Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Richard Stursberg]

To be honest with you, it's a little bit early days and it will be a little bit clearer once we've concluded the relaunch, but that will not be until sometime later this spring.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Do I have more time, Chair? I have one--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Very short.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Maybe it's not a short question. When we're talking about micromanaging and the kinds of programming, there's a lot of interest in ten-point drama. I think that's the phrase. I'm new to all of this. That's, I gather, the top level of Canadian content in drama. It also maximizes the job opportunities for cultural workers. I'm just wondering where that fits in your understanding of drama and entertainment. I know there are other ones that don't meet that same standard--reality shows and those kinds of things--that maybe aren't what would be known as ten-point. How does that figure when you talk about drama and entertainment programming?

[Richard Stursberg]

Generally speaking, the emphasis we like is on things that are distinctly our own. We have a new family show called Heartland, about unhappy girls and unhappy horses, and it's all set in Alberta. It's sort of Black Beauty.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

A great Canadian program.

[Richard Stursberg]

It is. Ultimately, it's really an exploration of a certain aspect of Canadian culture, whether it's Little Mosque on the Prairie, whether it's the shows we announced that are coming up very shortly. One actually is in Vancouver based on a novel by Douglas Coupland that's set in an electronic arts company. We like those shows. We like them very much.

We also are happy to work internationally to make great big international co-productions of one variety or another. The biggest one we have on right now is The Tudors, and this is a Canada-Ireland co-production, which is very, very expensive. It costs almost $4 million an hour to make it. We could obviously never have afforded that, but it's spectacular and it's doing very well. Actually, there's a sort of irony to this, in that it's Canada and Ireland that make a television series about British history, only to turn around and sell it to the BBC. We like that.

What we're completely uninterested in is making things that are what they used to call industrial programs--i.e., programs that were shot in Canada but were really intended for export to the American or international market.

We really like things that are ten out of ten, or things that are really very big, very glamorous, such as international co-productions that we could never otherwise afford.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Scott, I'm going to give you a little extra time because I was very harsh on you in the very first question. Most other people have gone overboard a little, so I'm going to give you a little extra time.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

He's setting his tone for everybody else for the next meetings, I can tell.

Mr. Rabinovitch, we had a lot of conversation about governance and a lot of conversation about the relationship between the corporation and the government. Witnesses recommended that there be an independent entity to choose the board--the board in turn would choose its chair and the president--arguing that having the government choose the president led to interference and so on. I'd like you to take this as far as you feel comfortable taking it, but I think it's important for us to have some sense of that. I think it is a very delicate thing to establish the appropriate relationship, and that you offer a unique perspective in responding to that delicate thing.

[Robert Rabinovitch]

There is no correct answer here. The answer is a function of where one believes we should be going and how we should do it.

I believe it's quite simplistic to argue simply that because the Prime Minister appoints the president, therefore there is political intervention and interference. It's the same thing as appointing a Supreme Court justice. It's the same thing as appointing a Federal Court justice. They're appointed by the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, and it doesn't mean that therefore the justice system has been corrupted. The evidence is exactly the opposite, and I would say the evidence is exactly the opposite in the case of the CBC. It's an absolute red herring to argue about that.

I can say that in my eight years, I have never had any suggestion of interference from a minister or from the Prime Minister, and I can say the same for my predecessors. They have not had any intervention or interference. The government may not like some of our programming. They may be concerned in general, especially when we're going through something like a referendum or something of that nature, but they have been very discreet and careful as a government. I say it's the maturity of the government system to respect the role of the public broadcaster and the independence of the public broadcaster.

Remember, my appointment--it's almost over--is what we call in government “for good behaviour”, the same as for a judge. It's not an “at pleasure” appointment. I cannot be fired, except through a joint motion of the House and the Senate. It's designed deliberately to ensure the independence of the broadcaster when there is a change of government, because we are such a major source of news in the country.

One might argue the reasons for the president to be appointed by the board, but the argument that has been made about intervention and interference just doesn't hold up when you look at the facts over the last 50 years. It doesn't hold up at all. The boards have tended to be mixed, in all fairness, in all candour, and they have tended to be much more partisan or political than has the president. The president, whoever he has been in the past, has tended to wear the hat as a judge would. This is a unique job. It's a wonderful job. It's a tough job and one in which you feel every day the uniqueness of protecting the independence of the public broadcaster, because you know how dangerous and how fragile a plant this is.

Boards are quite different. Boards are very short-term. They can be or they are a gift of the minister or a gift of the government. Sometimes boards are excellent. Sometimes they are not that good. They tend to be, with all due respect, quite partisan, and unlike in the case of the BBC, which is the model people look at in which the board appoints the president but does not appoint the chair--the chair is appointed by the government.... If you look at the quality of the people on the board, they are the most exalted people in British society. The quality of people who go onto that board is very distinct, and for them to call the shots might be very different from the situation in our case, where we have a different tradition.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

If the board were chosen in a more merit-based fashion, would your position as to the appointment of the president change? Would the nature of the board change your disposition toward the appointment of the president?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

It would go a long way to giving me a level of comfort for the future of the public broadcaster, but I go back to my original point, Mr. Scott. It is not necessary, given the history of this country.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think it's--

[Robert Rabinovitch]

Governments have been extremely respectful of the job.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think it is critically important to have that placed on the record here today.

Is your generosity continuing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You can have a little more time, sir.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The question of advertising was another one that came up a lot. It has come up in a couple of different ways. In one way, and further to what you said in your introduction today, the idea of the audience, the size of the audience and so on, is an end in itself beyond necessarily connecting that with advertising specifically. So it obviously relates to the broadness of the base of viewership or listenership or whatever else these new media force me to think of saying, whatever that is, but it isn't only about that.

So in the future, if there were sufficient resources to make advertising less necessary, would that be an improvement? How would you square the question of advertising, resources, and viewership?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

Firstly, almost all public broadcasters in the world take advertising. They need it in order to fund their operations.

Maybe it's because I'm from the private sector, but I think advertising plays a very important role in keeping your nose to the grindstone in terms of your relationship to your audience. So I have no problem with advertising from those points of view.

I sometimes have a problem when advertising breaks up a program too much. There are distinct combinations of ways to do advertising that perhaps only a public broadcaster could do.

But we get about $330 million from our advertising, between English and French. If the government were to say to me, “I'll give you $330 million to get out of advertising”, I'd say to the government, “Let's negotiate. Quite frankly, we can do a much better job. Leave us in advertising, especially in sports, but tell us you'll give us that $330 million to put into programming, to put into extension of service.” I think there's a better use for public moneys than buying us—and I'll use those words—out of advertising.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Is that the level of discussion that you would take in a contract with the government?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

In my opinion, the beauty of the contract is that it's a negotiation and the question of micromanagement almost disappears, because it's a question of sitting down and there not being an obiter dictum, as there is sometimes with the CRTC.

I would see it as a conscious negotiation between the committee, representing the public, and the CBC, and then ultimately with the government. It's an opening to, together, grope for what is the best for the next five to ten years.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure you have some questions, so I'll yield to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I do, and we have one more question from Mr. Mark. He has the floor next.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me congratulate our new president. I wish you all the best.

Bob and I go back a lot of years. In fact, I started on this committee in 1997 and sat here for probably four years. I can certainly say that you've done an excellent job.

As you indicated, the position is really non-partisan, and you're a terrific example of being non-partisan. I know that over the years you've taken time to talk to everybody, all the different caucuses, and made it a non-partisan position. So let me say thank you for your service to this country.

I've always been a great believer in the CBC, because I believe the CBC is sort of like the glue that keeps this country together, only because it's such a large country from coast to coast to coast. In terms of the future, I think it probably has an even bigger role to play than even in its past. I know the challenges, as you say, with all the different media modes today, but you have to be involved in every one of them.

In your initiative to go back to the community radio stations, it's almost like going back to the future. At one time, you did have stations in the smaller communities, and television stations as well. I know a lot of them were shut down.

I have the second-largest settled settled riding in the country. I know CBC is well utilized by rural Canadians in my riding. The two issues they have are that they just love the radio, because it really keeps them in tune with what's going on. There are portions of my riding that actually don't have a regional radio station. They have to rely on Saskatchewan and small FM stations that don't go too far.

But the other concern—maybe it's a dated thing—is television broadcast over the air. Maybe that is a thing of the past. So perhaps you can answer that question. Is over-the-air TV broadcasting a thing of the past?

[Robert Rabinovitch]

Thank you very much for your comments. I really do appreciate them.

I have one correction: I don't think we have closed any radio stations over the last while. We did close some television programming. What we're talking about is the dramatic change in the demographics of this country. Where you live is one of the growth areas of the country; others are basically stabilized, and those areas are where most of the people we're not serving are, with the exception of certain parts of Ontario.

In terms of over-the-air broadcasting, we're now at the point at which 90% of people receive their television programming by satellite or cable, and eventually things like IPTV will be there. When I say “eventually”, it's there, but right now it's not working as well as it could be to make it really competitive, but 90% get their television in that way.

The interesting thing too, Mr. Mark, is that as satellites have gone up over the last few years, the underserved areas where that 10% is are not rural. The bulk of the underserved now are people who choose not to take cable. They live in Toronto. They live in Montreal. In fact, in Montreal the number of people who still get their service over the air is really quite high. This is a conscious, deliberate decision.

When we put in the accelerated coverage plan the government gave us to cover communities of 500 or more, it was because that was the primary way to receive television. That has now changed totally, and I wonder sometimes whether we're saddled with an old technology that we don't need any more.

We had a very funny situation that perhaps I shouldn't admit to. These towers are now getting old; we had a tower go down, and it took a week before anybody knew that the tower had gone down. In other words, nobody was listening. They were perhaps watching CBC, but they were watching CBC via their satellite. It would be cheaper to pay everybody who doesn't have satellite service in the outlying areas; it would be be cheaper to give them what we sometimes talk about as Freesat--give them a dish--than to renew this asset that we have.

Again, it's a question of where I would advise a government to add the money. I'd advise the government that we should do some digital over the air, especially in some of the big cities, but to limit it. Our plan is for 42; maybe we can get away with 20, because every cent I can save I can put into programming, and that is what we're really all about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Mourani, you can have a short one.