Canadian Heritage Committee on April 27th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Thank you, Mr. Lacroix.

I would like to inform members that I will be very strict in enforcing time limits. We will have to keep to five-minute questions, so that we can have as many rounds as possible.

Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank our witness before the committee.

I know the CBC is very near and dear to the hearts of many Canadians, especially to many seniors, and also to families. In my own riding of Brampton—Springdale, I have been inundated with pleas, both through e-mails and through phone calls, for the government to save the CBC because it is of vital importance.

I'm going to get right into my question because the chair has put us on a strict time limit.

First of all, we know the minister has stated publicly that he has started talks with private broadcasters across the country in regard to the crisis facing the industry. Have you, as the head of the CBC, been involved in those talks? Have you been contacted? Have consultations taken place over the past few months in regard to this growing crisis?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

As the head of CBC/Radio-Canada, I meet with our minister on a regular basis. We have conversations that focus on CBC/Radio-Canada, on the industry, and on issues that cross CBC/Radio-Canada and the other public broadcasters. These conversations are ongoing.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Are these one-on-one or have you been brought into a group with other broadcasters, the private broadcasters?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

These conversations have been one-on-one or with people from CBC/Radio-Canada and people from the entourage of the minister.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

The minister had also stated in the House that even if the government had provided CBC with bridge financing there still would have been a substantial amount of job losses, to the effect of 800. If the government had provided CBC with bridge financing, would you be in the dire situation that you've described today and that we've heard about from CBC employees across the country? Would jobs have been lost or would bridge financing have helped to save the CBC?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

When we started seeing the ad revenues drop, in television in particular, at CBC/Radio-Canada we started identifying solutions. We started talking about financial flexibility. One of the things financial flexibility involved was this bridge financing that you're referring to. Bridge financing had one goal--one important goal. It actually would have helped us reduce the number of job losses at CBC/Radio-Canada. We could have put this in place much faster than having to sell some of our assets. We figure there's a cost of about $3 million per week before we can access these dollars, and that affects our budget.

The number two thing is that this would have allowed us to gain time so that we could have made our voluntary retirement incentive plan perhaps a little more generous, and we could have used attrition, but unless permanent funding had been given to CBC/Radio-Canada, we would not have saved the 800 jobs. Bridge financing was about reducing the number of jobs impacted by this downturn.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

When you did your analysis in regard to the flexibility the bridge financing would have provided.... You're stating that it would have reduced the job losses. How many jobs would not have been lost if bridge financing had been provided?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

It's very difficult for me to answer that question precisely, madam, because with the measures that we have taken and have put in place, this was about the overall impact on CBC/Radio-Canada, not particular jobs. What we tried to do with the bridge financing concept was reduce the number of jobs lost.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I have a couple of minutes left. I want to get on to my last question, which is of prime importance.

The Conservatives have repeatedly stated that they have provided the CBC with the highest amount of funding in history. From the research that I have done, the appropriation for CBC is going up every year because you fall under Treasury Board guidelines, and the increase of 1.5% is given to all crown corporations and all government departments. Is it correct that the CBC has received funding from the government only because of the fact that it falls under crown corporations and government departments? And is it correct that the CBC has not received any of these increases for operation or programming, but only for salaries?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

I'm not sure I'm following the question, but let me tell you what the appropriation is. Our appropriation this year is about $1,100,000,000. That's a decrease of about $64.8 million from last year, but you have to factor in the $60 million that we still have not yet received.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

How much was the decrease?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

The decrease is about $64 million, but that's simply on the numbers that are presented. I'm not saying that we have seen our budget decrease by $64.8 million. The $60 million that we hope we will be receiving when we are in front of Treasury Board in a couple of days will make that number bigger by $60 million. We have a decrease of $2 million due to the non-renewable funding for the Canadian content online program—that's a program that was not renewed—and we have a $2.8 million decrease to the budget 2007 expenditure review.

So what you're looking at in fact is that if you include the renewal of the $60 million, in constant dollars we have about $400 million less than the corporation received in 1990. But in terms of basic appropriation, it has been stable since 1996-97.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

But the money is less.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

In terms of constant dollars.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Ms. Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the President of CBC/Radio-Canada.

I would like to follow-up on the drop in revenue at Radio-Canada that you spoke about. Your document contains an excellent explanation on page 11. It clearly shows that CBC/Radio-Canada's government appropriation has declined by almost $400 million since 1990. This is well-crafted document. It clearly shows that you have incurred substantial losses, which have led you to lay off 800 employees. That is considerable.

A number of messages have been sent to the Conservative government. In February 2008, this committee, whose makeup was somewhat different at the time, tabled a report in the House. Both the committee's consensus and your demands were clear: everyone was asking the Conservative government for stable, seven-year funding, with conditions and a memorandum of understanding, allowing you to know where you are headed year after year, without having to wait until the last minute.

It was also recommended that funding be increased to $40 per capita. According to my calculations, given the current population, that works out to approximately $1.3 billion.

You also asked that the $60 million amount be made permanent funding, instead of always having to beg for it as you will be doing in a few days before Treasury Board. Even though the minister has given his word, it appears to me that you have not received an official response concerning the additional and odd amount of $60 million.

Indeed, the committee lay down three major conditions, including the $1.374 billion, or $41.83 per capita. The message was clear, just as it was when you asked the board of trade for a line of credit.

You wrote to the Prime Minister, at the end of February, asking to meet with him. However, his office has yet to acknowledge your letter. Is that correct?

In 1995, the then CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada resigned because he did not obtain the funding he was looking for and believed was necessary. The Conservative government hired you about two years ago. What kind of a discussion did you have? Did you discuss the funding that you would require to manage Radio-Canada?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Ms. Lavallée, I had no discussion with the government on the level of funding, whether required or not, as part of my hiring process, which was conducted in a very rigorous way by an executive search firm. As I have already told this committee, I never discussed the details of the position or my mandate with the government.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

How do you explain the fact that the Conservative government is not acting on your requests, which appear quite sensible and logical to us, and that the Prime Minister hasn't even acknowledged receipt of your February letter?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

In all our work with the government and the Canadian public, we try to demonstrate that the national public broadcaster is a leading institution and that it must be funded like all other national public broadcasters. In fact, our presentation contains a table showing that in the 18 largest European countries, or rather the 18 Western countries—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

The Western countries.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

That is right, thank you. We received $34 per capita in funding, which ranks us 15^th out of those 18 countries. It is especially in that regard that we are trying to—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Lacroix, you sidestepped my question very deftly. Congratulations, you are quite skilful. Nevertheless, the government is not responding to your requests and your questions. In the House of Commons, the Conservative members applauded when a member of the opposition mentioned that CBC/Radio-Canada might disappear. I wonder how you can interpret the attitude of this Conservative government, with its arrogance and spite.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Ms. Lavallée, I am now working with Minister Moore and providing him with a detailed account of CBC/Radio-Canada's position in 2009, whether with regard to the funding models or the importance of our mandate. I always come back to the idea of a memorandum of understanding in order to engage the government in a reflection on the services that CBC/Radio-Canada should be offering to all Canadians. I devote all of my efforts to making that happen.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Your time is up, Ms. Lavallée.

Mr. Angus, it's your turn.