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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting number four of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a full investigation of the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century.
We welcome this morning our witnesses from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Rabinovitch, Mr. Lafrance, and Mr. Stursberg.
Welcome, Mr. Rabinovitch. I understand you're going to give a little presentation first.
Robert Rabinovitch President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting us back to talk with you about the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada.
We has been following the work of this committee over the past nine months as you have studied our mandate. We are eager to discuss with you what you have heard, and your thoughts about what Canadians want from their national public broadcaster.
When we were here last March, we spoke about some of our recent successes in programs and in productivity. We also spoke about the tremendous changes sweeping the broadcasting environment, and the need for a new approach, a systematic review on a timely basis, a contract between the national public broadcaster and the citizens it serves.
Such an approach is essential if CBC/Radio-Canada is going to be able to continue to respond to the needs of Canadians. Public broadcasters in other countries have already followed a similar path. After mandate reviews that include widespread consultation, similar agreements have been established with public broadcasters in Ireland, Hong Kong, South Africa and, of course, in Great Britain with the BBC. I urge you to speak with them about their experience.
It's important to point out that this contract must continue to protect the arm's-length independence currently enshrined in the Broadcasting Act. Micromanagement of programming decisions, including specific demands on where programming is to be made and by whom, would create a bureaucratic nightmare that would stifle creativity and flexibility, and undermine the very essence of public broadcasting.
Under a contract, once expectations of the broadcaster are agreed upon, the public broadcaster should be responsible for making the decisions necessary to fulfill those expectations. For CBC/Radio-Canada, a new contract reviewed on a regular, predictable cycle would provide direction on what Canadians could expect from their national public broadcaster in return for a clear indication from government on its willingness to supply the necessary funding on a stable, continuing basis. This contract should be part of an ongoing, permanent process of regular, timely, and predictable reviews of our mandate.
Other witnesses have also expressed strong support for the concept of a contract, and I hope that you will endorse this proposal in your report. I can't stress how important I believe it is that you take the opportunity to reflect and recommend a new approach.
The Broadcasting Act hasn't changed in more than 15 years. During that time, the broadcasting environment has continued to change and has done so even since our last appearance in the spring. It's being buffeted by consolidation and ownership and changing viewing habits that are redefining what broadcasting means. Sure, Canadians still watch television and listen to radio, but more than ever they are watching the programs on their laptops, their BlackBerrys, their cellphones, and their iPods.
That is why we are no longer the company we were 15 years ago. We can no longer think of ourselves as a television company or a radio company or an Internet company. In fact, we are a content company, and we need to make, and are already making, programs that are, from their very inception, designed for all platforms. That philosophy is now ingrained in all of our services.
In short, we are programmers. Our job is to ensure that distinctive content created for, by, and about Canadians is available when Canadians want it and on whichever platform they are using. And that means, as well, that we need multiple services, not just one or two.
Our mission is to deliver public value to Canadians. That means programs that are relevant to people, programs that enrich their democratic and cultural lives, programs that reflect the tremendous diversity of this country and that build cohesion by showing what we all have in common. Our programs should also fulfill public policy objectives, by which I mean we need to offer a range of programs that are distinctive, intelligent, entertaining, and innovative.
In the last couple of years, we have recognized that our unique advantage in a crowded marketplace is our distinctive Canadian programming, and we have gone back to our roots and developed unique, indigenous content in drama, entertainment, and children's programs.
You have no doubt heard of the success of shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie. It entertains about a million Canadians each week and is now being broadcast in over 57 countries around the world, including Gaza and Israel.
And let's not forget Les Bougon, an audacious program that private broadcasters feared showing, that averages 1.2 million viewers on télévision de Radio-Canada.
Also, let me mention Afghanada, a unique CBC radio series that has developed a loyal audience throughout the country.
When you consider what we have been able to do with the resources we have, you can see that CBC/Radio-Canada does deliver great public value. Of course, no matter how compelling our programs, we can't succeed if audiences don't watch or listen to them. Audience size is not everything, but one can't have a public broadcaster without a public. If too few people are watching or listening, we will become irrelevant.
Mr. Chair, I would draw your attention to the programming mix of public broadcasters such as the BBC. There you will find programs designed to build audiences, as well as high culture offerings. And, if we are irrelevant, why should Canadians continue to invest in public broadcasting?
Audience size also affects our commercial revenue, which now makes up about half of our television budgets. If we lose audience, we lose revenue and the resources to produce Canadian programs. If we attract audiences and our revenue increases, we do not generate profits for shareholders, we generate more resources, which are put right back into developing better programs.
What is important is to offer a range of program genres, both popular and meaningful. We must remember that popular can be meaningful. Just think of Little Mosque on the Prairie or Les Bougon. Both programs deliver important social messages through humour.
Access to our programming is also critical. We must be sensitive to changing means of delivery. That is why we're using new technologies to reach new audiences. We've become a top provider of news and content on wireless devices. We broadcast our programs across North America on satellite radio. Podcasts of our programs are the choice of a new generation of young Canadians, with more than a million downloads a month. We have proven that you don't have to dumb down your programming to reach a younger audience.
Other witnesses have told this committee how important it is to have a strong presence in new media and emerging platforms. We're trying to make, and we are making, better use of our strengths, and we are restructuring accordingly. Many of our journalists are now filing reports in English and French for radio, television, and the Internet. That allows us to put more resources into bringing more stories to light.
But we want to reach the eight million French- and English-speaking Canadians who pay for CBC/Radio-Canada but don't currently have a local CBC/Radio-Canada radio service. The government asked for, and we provided, a plan that would bring local public radio, local news, local issues, to 15 of the fastest-growing communities across Canada that are deprived today of local public broadcasting. We included the cost—$25 million in capital cost and $25 million a year in operating costs—because we simply don't have the resources to do it without cutting services somewhere else. That plan was submitted to this committee in May 2007, and I hope that you will also be able to endorse it.
Increasing our local radio presence will help us improve our service to Canadians on one platform. If we are to continue to be relevant to Canadians, we must provide our content on all platforms: regular television channels as well as specialty channels geared to specific audiences.
A dramatic change has occurred over the past few years in television watching. While conventional general television will continue to be important, more Canadians, both English and French, look to specialty channels for their television. This season's viewing of specialty channels was 54% on the English side and 38% on the French side for the whole day. In most cases, viewers are looking for a particular programming genre: sports, news, high culture, children's programming, etc. It is obvious that the public broadcaster must serve Canadian viewers as they wish to be served.
We are reorganizing accordingly. That is why we are taking a significant enhanced position in ARTV and the Documentary Channel. That is why we will change the name and the programming mix of CBC Country Canada to be an arts and specialty channel. We must continue to develop specialty channels, such as a children's channel, perhaps in partnership with another public broadcaster, and a lead sports channel.
We must continue to develop a specialty channel dedicated to the expression of nationwide diversity, new cultures, opinions and regions. We must view public broadcasting in the future as a comprehensive array of services, because Canadians have demonstrated by their behaviour that that is what they want.
Our mandate must be to serve all Canadians. Public broadcasting is not a niche service. If it becomes one, it will be irrelevant to the people who invest in it and it will wither away.
Mr. Chair, over the past few years we have created a strong, efficient broadcaster. Canadians have come to us in increasing and record-high numbers, in English and in French, in radio and in TV. A contract with Canadians will result in enhanced relations with our shareholders and will position CBC/Radio-Canada for the future: nimble, willing to take risks, and never losing sight of its primary goal of enhancing the democratic and cultural life of the citizens of the country.
I hope that your report will be forward-looking and that you will create a road map for the future of public broadcasting. Strong, forward-looking recommendations from your review of a mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada can give us the tools to help us do this.
I am going to end my presentation on a more personal note.
I have appeared before this committee frequently during my mandate. I have always appreciated the discussions we have had and the consistent interest in CBC/Radio-Canada shown by committee members. I know that my successor, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, is looking forward to meeting with you soon, and I am confident that he too will enjoy working with this committee.
We look forward to answering your questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much for that presentation.
We will move to the first questioner.
Mr. Scott.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'm just going to interject.
We've heard from our witnesses here so far this morning in this presentation. I think it's to our advantage that we make sure we don't come out with something totally different from the mandate review, which we have been looking at over this past time.
I'm quite sure your questions will be going that way.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'm teasing. I'm sure I will meet that expectation, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rabinovitch, you have referred to the number of times you have appeared before the committee, and in various ways and times I've had the opportunity to be here, too. Let me just say that you have done a great service to the corporation and to Parliament in your enthusiasm for your job and your vision for the corporation and for the role of the CBC in the country.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Thank you.
November 27th, 2007 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
It seems to me that the large recommendation here has to do with the contract and the way to go forward.
When you appeared in March, you talked about ten years. Could we discuss that a little bit in terms of your view as to why that number? What would happen if it were less than that, or more than that, or whatever? That's just so that we can fill that space.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Sure.
I actually didn't put out a number until I was asked, because the number is I think something that you as a committee, if you go this route, might want to consider: what you think is most appropriate.
Broadcasting is a very fast-changing environment, and in particular public broadcasting. I suggested a ten-year period because it has worked very well with the BBC. It basically means that at the beginning of the seventh year of the contract, the review begins; you don't wait ten years. Basically it's a seven-year period to when you can evaluate, and then there is a year or two where you can evaluate, and then the government can come to its decision.
There is a series of decisions that have to be made in the contract. There are the objectives you have in terms of the programming service; there is the willingness and ability of the government to fund certain services; there are the questions of expansion.
So it's not something that can be done at the end of the ninth year or anything of that nature. I think a ten-year period makes sense, with the understanding that the review would probably start at about the seventh year.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
If I can interpret that, the nimbleness of something slightly less, but the certainty of ten years seems to be the balance we're trying to achieve.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The seven to ten years allows you the planning reference framework that we need to develop programs. From the time a program is an idea to the time it's written up as a scenario to the time it's financed to the time it actually gets on air is usually three to four years. And then you want to test the program for a couple of years to see how it's going to work. So it's not inconsistent.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
There has been a lot of discussion from witnesses around whether or not there should be an amendment to the mandate speaking to new media.
Without speaking for all of those witnesses—it's gone back and forth a little bit—maybe we can ask whether you think we can attend to the challenges of new media without necessarily amending the mandate.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Without necessarily amending the act? Is that what you mean by the mandate?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Yes, I think you can. I think the act is written quite broadly and allows and encourages the CBC to use the most efficient means possible to try to reach the maximum number of Canadians. So I don't think it calls for an amendment to the act, but I would welcome your report's endorsing the need for us to be in all forms of new media.
Yesterday's new media is today's old media. When I started in this job, we were barely into the Internet, and now we're into iPods, satellite radios, and multiple different forums. The world is changing dramatically and quickly, and the public broadcaster has to be there.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
You mentioned that the circumstances have changed even since you were here in March. Could you give us an update on the transition plans from analog to digital?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
It's expensive; I can tell you that.
We are moving to digital in our programming as quickly as we can. For example, on the French side all of Sylvain's studios are now HD digital, but his news service is not yet. That was a priority. We decided to go with drama, because of production in Sylvain's shop, so we moved there first.
We've gone now to sixteen by nine format. In terms of how we present the information, we present it as digital on your TV.
On the English side, we went first and have done more HD production and digital production in the newsroom. And more and more, in our contracts with independent producers, we're calling for HD.
The Olympics this year, for example.... For the last Olympics, a very small part of the programming was in HD, and that's just two years ago. This time, out of Beijing, all of the programming will be in HD, with the concomitant increase in the cost for transporting it and presenting it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think you may have time to ask a question a bit later. We have gone a little past the time.
Conservative