Canadian Heritage Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[Robert Rabinovitch]

This is beyond my mandate, sir. This is an issue for the government. These appointments are made by the government, and we await their decision as to when and who and how they wish to proceed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Has there been any discussion between you and the minister in terms of finding a replacement and taking steps?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

It's not normal that they would discuss this with me. There are times when they may ask me what I think of X or Y. But they have not asked me, nor is it the normal process for them to ask me to suggest names and discuss people with them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay. So the decision to axe the design team in Toronto was made when we announced we were going to undertake this review. Was that a desire on the part of CBC to get facts on the ground before we came forward with recommendations?

[Richard Stursberg, Executive Vice-President, Television (English), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]

No, actually it pre-dates your decision by almost a year.

For those of you not so familiar with the ins and outs of this, CBC television maintains, and it had for many years, a department that designs and builds sets within the organization. I must say we're the only English-language broadcaster in North America that maintains this kind of capacity, and we had a look at it to see whether there was some way of doing it more efficiently. We concluded that we could save about $1 million a year by essentially saying to people that if they needed somebody to build their sets to go out and get competitive bids from the private market. So that's what we did. We decided simply to get out of the business.

The union approached us at that point and asked if we would mind delaying our decision for a little while, so they'd have a chance to explore the possibility of setting up whatever, a company, some form of workers co-op, so that when the people who are involved in these activities leave the building, they can set themselves up with a little business and then come and bid on the work, whether our work or other broadcasters' work, and maintain their jobs. So we said that sounded okay and we'd give them some time to see whether they could do that and we would delay the cuts until the end of the television season, which is early May. So we gave them about nine months, and it turned out, unfortunately, that they couldn't find some way through it.

So now all that's happening is we've simply reiterated the fact that we're going to exit the business. But this all completely pre-dates, as I say, your decision to have a look at the mandate of the CBC.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Where are you in terms of being ready for the high-definition market? The U.S. is talking 2009. Does CBC have a plan? Does it have the resources to be ready to move into high definition?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

We don't have the resources to move that quickly. It would take us, I would believe, by my last numbers, about ten years to be able to move as far as we think is appropriate at present. We have moved very quickly in certain places. For example, on the French television production side, we've moved very well, but not on the new side of French television. But on the TV production side, we have digitalized several studios and we have created HD studios that can move ahead. We have commissioned and built two HD mobiles, which we use both for production purposes and for sports purposes.

But where we are very short on money is, first, to finish converting the facilities we'd like to convert at the Toronto broadcasting centre. We have no money to convert regional production centres to HD or digital, except sometimes we get fortunate and we take equipment from one place and move it to another as we upgrade. For example, in Moncton we were able to upgrade to digital by moving one of the studios to HD. But generally speaking, we are very short on that and we have almost no money at this point for transmission purposes. We count on transmission of satellite, some over the air, but very minimal. For that purpose, we would need a significant injection of funds.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Just to follow up on that, the BBC have put their catalogue of shows on YouTube. Is CBC able to put its back catalogue onto Internet platform? Have you looked at the cost? Do you know what that would take? Have you figured out how you would remunerate the residuals you'd have to pay for such programming?

[Richard Stursberg]

The answer is no, we haven't put the back catalogue on the website or on YouTube. We have to confront a couple of different issues with respect to the back catalogue, by which I take it you mean in large measure all the old drama shows, variety shows, and so on.

First of all, to put it up, you'd have to digitize the whole lot. Secondly, we find ourselves in a peculiar circumstance when clearing the rights associated with these old programs. If we want to put them on the air, it's actually more expensive than if we sell them to third parties. For example, if the CBC said it would like to pull from the back catalogue The Whiteoaks Of Jalna, the old Wayne and Shuster shows, etc., and put them on right now, it would cost more money in terms of clearing the rights than it would to sell the program to another broadcaster. This is an artifact of the way in which the rights agreements work with ACTRA.

I think it's unfortunate, but it means we face a double problem when it comes to doing it. One, there's the cost of digitizing, and second, there's the cost of the rights clearances associated with it.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

If I may add one more thing for completeness, for the last four years the Department of Heritage has given us $2 million a year to digitalize our backlog of programs. We have done that, and we are continuing to do it. From that point of view, we are moving bit by bit on the process, but it's very much because of the special program run by the Department of Heritage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony this morning. We appreciate your coming to share with us and to start down the road of reviewing the mandate of CBC as it currently stands, how we might adjust it in going forward, and at least where we might suggest changes in going forward.

Obviously CBC plays an important role in protecting our cultural sovereignty. I think all Canadians recognize that as Canadians we have something special to preserve here in Canada and we want to maintain it. CBC plays an important role, and we thank you for that.

We thank you for maintaining fiscal responsibility in the last number of years. You've maintained not only your entity but cultural sovereignty as well.

On going forward, as you pointed out in your testimony, it would come as no surprise to anyone in the country that as we move forward, we're facing all kinds of obstacles in terms of new technology and folks being able to go to other places for their media. Of course, there are hundreds and hundreds of new channels coming on stream in any given year.

I'll tell you a story. I'm a huge fan of CBC radio. It's the only talk radio in our area, and most people who listen to talk radio listen to CBC radio. Over the last number of years, I have an informal group of friends with whom I always know that if I want to talk about CBC radio or something I've heard, I can target them and ask if they've heard the story on As it Happens or what not. In the last number of years I've found that as I've approached those same friends, they've said they have new satellite radio programs and are listening to something else. I've seen it happen increasingly in the last year. I'm kind of surprised by it, but the unfortunate part is that the people who are listening to other talk radio programs aren't necessarily listening to anything Canadian.

It concerns me on a couple of levels. One, I'm concerned about the future of CBC. Second, I'm concerned about the cultural sovereignty we have in this country. Of course, we have to address that.

I hope that as we move forward on this mandate review, we can come to some understanding and some way to drive people back to things that are Canadian and back to the resources we have through the CBC. But I'm really concerned about how we'll do it.

I've talked informally to people. It seems to me that when I've talked to people, they say they go to the CBC for niche products. They go for Hockey Night in Canada. They go for regional news or whatever. As we see competitors taking up those things, I'm concerned that we're not going to have a niche product.

There are places where the CBC can identify niche products they could provide for Canadians that nobody else can provide. You have identified some. You've identified prime time drama as possibly being one of them.

To be honest, I'm not sure it's going to be a wholesale conversion, particularly for young people. I'm not sure it is going to draw them. I've talked to young people. They are more interested in reality TV shows. It's not something I subscribe to necessarily, but it's something they want to see a little more of. Maybe we could have some Canadian content in something down the road.

What are the niche programs or the niche products? Specifically, I am looking at the English side, because I know the French side has some of those niche products. When there is huge competition from our southern neighbours, on the English side, what are the niche areas? Of course, Hockey Night in Canada has become somewhat of an uncertainty. Where are we with that? On moving forward, what are some of the other niche products?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

First, thank you for the question. It is so broad that if you don't mind, I'll give a very short answer and then ask Jennifer, who is responsible for radio, and Richard, because you've hit on a few points that are extremely important.

Firstly, I don't see new technology as an obstacle. I see it as an opportunity. I think if you look at the number of downloads we're getting and the age of the people who are downloading.... When we do a million downloads a month, they're of programs like Ideas. These are programs I can't convince my son to listen to at nine o'clock at night, but if he wants to listen to them while he's on a treadmill, that's just fine.

The technology is changing the whole game, and that's why I said as well that we are more and more a program creator than we are a broadcasting network for radio or a broadcasting network for TV, and that's part of the change that is going to have to occur as we move forward. We must supply the content to Canadians when they want to listen to or watch it.

I think some of our new programs, such as The Current, are doing exactly what you described, and they're attracting a large audience, an important audience.

Let me add just one more thing. The worst thing that could happen to this country would be if we were the sole supplier of information and news. We don't want a monopoly. I would be devastated as a citizen. People should be able to get their news and information from NPR, from CBC, from RDI, and from CNN. So a monopoly would be the worst thing. But what there must be is a Canadian alternative, with a Canadian interpretation. That's the balance I look for.

When you tell me they're listening to satellite radio, well, that's fine, as long as they also come and listen to us.

[Jennifer McGuire, Acting Vice-President, English Radio, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]

The other thing I would add is certainly at CBC radio we're actually finding technology is bringing us to new audiences. So when we're conceiving program ideas now, we think about how they will play across platforms. I'll give you an example. We've gotten into the podcasting game quite heavily at CBC radio, and a program like Ideas, which has a strong but skewed, slightly older audience on terrestrial radio, is one of the top five podcasts on iTunes, and the demographic of the podcasts is younger.

We're finding that now, with our music programming, in just approaching it in a broader way, we believe the quality of the content and the distinctiveness of the content is an asset.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that, but I specifically want two things. As we look at a mandate review, I guess you're saying let's look more at the production side—great. Second, as we look at the mandate, I wonder how you might suggest that we suggest back to you how we drive Canadians to the CBC. I think it's great to have these things available, but I'll tell you that there's a certain segment of the population that has no idea they're available. We need to make that happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We have to shorten it. Really and truly, we've gone overtime here. So if you want a response, we have to—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay, I'll finish up by just saying that, and specifically on the niche side. I don't mind if you reply to us in writing on those two fronts or fill us in. I don't want to take up more time than I'm allotted.

Thank you.

[Richard Stursberg]

Do you want a response to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Very short, if you can.

[Richard Stursberg]

I think this is very fundamental. The question of what's been going on over the course of the last number of years, in terms of attracting English Canadians to English Canadian programs, I think reflects a very interesting structural problem within the industry.

Over the last 15 years, literally hundreds of new specialty services have been licensed in Canada and are authorized for distribution in Canada. We've put in place very significant financing, for instance through the Canadian Television Fund. The overwhelming bulk of this effort has gone towards strengthening the private broadcasting industry. As the president said, during the course of the last 15 years there have been, essentially, no new channels of any consequence for the CBC. Its financing has not been increased and in fact is down almost $400 million in today's dollars from what it was.

The result of all that, interestingly, is that if you compare where we are now to where we were even five years ago, you see that overall viewing of Canadian programming on English television accounted for 31% of the whole day in 2004-05 and 22% during prime time, down from 34% and 26% respectively five years previously. In fact, what's been going on is that we have been slowly losing more and more ground. We've made essentially no progress whatsoever over the course of the last 25 years in terms of the most important categories of programming.

When I came to the CBC, I came because, as you do, I believed absolutely, passionately, and deeply that the most important thing was for us to be able to make programs in the most important medium that there is that would connect and resonate with English Canadians. Not only is it not happening on a large enough scale, but we're actually losing ground.

I think in part the reason we're losing ground is that the CBC itself has been essentially set to one side for a long period of time, while we've increased the number of licences to the private broadcasters. As well, the bulk of the new financing has also gone to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Rabinovitch and all of you for presenting here today. It is very exciting that we're embarking on this study. I'm very pleased.

As has been mentioned numerous times—and we hear it endlessly at this table—it is a new day, and there are challenges, as you've mentioned. One of the things I always think of, as a middle-aged person, is that I hardly seem able to understand the new technologies. I hardly seem able, just as an individual, to keep up. So in terms of the industry, and in terms of CBC and for us as a country, the challenges are enormous to be able to move through this time.

I wanted to ask you about that, the shift from what traditionally has been CBC's mandate in terms of services. Mr. Lafrance, you talked about the gap between the services you have to provide and the financial restraints. Could you talk about how you see the mandate shifting in this new era?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

There is a very real danger of focusing on the transmission of the programs, whether it's by iPod, radio, or YouTube, and forgetting about the content. At the end of the day, it's the content that counts, the programming that counts.

It's a necessary condition that we make the content available in ways Canadians want to receive it. The beauty of the new technologies is that we're discovering new audiences. People used to say you'll never get those people below 50, but they're coming to us, and they're coming to interesting programs. They can go somewhere else for their rock music, but they're coming to us for their new music. They're coming to us for bands that have yet to be discovered. They're coming to us for programs like Ideas, which are very thoughtful discussion programs. The new technologies allow us to do that. That's why we must be in the new technologies, because we can't predict, and nobody can predict, how people are going to get programming in the future.

We can never lose sight of the fact that our first objective is program production. And it is program production that is becoming more and more expensive. We're not even treading water; we're losing ground regularly in our ability to do quality programming, to take the risks necessary, to have failures, but also to have great successes.

This past week we had a wonderful success with the Canada IQ program. We had over 1.5 million viewers. Programs like Tout le monde en parle and Les Bougons all draw over 1.5 million viewers. Nobody would take on a program like Les Bougons when it was offered, other than Radio-Canada; it's a risky program, and we were all a bit nervous at the time. Little Mosque on the Prairie could have gone the other way. The fact is, it's now seen as a very successful program.

Let's not lose sight that at the end of the day, it is programming and the funding for programming that count. We can talk about transmission systems. I'd love to talk about them, as I think they're fascinating, but we also can make the big mistake of focusing on that area only.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

Maybe I should add something on this. I know that on peut perdre le sommeil with all of these technologies, because they are very complicated to follow, but I think, fundamentally, it's not a technological issue, because we know how to deal with technology. The fundamental debate here is about democracy and culture in Canada. Can we save cultural sovereignty in this new world? And how will our citizens be able to vote and understand democracy in this country? So they need to have the tools.

They will receive information from a sea of millions of Internet websites, or stuff like that, which are sometimes totally unreliable. So they'll have to find some places that are reliable—I hope the CBC will be that place. Some of the big players in Canada will be those places, where you can find reliable information about democracy, our culture and our sovereignty.

I think this is the main issue we have to understand and prepare for.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Can you explain a bit more in terms of being a content provider? Obviously that is the key, as you're saying, in terms of cultural identity and cultural sovereignty. What has been the impact in the last 10 or 15 years in terms of your ability to develop and produce that content?