broadcasting background worked in the private sector; 42 percent had been involved exclusively in public broadcasting; and one in three had experience in both sectors.
Education, as understood in this report, refers to level formally attained after secondary studies. Post-secondary education refers to any formal training after high school. Post-graduate qualifications include university diplomas as well as degrees. Professional qualifications refer to those attained in law, business, medicine, or other areas after the completion of a certain period of university study.
Based on 51 percent information, 42 percent of appointees to the CBC since 1936 have had post-secondary education. Some 31 percent of the total have had post-graduate or professional degrees, and 14 percent of the total obtained at least one degree or certificate from a foreign institution. The proportion of appointees with post-graduate or professional qualifications has declined sharply, from 40 percent under William Lyon Mackenzie King and Diefenbaker, to 22 percent under Trudeau, and to 13 percent under Chrétien.
Some 62 percent of CRTC appointees, based on 65 percent information, have had post-secondary education. Nearly one in two has had a post-graduate or professional degree, and fully one in five appointees completed some study at a foreign institution. In contrast to the CBC, the incidence of post-graduate and professional qualifications among CRTC appointees has increased, from 45 percent under Trudeau to 65 percent under Chrétien. Only one in three of Mulroney’s appointees was so qualified, but these appointees were twice as likely to be foreign educated as Trudeau’s.
This category assessed skills and experiences not necessarily revealed by vocational or educational background. Broadcasting expertise refers to experience or exposure obtained through prior or secondary employment, as an aspect of current and primary employment, or through volunteer endeavours. Cultural expertise is based on a demonstrated interest in and identification with the arts community through administrative or creative involvement in music, theatre, literature, film, arts publishing, multicultural organizations, or cultural funding bodies such as the Canada Council. International experience includes foreign birth, study, employment, or military service, or other extended stay abroad. Governance experience refers to involvement as a member or chair of a school board, selection committee, professional society, tribunal, or board of directors of a company, non-profit organization, or public enterprise.
One in four appointees to the CBC, based on 60 percent information, has had broadcasting experience of some kind. Some 23 percent of appointees overall have had expertise in the arts, or in culture generally. Chrétien has shown himself twice as likely as Trudeau to appoint individuals with broadcasting expertise. One in three appointees under King, Mulroney and Chrétien had a cultural background; in the intervening years only one in five was so qualified. One in three appointees overall has had international experience. Pearson appeared to value such experience most, with 75 percent of his appointees so qualified; King followed with 57 percent, Chrétien with 50 percent. By contrast, only 16 percent of Trudeau’s appointees had international experience. Some 53 percent of appointees have had governance experience. Over 80 percent of Chrétien’s appointees have been so qualified, rivalling the numbers under Diefenbaker and Pearson. Of Trudeau and Mulroney appointees, 31 and 45 percent respectively had governance experience.
Based on 73 percent information, 49 percent of appointees to the CRTC have had broadcasting expertise, and 37 percent a cultural background. Mulroney was three times as likely as Trudeau to appoint individuals with broadcasting expertise. Although there was a decline in governance experience – from 49 percent of appointees under Trudeau to 25 percent under Chrétien – the latter has compensated with eight times as much emphasis as Trudeau on financial and management experience. One in three appointees overall has had international experience, with Chrétien twice as likely to appoint individuals so qualified as either Mulroney or Trudeau.
Demographics reflect how representative appointees have been of Canada’s regions, official language groups, women, aboriginals and visible minorities. This category also considers whether appointees have had a sense of the country, or a ‘national perspective’, that transcends their local community, usually measured by extended stays in two or more of Canada’s regions.
Based on complete information, some 61 percent of appointees to the CBC have come from Ontario or Québec. The figure has risen considerably in recent decades, with two-thirds of Trudeau and Mulroney appointees, and three-quarters of Chrétien appointees, coming from Ontario or Québec. By contrast, King’s appointments were equitably balanced among the regions. Since 1936, there has been some representation from all regions; two of the 142 CBC appointees have come from the Northwest Territories. Overall, 83 percent of appointees have lived in urban areas, though one in three appointees under Diefenbaker, and one in four under Chrétien, has been from rural Canada. Only one in four appointees has been francophone, though the trend has been upward, from 13 percent under King and Diefenbaker to 38 percent under Chrétien. One in five appointees has had a national perspective that could be ascertained statistically. Appointees under Diefenbaker and Mulroney exhibited the national perspective characteristic most, with one in three so qualified; appointments made by Chrétien and Trudeau exhibited it least, with only 10 to 15 percent having lived or worked in another part of Canada than their home. Only 19 percent of appointees since 1936 have been women, though the trend has been slowly upward, from less than 10 percent under King and Pearson to 25 percent under Chrétien. There has been only one aboriginal appointed, and one visible minority.
Based on 64 percent information, just over one third of CRTC appointees have come from Ontario or Québec. One third of appointments under Mulroney and Chrétien, however, have been from Ontario alone. There has never been representation from the territories. And Chrétien has yet to appoint a Commissioner from the prairies. Only nine percent of appointments have been from rural areas. Some 35 percent of appointees overall have been French-speaking; Chrétien has exceeded the average, with one in two of his appointees being francophone. One in five appointees has had a national perspective, though Mulroney was five times as likely as Trudeau to appoint on this basis. Only 21 percent of appointees overall have been female, though this figure has increased from 18 percent under Trudeau, to 24 percent under Mulroney, to 38 percent under Chrétien. Only two appointees have been visible minorities.
At both the CBC and CRTC, most appointees have been in their 50s when appointed, retired, or both. The average age of appointment has been 51, and of retirement, 56. This reflects average term lengths of 4.8 years for the CBC, and 5.8 years for the CRTC, though 8 percent of CBC appointees, and 17 percent of CRTC appointees, have had much longer terms of between 9 and 18 years.
The assessment of profile was based mainly on two indicators: appearance in a biographical directory, such as the Canadian Who’s Who, at or around the time of appointment; and/or receipt of distinctions such as a Rhodes scholarship, honorary doctorate, Royal Society of Canada fellowship, Order of Canada, or other scholastic, professional, civic or political honour.
Based on 53 percent information, the number of appointees to the CBC who have appeared in biographical directories has declined markedly. From a high of 75 percent of appointees under King, Diefenbaker, and Pearson, the correlation has fallen by nearly half since Trudeau first took office. Appointees with honours have also declined, from between 43 and 50 percent under King, Diefenbaker and Pearson, to fewer than 15 percent under Trudeau and Chrétien.
The proportion of CRTC appointees listed in biographical directories, based on 64 percent information, has remained constant at 40 percent since 1968. As for the CBC, the incidence of appointees with honours has dropped from one in three under Trudeau, to just 12 percent under Mulroney and Chrétien.
Difficulties inherent in divining political leaning permit a statistical conclusion only on the degree of correlation between verifiable political affiliation and the party of the government in power.
Based on 35 percent information, 92 percent of appointees to the CBC with known political affiliations have been appointed by governments of that affiliation. The figure for the CRTC, based on 24 percent information, is 83 percent. All prime ministers except Trudeau and St. Laurant have shown some willingness to appoint individuals of a differing political affiliation. Every government has appointed some known non-partisans.
IV. APPOINTMENTS PROCESS
The statistical survey of past appointees to the CBC and CRTC reveals that while some normative criteria have been met in practice, others have in effect been ignored. The statistics suggest that governments have paid attention to experience, with many appointees having had an employment or experiential background in broadcasting, culture, governance, finance or management. The collective education level of appointees has been very high. In some categories, however, the statistics bear out an impartial observer’s worst fears. Appointments in large part remain unrepresentative of Canadian demographics, with particular under-representation of women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, rural dwellers, and those from northern, western and maritime Canada. The profile of appointees also continues to decline, despite healthy population growth and the probability that in absolute numbers there are more distinguished Canadians now than ever before. Even more noteworthy is that 24 percent of appointees to the CBC and 15 percent of appointees to the CRTC have been individuals who have made little if any previous mark on the national public record. While it is unfair to conclude that these appointees had nothing to offer, that their names have not stood out publicly may reflect that their only reason for standing out to the Prime Minister was political contribution. Given the statistical correlation established between parties in power and appointees with a known political affiliation, politics would appear to be a central consideration in many appointments. This raises the question of whether the lack of specified criteria and an appointments process in broadcasting legislation leaves these appointments especially vulnerable to political influence. More generally, one must ask whether the process is effective at drawing high calibre individuals to the two largest and most important cultural institutions in Canada.
Doubts about the adequacy of the current appointments process naturally promote the discussion of alternatives. But the current appointments process and the patronage system on which it is founded are deeply entrenched. The system perpetuates itself in part because the current process has advantages not easily overlooked. One of these is convenience. It is invariably easier to appoint people one knows than to implement a selection process for thousands. As Jean Chrétien once remarked, he will continue to appoint people he knows because "I know whether they're competent".19 The convenience of patronage may explain both the number of such appointments made in the federal government, over 2,700, and the frequency of reappointments. Over 50 percent of appointments made to the CBC by King and St. Laurent, and over 40 percent of those made by Diefenbaker and Pearson, were of individuals who had served previously. Trudeau reappointed one in three of his appointees to the CRTC.
A second factor perpetuating the current appointments process is that it is often difficult to find and retain superior candidates. The more conditions placed on an appointment, the harder it will be to find candidates who meet them. Some appointees also decline their offers ab initio. Among those who accept, early resignation has been common. At the CBC, 40 percent of Diefenbaker’s appointees, and 30 percent of King’s, resigned early. Some 37 percent of Trudeau’s appointees to the CRTC did not complete their terms. In both organizations, more than one in four appointees has resigned prematurely, an average of almost two years early.
A third factor perpetuating the present process is that it is reasonable to expect that some appointees will rise to the demands of their appointment. It is certainly possible, perhaps even natural, to enter a national governing body holding political or regional loyalties, but to emerge having developed a strong interest and attachment to the organization. And it is not politics itself that lowers the quality of appointments. As Nash notes, the first board of directors of the CBC, often praised as its best, "was sharply political" but "generated little opposition".20
There are also good reasons to retain patronage on some level. Eliminating political appointments altogether would leave no way to reward volunteer contributions to political parties, one of the underpinnings of the Canadian political system. Typically it is also political appointees who are most keen to be involved in government at some level. Without patronage, many minor positions might go unfilled.
Yet however entrenched the present appointments process may be, the question remains whether the CBC and CRTC should be subject to it. There is no question that, for major appointments at least, the current model should change, if only to give the public greater assurance of an actual process with aspirations to objectivity and impartiality.
One alternative might be to use normative criteria similar to those proposed in this report to set standards for the Prime Minister to follow when making appointments. The kind of screening process that would require, however, would likely be costly, slow, and liable to leave vacancies unfilled. A second model could involve opening the process to the House of Commons, with parties allowed input proportional to their representation in the House. Some change in this area took place in 1984, when the Mulroney government began to allow House committees to question appointments. But the House of Commons model can also be criticized. Non-partisan appointments might still arouse suspicion if they even hinted of patronage. Removing control from the Prime Minister might also make the appointments process vulnerable to abuse from other directions.
A third, far preferable possibility would be to leave selection, or at least pre-selection, to the governing bodies of the CBC and CRTC themselves. The desirability of this model can be inferred from the report of the Mandate Review Committee, which forcefully recommended that the CBC board choose or at least nominate its president.21 Whether the boards should control all new appointments, however, requires distinguishing between the search for certain attributes in those already slated for appointment; and seeking to appoint individuals from the wider public who possess suitable qualifications. It is doubtful that the latter could be accomplished economically or efficiently; thousands of Canadians might qualify. There would be room, however, for existing appointees to review a short-list, or add to it, in order to encourage the selection of those with the skills considered to be in greatest need. In any event, until some change is implemented to meet normative standards, the current process will merely serve to explain appointments, not to justify them.
V. FURTHER STUDY
This report points to several areas in which further study would be valuable to an understanding of appointments to public broadcasting organizations in Canada. Further biographical study of past CBC and CRTC appointees, using newspapers and records of the Privy Council, the CBC and the CRTC, would affirm or qualify the present analysis and may enable conclusions to be drawn in new categories. A review of federal Hansard, specifically debates over broadcasting legislation, would reveal any direct discussion of appointments that may exist, as well as indicate legislative intent in support of the normative criteria and the options for a modified appointments process proposed above. A comparative study could also be undertaken of appointments to governing boards either of public broadcasting agencies outside Canada, or of non-broadcasting agencies within Canada.
Appendix 1: Broadcasting Legislation Tables
Appendix 2: Statistical Tables by Prime Minister
1 The survey was current as at December 1997.
2 Christopher Harris, "On Board at the CBC", The Globe and Mail (2 December 1995), p. C1.
4 Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, S.C. 1932, c. 51, s. 19; Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1958, c. 22, s. 3 (3), (5), (6); Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1968, c. 25, s. 7 (1); Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. B-9.01, s. 10.1 (1).
5 Government of Canada, Mandate Review Committee (Juneau/Murphy/Herrndorf Committee), Making Our Voices Heard: Canadian Broadcasting and Film for the 21st Century (Hull, Quebec: Department of Canadian Heritage, 1996), pp. 116-17.
6 Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Applebaum-Hébert Committee), Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1982), p. 44.
7 Knowlton Nash, The Microphone Wars: A History of Triumph and Betrayal at the CBC (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994), p. 380.
8 Government of Canada, Department of the Secretary of State, White Paper on Broadcasting (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966), p. 16; Mandate Review Committee, pp. 116-17.
9 Committee on Broadcasting (Fowler 2 Committee), Report of the Committee on Broadcasting (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965), p. 149; Michael Valpy, "Today’s Unsolved Mystery: the CBC Board", The Globe and Mail (19 May 1994), p. A2.
10 Harris, p. C1.
11 Mandate Review Committee, pp. 116-17.
12 Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, S.C. 1932, c. 51, s. 3 (2).
13 Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1968, c. 25, s. 2.
14 Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. B-9.01, s. 3 (1).
15 Cabinet documents, RG2 A5a, Vol. 1899, 21 October 1958, in Andrew Stewart and William H.N. Hull, Canadian Television Policy and the Board of Broadcast Governors, 1958-68 (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1994), p. 4.
16 Harris, p. C1.
17 Mandate Review Committee, pp. 116-17.
18 No information was found on 24 percent of CBC appointees, and 15 percent of CRTC appointees.
19 Ross Howard, "Liberals, Expect No Favoritism", The Globe and Mail (17 February 1994), p. A4.
20 Nash, p. 137.
21 Mandate Review Committee, p. 115; the same recommendation was made in 1982 by the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, p. 45, and again in 1986 by the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy (Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force) in its Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1986), p. 329.
Fife, Robert. A Capital Scandal. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1991.
Manera, Tony. A Dream Betrayed : the Battle for the CBC. Toronto: Stoddart, 1996.
Nash, Knowlton. The Microphone Wars: A History of Triumph and Betrayal at the CBC. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994.
Peers, Frank W. The Public Eye: Television and the Politics of Canadian Broadcasting, 1952-1968. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979.
----. The Politics of Canadian Broadcasting, 1920-1951. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1969.
Simpson, Jeffrey. Spoils of Power: the Politics of Patronage. Toronto: W. Collins, 1988.
Skene, Wayne. Fade to Black: a Requiem for the CBC. Vancouver: Douglas, 1993.
Stewart, Andrew and William H.N. Hull. Canadian Television Policy and the Board of Broadcast Governors, 1958-68. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1994.
Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1932, c. 51.
Canadian Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1936, c. 24.
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1958, c. 22.
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1968, c. 25.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1975, c. 49.
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. B-9.01.
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Act, S.C. 1996, c. C-22.
Government and Review Committee Reports
Committee on Broadcasting (Fowler 2 Committee). Report of the Committee on Broadcasting. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965.
Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Applebaum-Hébert Committee). Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee. Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1982.
Government of Canada, Department of the Secretary of State. White Paper on Broadcasting. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966.
Government of Canada. Canadian Voices, Canadian Choices: a New Broadcasting Policy for Canada. Ottawa: Communications Canada, 1988.
Mandate Review Committee (Juneau/Murphy/Herrndorf Committee). Making Our Voices Heard: Canadian Broadcasting and Film for the 21st Century. Hull, Quebec: Department of Canadian Heritage, 1996.
Shea, Albert A., ed. Culture in Canada: a Study of the Findings of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences. Toronto: Core, 1952.
Task Force on Broadcasting Policy (Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force). Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1986.
The Canadian Who's Who. Toronto: Trans-Canada Press.
Who's Who in Canadian Business. Toronto: Trans-Canada Press.
Who's Who in Canadian Finance. Toronto: Trans-Canada Press.
Who's Who in Canadian Law. Toronto: Trans-Canada Press.
Who's Who in Canadian Literature. Toronto: Reference Press.
Who's Who in Western Canada. Vancouver: Canadian Press Association.
Who's Who of Canadian Women. Toronto: Trans-Canada Press.
The Globe & Mail