Evidence of meeting #4 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programming.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all three of you for returning to our table.
Mr. Rabinovitch, thank you for your many years of service to our public broadcaster. I suspect this will not be the last time you appear before this committee. We've had one past president of CBC appear before us during this mandate review. This may fall upon your shoulders some day, as well.
I did note that you made a number of very bold statements in your opening comments. Quite frankly, I'm encouraged by those. You're not a shrinking violet. You've clearly set out some of the financial challenges that CBC faces. You've also outlined what you believe are the minimum requirements to address the needs of the public broadcaster.
I also want to assure you that we are going to be hearing testimony from organizations like BBC, PBS, and perhaps the Australian public broadcaster, so we haven't closed that door yet.
In terms of the bold statements you made, it intrigued me that you actually made it clear that you cannot succeed if audiences do not watch or listen to your programs. You even made it in bold: “...but one cannot have a public broadcaster without a public.” That's the reality. What we do want is a broad audience for the programs we deliver. We can't be elitist. We have to focus in on serving the public that actually pays for the public broadcaster.
You also made a strong statement about micromanagement. Mr. Siksay raised that, and I believe Mr. Scarpaleggia did as well. Without getting into the details of what has been discussed in camera, I think it's fair to say that we've had some discussion about the issue of micromanagement, although I believe there's a consensus that we not get into micromanagement; we may have different definitions of what it means.
My question has to do with one issue that can perhaps be micromanaged to the detriment of CBC. That's the whole issue of Canadian programming. How much of it is there going to be? When do we deliver it? Do you see there is a role for this committee, or the government, to interfere by providing you with directives as to how that Canadian programming should be delivered, apart from the requirements of the CRTC imposed on you under your licencing requirements?
12:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
First, let me react to the beginning of your statement, that you cannot have a public broadcaster without the public.
That message comes out very clearly if you talk to France Télévisions or the BBC, that you cannot be an elitist organization. You have to have a mix of programming. That's why I try to say that the public broadcaster must have a mix of programming to attract people to it and in the process show them and give them different programs and different types of programs.
I strongly believe that. If you look at the BBC, they have a concept called “hammocking” where you have a very popular program, a very serious program, a very popular program. That's why they call it a hammock. But without that front end, the EastEnders or something like that, you cannot capture the audience to do the rest.
This is a very critical concept. Quite frankly, I would not want to see the CBC becoming PBS North, which has a 1.5% share and ultimately has lost the respect of the large population in terms of the funding that they need. They don't live off their fundraising campaigns. They do live off government funding.
Now, to your question, I think it's really important to begin to define what is and what is not micromanaging. I think your telling us to do more comedy and to do more variety shows is verging on micromanaging. Telling us to be an all-Canadian service with some “best of the world” is not micromanaging. That is reinforcing what the mandate of the public broadcaster in Canada should be.
As you know, we feel that the biggest hole is entertainment and drama on the English side, and I think it's perfectly legitimate for the committee to endorse or disagree with that as a concept without crossing the line into micromanagement. I'd get very concerned if you told us we have to do six and a half hours and we'd better give up our Friday nights to have comedies. Well, we'll have comedy--I think we're great at it--but the day may come when it's not the right genre to be pushing at any one time, and I'd be a bit concerned if you went down one more level.
But definitely, distinctive, Canadian, reinforcing some of the principles in the act--those principles were there in the 1968 act, yet if you looked at CBC at the time, the programming on prime time was highly American. I think my predecessors and we have moved very much towards doing more Canadian programming in prime time. But again we have to finance it somehow, and we have to attract that audience, because without the audience.... That's why having a hit like Little Mosque doing over a million to us is a home run. It shows it can be done and we can attract people, and quite frankly, you can also use humour to give a very serious message.
So I have to count on--I'll use the word advisedly--the maturity of the committee to decide where the line is in terms of micromanaging.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You're acknowledging that there clearly is a commercial aspect to the service we're delivering. I was very intrigued to hear you talk about not looking at profits but looking at an opportunity to build resources that are going to fund other programs that are valuable to Canadians. I found that to be a very valuable balance that you suggest.
12:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Over 50% of our funding on the English side and over 40% of our funding on the French television side is from commercial undertakings--a combination of advertising, product placement, sale of content, subscription fees, etc.
Therefore we must be conscious of the market at all times. That doesn't make us any different from any other public broadcaster except the BBC and I think ABC as well. Almost every other one is a mix of that, which means it keeps you focused on the market, and that's not bad.
November 27th, 2007 / 12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We've had a lot of discussion on financing this morning. I take the information you gave us. I just want to ask this. My understanding is that there's a rumour going around that we have heard from the Media Guild and others that the CBC's spending budget could be cut by 5%. I have also heard that it is supposed to be across the board. Could you tell us, Mr. Rabinovitch, what exactly that would mean to the CBC if that were actually to happen? I think it's important for us to know, if we're going down that road, what that means.
12:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
First of all, in fairness to the government, we have been told that over the next four years, in a cycle, all government programs and all agencies will be reviewed with a view towards what they call a 5% reallocation. We'll have to see what that means.
12:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
From our point of view, a cut by any other name is a cut.
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
From our point of view, 5%, based on our budget, is a minimum of $50 million, and could be, if they include as well our revenues--we're a $1.7 billion corporation--$85 million. That would be devastating, because either we would have to turn off transmitters or we would have to cut back on programming and definitely cut back on taking risk.
We believe we reallocate every year, and we can prove and show how we move money around within the corporation and reallocate it every year and how we have financed all of our new buildings with our own money, with our ability to do deals in real estate, etc. So we're quite comfortable that against any test of efficiency or effectiveness, we can prove we have done and are doing an excellent job. Therefore, to be forced to make a 5% cut to be efficient is almost an oxymoron. It doesn't follow.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Just to clarify, you said you've been asked or you know a review is to take place in the next four years. Is that what you said?
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
My understanding is that the government is undertaking a cycle of reviews of about 25% of agencies and programs every year. We have not been reviewed this year from that point of view. We've been reviewed from others, but we have not been reviewed this year, and we have not been told if it's going to be next year or the year after or the year after, if at all.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
My next question goes back to your earlier statement with respect to the eight million French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians who do not now receive service, and your proposal to address the 15 fastest-growing communities and your need for $25 million in order to be able to do that. Your report was in May, and I presume that report went to the government as well. Has the corporation heard anything back as to what, if any, support you might be receiving with respect to that expansion?
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The report was tabled first with the government. I believe the government sent it to this committee, and their response to us has been that it's now in the hands of the committee, who are in the midst of doing a mandate review.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
We're waiting for you.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Right. I just thought that maybe the government had given you some response with respect to that.
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
No, they haven't given us a yes or a no.
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
They haven't given us a yes or a no. They've said we'll wait for the committee and see if it fits into the mandate review.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I see.
My last question goes back again to your presentation this morning and your comments with respect to the channels dedicated specifically to expression of nationwide diversity, new cultures, and opinions of regions. The diversity of new cultures is of particular interest to me.
I visited Australia some time ago, and there they have an actual public broadcast corporation that is multicultural. It is separate from their equivalent of the CBC. They essentially have two public broadcasting corporations--one multilingual with subtitles, the other for the general public. I'm not suggesting we go there, but I am asking what kind of evaluation has already been done at CBC with respect to bringing in some more diversity. I don't mean just the person reading the news, but in terms of programming and cultures.
When travelling Canada as a member of Parliament, I have been exposed to the Acadian culture in our country, and to Newfoundland, and to these kinds of things, because I have gone there. Canadians are missing out on such fabulous cultural experiences. That's the regional. The other is the diversity, in terms of actual new cultures.
