Canadian Heritage Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[Robert Rabinovitch]

It's not really a question of knowing whether it should be in the advertising sector, it's more that the reality, without that, is that it is impossible for us to survive. It also has to be said that virtually all the public services in the world are mixed—we always think of the BBC—that is to say that they have a fairly large subsidy from the government, much larger than ours, and they also accept advertisements as well.

The question is not whether or not we should do it, but rather to determine our reality. And our reality is that we are under-funded. As you know, radio is completely free of advertising. On the English side, 55% of Mr. Stursberg's budget comes from the private sector, that is to say from advertising, and so on, whereas it is 40% on the French side.

[Richard Stursberg]

The fact that 55% of revenue comes from the advertising sector shows that there is a problem. The budget of the CBC and Newsworld is $600 million. You can see without any difficulty that, without the 55% that comes from the advertising sector, we would have no service.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

That said, I want to point out that a number of our choices are not commercial choices. If you look at the French television schedule, you see that we have 10 times more public affairs programs than our competitors, that we have scientific programs, religious programs and programs that are not what, in the business, are generally called rating getters, that bring in advertising revenues.

Our schedule is fundamentally different. This year, we created 12 new dramatic series. So we are the biggest generator of new dramatic series in the Francophone world. So our choices are not merely commercial choices. That stems from a balance between the need for revenues to support the system and to support the economic model, and the need to have a television that is distinctive. I think that, as a result of its news programs, the number of its dramatic programs, the quality of its variety programs and its presence across Canada, it is extremely different from all other Francophone television networks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rabinovitch, you made a bold statement, and I think there's certainly a significant element of truth in it. I'd like to quote it. It says: “The role of public broadcasters has always been to reinforce coherence and common values.”

Now, the CBC, of all of our national broadcasters, is considered to be the mirror in which Canadians see themselves. I think you'll agree with me that there are a significant number of Canadians who, justifiably or not, feel that the CBC doesn't necessarily reflect either their values or probably more correctly their perspectives. In an increasingly diverse society, we're going to have an increasing number of those perspectives.

How do we draw these individuals back into the fold where they feel that they're valued, where they feel that their views are being recognized as being legitimate, perhaps not shared by the majority of Canadians, but still views that are worthy of consideration? In such a rapidly changing technological world, how do we bring these people to a point where they do recognize CBC as being their public broadcaster? Perhaps you could also comment on what strategies you've employed in the past to ensure that we have a broad dialogue on these issues and on new strategies you'll employ in the future to do that.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

I'm going to start an answer, but I'm also going to ask Mr. Stursberg.

What we're now beginning to implement is beyond an experiment. It is what we call “My CBC”, which is in many ways at the local, regional level designed to meet exactly what you're talking about.

Let me start by saying we don't define what the common values are. It would be a terrible thing if we did. It's our job to make sure that they're reflected and that people have an opportunity to see those values and speak to their values and to the decisions that flow from them.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Who determines those values? If you don't, who does?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

Basically, when we're talking about the news service, it's determined within the news service, but we also watch very carefully to make sure there is a balance in the programming. We also have a very sophisticated—it has been recognized as the best in the world—ombudsman system in order to check on us to make sure we are doing the job correctly. We take extremely seriously the concerns when voiced to us, and they are regularly voiced, because often it's not a balance that people want, it is an expression of their opinion or their side that they want. We get this all the time in international affairs, in particular, where one side or the other or both sides of an issue are very concerned about how we have presented the issue. It's our job to try to be balanced and fair, and we have determined, with the ombudsman's guidance, certain procedures.

So sometimes a show may seem to be overbalanced in one direction; there must be a show very soon after that is balanced more in the other direction. We have set up rules so that we're not just doing boring television in the name of balance, but we're doing fair television, and fair means representing all sides or allowing all sides a chance to be represented. Again, the key is an ombudsman system to hold us to account and as a check. I think even more important is the work we're now trying to do by using all of our media interrelated.

[Richard Stursberg]

I'll just say one thing. Obviously, what the president said is right. It's not our job to tell Canadians what values they should espouse. Our job is to reflect the full diversity of view within the country.

We were talking about regional before. When we think about regional, I try to think about it in a different way. It's not just that if we do a newscast, we see Calgary or we see Halifax. It's rather that what you want reflected on the national news is the perspective of Calgary or the perspective of Halifax, so that the full diversity of voice of the country, whether it's a regional diversity of voice or a political diversity of voice or a social diversity of voice, is fully reflected on the network.

One of the things we're doing—and which implies, I think, actually a decentralization of the way in which we've approached these kinds of questions in the past—is to put a new emphasis on rebuilding our local and regional presence, but to do so in a way that allows Canadians to participate more effectively in commenting on the news as we provide it, and indeed in helping us determine what the priorities for news coverage should be. With this concept that the president was referring to, called “My CBC”, which we're trialing right now out in Vancouver, we've said to ourselves, “Let's take the totality of our assets—radio, television, online—and let's put them together to create an integrated news service that works in a way to let Canadians can get their news whenever and however they want it, but equally importantly, let's use the power of the new technologies to allow Canadians to participate much more profoundly in the conversation about what constitutes the news.”

And this goes by different kinds of names. Some people call it “citizen journalism”, but what it means is that we use the website to allow people not just to comment on what comes through the news, not just to engage in dialogue with our own journalists as to what they see and the extent to which they think it's accurate or fair, but beyond that to allow them to tell us what it is that we are not covering that they think is important, and beyond that, to say to people that we would welcome their contributions to the news service itself, so that we can create opportunities for them to be able to upload what they think, whether that's in the form of video or voice.

We would like to get rid of the notion that we had in the past, when people thought that “We, the news, tell you what's the news”. That's completely old school. We want to flatten it completely, so that the news essentially becomes a dialogue between citizens on what it is that matters and how it is that they see things. We then become, in some sense, the mediator of that dialogue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

I want to apologize for being late. I waited three-quarters of an hour for a taxi this morning.

I've tried to ask a clear question: what would you think if there was no more CBC? What we've heard from every sector is that the CBC is extraordinarily important to Canadians. Their concern, however, is that you are not getting to them any more, and of course that has to do with the new digital mode and not having the infrastructure to get there. In many instances you've had to cancel where you were going because people have to tag on to cable television to get there.

We've heard over and over that people think you're doing a good job with what you have, but that you must move into the regions in a different way; that you must reflect Canadians back to themselves, especially from the regions to the nation, as well as from the nation to the regions. You're not doing as well from the regions to the nation as you could. People have all said one important thing: the CBC must be funded appropriately.

We've seen the reports and know what cities have studied, etc., that have basically said that we're way down the ladder. Given that Canadians support a public broadcaster, given that people say that you need to have more money, would you see the CBC working well and differently if it were given better funding? Would it actually work in the way that the BBC has done, if you changed your system of reporting, to have direct responsibility to Parliament, with a specific trust that would look after much of how you function, so that you could be far more accountable for the money you have and go to Parliament, not necessarily to anyone else, so you could get the feedback from Parliament, so every year you would be able to table what you're doing?

People also thought you needed to focus more. Many feature film people said that you, the CBC, could be the distributor in the digital medium for Canadian feature films, for Canadian documentaries, and for Canadian performing arts, which, as you know, has been cancelled and was a well-watched section of what the CBC used to do.

I want to know what your comments are on some of those things.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

You've covered a lot of territory.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Sorry about that.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

That's fine. I'll try to comment on some, and perhaps my colleagues will add, as well.

What I find comforting, if I can use that word, in what I understand of your hearings so far, is a growing recognition that you just can't say to the CBC, “do more”. I think there's a growing recognition that we are stretched as far as we can be stretched, and if we were to do more, in fact we'd do less. Something would have to drop off our schedules and off our approach. And I haven't heard much in terms of people saying that we should get out of this or that in a reasonable way, because whenever I hear it, I don't hear them telling me how I'm going to get the money that X or Y generates for us to continue to do what we're doing.

That I find very reassuring. As I said in my introductory comments and in the paper we have tabled with you, I believe that we are at a crossroads. We have done ad hoc hearings about the CBC every three or four or five years. I believe it is time, and we believe it is time, to structure that into a contract, and that contract, like all contracts, will have clauses and expectations: this is what we expect, we would say that this is what it costs, and there would have to be an agreement. Or if we think it's going to cost x, but you can only give us half of x, well, then there would be an agreement that we would bring it in at a particular speed.

But I fully accept and think that it is eminently logical for the government and Parliament to define more precisely what it wants from its public broadcaster—and in a contract—and then you go forward with that.

I dare say that the BBC has exactly the same thing, and if you look at the contract, it has changed with time. The current contract puts much more stress on light entertainment, and one of the phrases they use is that a public broadcaster need not be boring. The BBC contract also calls for them to decentralize certain operations. The contract also calls for them to buy more from the independent sector and produce less in-house. But this is fine. This is part of defining where you want us to go.

So my answer to you is that this is the debate and the dialogue we must engage in. And it's not something that can be done overnight. It's something I think we would have to work on together and it would involve the Canadian public.

But I must say, the core for us is the programming. The core for us is getting the programming out to people; that is, with the new technologies and transmission systems. But without the programming, without the funding, we have nothing to put in the transmission systems. What's the purpose of a pipe if it's empty?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

One of the more interesting groups that comes together to comment on broadcasting in Canada is Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. I wonder if you could describe to us what, if any, relationship there is with the CBC and what you think of that organization. They are pretty aggressive in the way they have their perspective, and that's fine. This is a democracy. But it does seem to key an awful lot on the CBC, and it seems to be very strongly in support of the CBC. I just think it would be interesting for us to get your perspective on that organization.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

We see the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting as a lobby organization for broadcasting in general, and in particular, Canadian broadcasting, with some focus on the CBC.

We sometimes believe that the focus is very narrowly defined around the regions and around local programming. We don't disagree with it at all. We think that makes eminent sense. But we do believe that it can be irresponsible to call for us to do more of X without telling us either what we are to drop or how it is going to be financed. And I believe they feel it is their responsibility to highlight issues rather than to tell parliamentarians and the CBC how to finance those issues.

[Richard Stursberg]

I just want to add one thing.

I think there are certain areas in which we actually part company from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, as I understand it, came here and said the other day that they didn't think we should be on the Internet and that our website was not particularly effective. I forget what their number was, I think they said we were getting 2,000 views a day or something. But the fact of the matter is that our Internet site gets 3.6 million unique viewers a month, and it is without question far and away the most important news and information website in the country in terms of its usage and in terms of the depth of its content.

We think, for all the reasons we were talking about earlier, that one of the fundamental responsibilities of the public broadcaster is to be able to serve Canadians by whatever means and in whatever manner they find most convenient. If they want to get their news online, we should be there for them online. If they want to get their news off mobile phones, we should be there to make sure they can get their news in whatever way suits their lifestyles and their purposes.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If I may editorialize for just half a second, I think it's rather fascinating that they seem to reflect where our government is coming from sometimes—not normally—but sometimes. And then we're hearing from you that on the other side of the coin you feel that some of their commentary isn't necessarily helpful to the CBC. So I guess it really does underscore their independence, doesn't it?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

I don't think there's any doubt about their independence.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you very much.

One of the interesting elements that we learned, for those of us who were on the heritage film study, is the shocking fact that we could be expected, as Canadian taxpayers or as Canadian independent businessmen, to put $3 million into a movie that has no real distribution plan. The question is, why would we spend money making Canadian movies if there is no long-term plan beyond the original broadcast other than the back-end sales, the DVD sales? If we're going to make this investment, where is the plan?

The question comes to why would we make Canadian television if we don't have a plan for the residual sales, as you were talking about, the multi-platform use? My question is, given the fact that we don't really have access to our incredible back catalogue of CBC resources because of the problems with rights, when you negotiate deals for television productions right now, do you have the ability to put that on the air in any format? And do you have a plan for monetizing it so that there is a return, whether it's through online advertising or whatever?

[Richard Stursberg]

Maybe I'll start, in terms of the English markets.

Clearly, in terms of where we're going, we completely agree with you that what we need to do is develop all of our content from the very beginning so that it fits with all the potential platforms on which it can be viewed or seen, and what we want to do is be able to monetize that.

What we inside the CBC have done is completely transform our development process to make sure that from the very moment we think of a project, we think about it in terms of all of the different platforms on which Canadians might want to see it.

Obviously, where this becomes a little bit trickier is when we're dealing with independent producers. The news and what not we make ourselves, but when we're dealing with independent producers, it's another issue.

I know that the Canadian Film and Television Production Association came down to see you the other day, and they said that they thought we were a bit tough on them in terms of wanting to get these kinds of rights for other platforms over and above television.

What we actually proposed to the producers' association originally, when we first began discussing this matter, was, “Look, you know, the problem with these new platforms is that nobody actually knows what they're worth. We don't know because it's early days. So why don't we do this...”—to your monetization point—“Why don't we enter into an agreement between the CBC and the producer of the program that for all those other platforms, we will act as your distributor? We'll distribute when there's a video-on-demand offer, whether it's a mobile offer on a hand-held or a cellphone or whether it's an Internet offer for the show. We'll work with you to make sure they get good distribution. And what we'll do is split the revenues fifty-fifty and off we go. Let's do that for a short period of time until we can see how the market settles down and what these platforms are really worth.”

We thought that was a terrific offer, because what's going to drive all of the new platforms is, if you like, the great bullhorn of television, which is the dominant platform and will remain the dominant platform for the time being. But that way we could share the risk associated with going forward, and at the same time we could share the revenues.

They declined this proposition. And I think, frankly, this is unfortunate, because I think what it will do is slow our capacity as a country to develop Canadian content for those new platforms.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

We have the same problem in the French world.

In French, this question of rights is really fundamental. It is complex, first, because it concerns the international aspect, a lot of rights holders, but also because it concerns the Canadian Television Fund, for example, which itself sets certain rules and certain limits. The Canadian Television Fund has somewhat come to a point where it arbitrates the relations of producers and broadcasters, to the point where, when buying a licence for a new series, we aren't entitled to discuss any other rights. That's a bit stupid and, in my view, somewhat provokes what is called the problem of high-cost series in Quebec, that is to say that the broadcaster is nevertheless the trigger of major series. In other words, if there is no Radio-Canada, TVA, TQS or another major television network to create a series, it won't exist.

So we can't enjoy all the rights. In any case, we aren't entitled to discuss them at the outset. We therefore invest less and less. So, at some point, these series will no longer exist. I think that time is having its effect, because, technologically, we won't have a choice to change these practices. This will have to change because the broadcaster has made much too big an investment to be content with only one or two broadcasts.

So this question of rights is fundamental if we want to protect content, and the television industry has nevertheless had major success in Canada. To protect content, we will have to find a way to agree with all rights holders, including independent producers.