Transcript of Parliamentary Committee Examination of CBC President
Source : House of Commons Hansard
House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
November 15, 2004¹ (1530)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)): I'm calling this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order.
We have before us an item pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, the order-in-council appointment of Robert Rabinovitch to the position of President and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, referred to the committee on November 4, 2004.
I would like to draw attention of members to a report you have received from one of our analysts on how appointments to boards of cultural organizations and agencies are made and the role of a house committee in this process and particularly pages 5 and 6.
[Français]
Dans la version française, c'est la page 4 et la page 6.
[English]
The scope of the committee's inquiry this afternoon—I don't want to scare Mr. Rabinovitch with the use of the word “inquiry”—however the scope of the committee's examination of order-in-council appointees is strictly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post. Questioning by members of the committee may be interrupted by the chair, and I shall, if it attempts to deal with matters considered irrelevant to the committee's inquiry.
[Français]
J'aimerais aussi souligner que certains membres du comité ont reçu des documents seulement en anglais. Selon les procédures adoptées par le comité, on ne peut pas référer à ces documents pendant la période des questions cet après-midi. On peut naturellement poser une question basé sur ces documents, mais on ne peut pas référer directement à ces documents.
Monsieur Lemay, vous êtes présent?
M. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): Oui, madame la présidente.
[English]
The Chair: I understand that Mr. Rabinovitch would like to make an opening statement with the agreement of the committee.
Mr. Rabinovitch, thank you.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch (President and CEO, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honourable members,
[Français]
Honorables membres du comité, je suis heureux d'être ici aujourd'hui pour répondre à vos questions à la suite de la proposition du gouvernement de me confier un deuxième mandat comme président directeur général de la Société Radio-Canada. C'est d'ailleurs la cinquième fois que je comparais devant ce comité. Je suis fier de ce que nous avons accompli à CBC Radio-Canada. Je suis également reconnaissant aux membres du comité de leur intérêt envers notre travail et de leur appui constant envers la rediffusion publique.
Après un examen complet du secteur de la rediffusion au Canada, ce comité dirigé par M. Clifford Lincoln, qui a reconnu l'importance de CBC Radio-Canada pour la culture canadienne, vous avez recommandé au gouvernement de nous accorder un financement accru et stable sur plusieurs années. Vous avez également recommandé de donner plus d'importance aux régions dans leur programmation. Je suis aussi encouragé de constater que le comité a déjà pris des mesures pour que les recommandations de son rapport ne soient pas oubliées.
Je suis venu aujourd'hui pour faire le point sur le renouvellement de mon mandat. Comme le comité compte plusieurs nouveaux membres, je vais prendre quelques minutes pour passer en revue mes qualifications, le travail accompli ces cinq dernières années et l'orientation que j'aimerais donner à la société et les projets que nous pourrions mener à terme avec votre soutien.
[English]
As you will see from the curriculum vitae that has been circulated to you, I have an MA and PhD in Applied Economics from the
I believe that this combination of public service and experience in the private sector has been invaluable in addressing the challenges facing
I am currently the chair of the board of governors of
I am very proud of my tenure at CBC/Radio-Canada. When I joined the corporation in 1999, we were faced with increased competition, escalating costs and a significant decrease in our government funding. We needed a fundamentally new approach to ensure that CBC/Radio-Canada would survive and thrive.
We developed some key strategy objectives for the corporation, going back to our public broadcasting roots and focusing on services that others cannot or do not provide. We focused on service, not ratings; on treating our audiences as citizens, not consumers. We sought to solidify our place as Canadians' source for news about the world and our country, offering a public space for the exchange of Canadian ideas and perspectives. We added more regional content to reflect the uniqueness of the country. We offered that content on the national stage so that Canadians have a place where they can learn about and hear from each other.
We have provided more multicultural content to better reflect the changing face of Canada, more commercial-free educational programming designed especially for children and youth, more cultural arts programming to showcase Canadian talent, including Opening Night, the only program dedicated for the arts in prime time, and more high-performance sports to celebrate and promote Canada's rising athletes so that, when they get to the Olympics, Canadians already know them and have had the opportunity to share in their triumphs.
¹ (1535)
[Français]
Je suis fier d'affirmer aujourd'hui que nous avons repositionné tous nos services de base de radio et de télévision pour qu'ils soient typiquement canadiens et un complément à l'offre du secteur privé. Par leur réaction, les Canadiens ont prouvé qu'ils appuyaient notre démarche. La radio française et la radio anglaise viennent d'enregistrer les plus fortes cotes d'écoute dans leur histoire. Les cotes d'écoute de nos chaînes de télévision sont aussi en hausse malgré la multiplication des services et la fragmentation des auditoires, ce qui prouve que même si la course aux cotes d'écoute n'est pas notre premier objectif, le public est prêt à regarder et à écouter des émissions typiquement canadiennes.
Nous avons également élargi la portée de nos services grâce à de nouvelles plateformes et à des moyens novateurs, souvent en partenariat. Nous avons ainsi ajouté 20 nouveaux émetteurs au réseau de l'espace musique qui rejoint maintenant plus de 90 p. 100 des francophones du pays, ce qui, en fait, est un véritable réseau national. De nouveaux services comme CBC.ca, Radio-Canada.ca, Radio 3, Bande à part, Galaxie, the Documentary Channel, Country Canada et ArTtV augmentent notre offre. Il y a quelques semaines, nous avons également déposé une demande de licence avec les partenaires du secteur privé pour offrir un service de radio par satellite aux Canadiens.
[English]
We now have 18 different radio, television and new media platforms. That helps us ensure that we remain relevant to Canadians and that we can reach them where, when, and how they want. We've been able to do all this because of fundamental changes in the way we manage our business.
I strongly believe that good management and excellent programming are not mutually exclusive. One supports the other. When I came to CBC-Radio Canada, I realized that if we were going to support Canadian programming, our highest priority, then we had to come up with the resources ourselves, starting with managing what we had more efficiently.
We've been looking at every aspect of this corporation: lowering costs, improving our flexibility, and finding the kinds of savings and new revenues we need to support our programming. We have undertaken a series of initiatives that will generate $65 million a year in savings and additional revenue. That's in addition to one-time savings of $102 million.
These exercises have allowed us to increase the value of what we provide to Canadians, but more work remains to be done. Many of the changes we are adopting will require another three years to four years before they will be fully implemented and generating the savings and revenue that we anticipate. We would like to complete the work that we have started.
The government recognized the value of what we have done and the important role that CBC-Radio Canada plays in promoting Canadian culture. It has provided the corporation with an additional $60 million in each of the past four years, money that has gone directly into improving the quality and quantity of Canadian programming.
While our efficiency efforts and the $60 million have allowed us to strengthen our Canadian programming, I must point out that we still have not recovered from the severe cuts of the 1990s. Our parliamentary appropriation in constant dollars, including the $60 million in additional funds, is $415 million less today than it was in 1990. We are expected, and we want, to do more.
At $30 per person,
¹ (1540)
[Français]
Cependant, même les 60 millions de dollars ne nous sont pas garantis. Au cours des deux dernières années, ces 60 millions de dollars ont été réduits de 10 millions de dollars, une compression qui est maintenant permanente. En télévision, il faut plusieurs années pour créer et produire ces émissions canadiennes de qualité. En raison de l'instabilité de notre financement, il nous est difficile de prévoir si nous aurons le niveau de ressources nécessaires pour le faire. Nous ne pouvons tout simplement absorber des compressions de cette ampleur sans nuire à nos services que nous voulons offrir aux Canadiens.
[English]
In addition, this year
Because of what we have done over the past four years, I believe
Let me tell you a bit about our plans for the future. We are incorporating new technologies, including digital and high-definition television. This will give us more flexibility and this will contribute to our ability to do more local and regional programming. Our journalists remain among the best anywhere, filing in English and in French, for radio and television. We are committed to ensuring that they have the resources they need to remain the best.
We intend to continue to expand our regional services. It was this committee that recommended that we develop a costed, strategic plan for delivering a greater level of local and regional programming consistent with our mandate. We have been working to develop an overall plan that would enhance the reach of our radio and TV services, enhance the level of service to francophones across the country, and better reflect the cultural vitality and diversity of the regions. I am encouraged that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has indicated that she would support our efforts in this area.
The public broadcaster must listen and be responsive to Canadians. We have and will continue to expand our relationship with our audiences across the country. We have a contract with Canadians. It must be regularly renewed through increased accountability and transparency. We also have a responsibility to inform Canadians of the costs of these commitments.
We are going to continue to offer Canadians more distinctive Canadian programming, especially high-quality dramas, like H20 and Temps dur. Our radio, television, and new media, both French and English, will work more closely together to produce excellent, cross-cultural, cross-media programming like Trudeau and Le Dernier Chapitre.
We will remain the place for Canadian programming. We will keep looking for ways to save money, modernize our production procedures and look for ways to generate revenue that we can reinvest in programming. We will pursue new initiatives, such as our merchandising division, our mobile division and our real estate management, all designed to control costs while increasing revenues.
We will continue to explore strategic partnerships, like RTV, the documentary channel, and serious satellite radio, partnerships that allow us to extend our reach and provide more services to Canadians. We will continue to work with and create programming in partnership with the private, independent production sector.
These are some of the means we will use to enhance Canadian broadcasting and better serve Canadians. With this committee's endorsement and your continued support, we will deliver.
[Français]
Je vous remercie, madame la présidente. Il me fera maintenant plaisir de répondre à vos questions.
¹ (1545)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Schellenberger, first.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (
This is an historic day and we will be breaking new ground this afternoon. Since 1936 when the CBC was first created, prime ministers have appointed more than 150 people to lead the CBC as president and members of the board. For 70 years it has been the exclusive privilege of the prime minister to decide who would lead our most important cultural institution, until today.
Today marks the first occasion when the Prime Minister has relinquished the power of parliamentary review. Today also marks the first occasion when a candidate for such an important office has appeared before a parliamentary committee to explain why he should be appointed.
We, on this committee, welcome the chance to consider the Prime Minister's proposal to reappoint you for the second term. It will come as no surprise, Mr. Rabinovitch, this committee has great interest in the CBC and the services it provides to Canadians. So we will be listening very carefully to your remarks this afternoon, as we consider the Prime Minister's proposal.
As you know, this committee released a report called “Our Cultural Sovereignty” in June of 2003. I know that you have read that report with interest, and are aware that there are many recommendations concerning the CBC, nine to be precise. Mr. Rabinovitch, you have said some very complimentary things about the work of this committee. During an appearance before the committee on October 28, 2003, you said:
|
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the committee for its report on our cultural sovereignty. We agree with many of your recommendations. In this report you showed an understanding that we need the adequate, stable funding if CBC Radio-Canada is to meet its mandate and assign responsibilities. You also recommended that our funding be increased. You also recognize the unique circumstances of a television production environment, especially the length of time it takes to bring a program idea to the screen. This means we need multi-year funding to develop Canadian programming. |
It's obvious you've read the report, and that's why I'm curious to know why the CBC has not replied to some of the recommendations that explicitly call for action from the CBC? For example, the committee recommends:
|
That the CBC deliver a strategic plan with established resource requirements to Parliament within one year of the tabling of this report on how it would fulfill its public mandate to, (a) deliver local and regional programming, (b) meet its Canadian programming objectives, and (c) deliver new media programming initiatives. |
These are on pages 218, 219, recommendation 6.3.
It's difficult for this committee to be able to evaluate the proposal the Prime Minister has put before us to reappoint you without knowing what your plan is. Can we expect a response to this recommendation before we get back to the Prime Minister?
Thank you.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: When I appeared before the committee, I endorsed, from the CBC's point of view, your report, and I thought it was very forward-looking. We appreciated the support that we received from the committee.
Since that time, there's been elections, and it has been difficult for a person in my position to seek guidance from the government. I have, in the last couple of weeks, had the opportunity to talk to the minister, and the minister has also very publicly stated her desire to support local and regional initiatives. We are very advanced in developing one and I would hope to bring it forward literally as soon as possible. My intention would be to bring it to the minister, as she would have to bring it to her colleagues, and bring it for financing, and as well I'd be more than willing at the time to bring it to this committee for a comprehensive discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.
¹ (1550)
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Just a supplementary to that, I know when we posed somewhat the same question to the ministry officials who were here previously, they said much the same, that the election precluded them from bringing the response back to the report by November 14. I know that a lot of us, pretty well everyone around this table, was running for office at that time and we were preoccupied with getting re-elected. I wonder what you, or the ministry, was doing? Were they out campaigning through that time, that this report couldn't come in? I know it's a hypothetical question, but when dates are set, and it sounds like a good thing--I know we have to make dates--so should the CBC and the ministry not also meet those times?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: When I was here in October, if I recall correctly, I said that we would be ready within the year to come forward with a plan. We haven't been sitting on our hands. We have developed quite a comprehensive plan. I mentioned in my opening remarks it's a plan to extend service, it's a plan to extend service to Francophones, it's a plan to develop more local and regional news services. It is really quite well developed. We were waiting for a ministerial audience as we worked on it and as we completed it and, quite frankly, some ministerial guidance. We are in a position where we can bring this plan forward to the minister on very short notice. I have told her that we are ready to come forward and we will be going forward in a very short period of time.
I should also note that we have discussed it with our board in general terms and we have their approval. We have discussed it in general terms with officials. We have put a price tag on it that we are willing to go forward with and believe is the money we need to truly enhance local programming. We have not been sitting on our hands. We have used the opportunity. While you were out there campaigning we were trying to put together something that we could you that would be very useful.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schellenberger.
[Français]
M. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Merci.
Bonjour, monsieur Rabinovitch. Bienvenue.
¹ (1555)
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Bonjour. Merci.
[English]
The Chair: I just want to inform committee members that we have a rotation of speakers but I only know you want to speak if you let me know.
[Français]
M. Maka Kotto: Non, non, c'est bon. Je dois aller défendre le projet de loi C-18 tout de suite après, donc je préfère poser des questions tout de suite.
Juste quelques questions pour avoir des réponses qui serviraient de base d'analyse. On en aurait beaucoup. On souhaiterait même que monsieur revienne, parce que les questions sont légion.
Au début de votre mandat vous avez supprimé les bulletins télévisés provinciaux de fin de soirée, vous avez réduit de moitié ceux de début de soirée et affaissé les salles de nouvelles provinciales. Ce qu'on constate comme résultat c'est qu'il y a une désertion massive des téléspectateurs qui sont maintenant centrés sur Toronto dans lequel ils ne se reconnaissent pas. Ma première question est: dans vos projections avez-vous l'intention d'accélérer le repli de la télévision française sur Montréal comme cela a été fait relativement à Toronto?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: La réponse est non, on ne veut pas faire ça. Et non seulement cela, je pense qu'il est évident que, par exemple, on a fait un grand réinvestissement dans la ville de Québec pour créer un nouveau centre de production, un centre de nouvelles et on veut--et c'est exactement la même chose que j'ai dite à M. Schellenberger--avec le montant d'argent qu'on demande, nous pensons vraiment qu'on peut créer un nouveau service local et régional pour servir les régions. Ce n'est donc pas du tout notre intention de concentrer les services sur Montréal.
M. Maka Kotto: D'accord. Une autre question subsidiaire. Êtes-vous d'accord avec votre président de la radio française, M. Lafrance, qui trouve qu'il y a trop d'employés desservant les régions du Québec dans les stations comme Québec, Matane, Rimouski, Sept-Îles ou Saguenay?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Si je me souviens bien de mes discussions avec M. Lafrance, ce n'est pas une question qu'il y a trop d'employés dans les régions, c'est de savoir où ils doivent être localisés. Cela veut dire qu'avec ce nombre de personnes on peut faire une meilleure couverture de la région, mais il ne faut pas qu'ils soient tous au même endroit. Cela signifie qu'il faut parfois changer les mélanges, changer le personnel, les mettre dans des secteurs différents, mais il n'est pas question d'une réduction. La question est de les mettre dans différents secteurs de toutes ces régions du Québec.
M. Maka Kotto: Êtes-vous en mesure de nous dire quel mandat exact vous aviez reçu à l'époque de M. Chrétien?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Franchement, c'était très simple. Il m'a offert le poste de président-directeur-général sans direction. Il m'a seulement demandé si j'étais prêt à l'accepter. À ce moment-là j'étais prêt à accepter un poste sans aucune direction, sauf de gérer aussi bien que possible.
M. Maka Kotto: D'accord. Sans aucun cahier de charge. Vous dites, oui, si je comprends bien. On ne vous a pas imposé un cahier de charge.
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Non.
M. Maka Kotto: D'accord. En avez-vous reçu un de M. Martin? Si oui, lequel?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: C'est exactement la même chose. Je n'ai reçu aucune directive précise. Je ne pense pas que c'est correct de donner des directives comme cela. C'est dans un comité comme celui-ci où on peut discuter des affaires. Je n'ai même pas eu à avoir des discussions avec M. Martin. Les discussions ont eu lieu avec ses fonctionnaires. Je n'ai pas reçu du tout de charge précise sur le mandat.
M. Maka Kotto: Si je comprends bien c'est en quelque sorte une carte blanche qu'on vous a donnée à chaque fois.
M. Robert Rabinovitch: On peut dire que c'est une carte blanche mais une carte blanche avec une grande histoire. Il y a toute l'histoire de Radio-Canada, CBC. Je pense également qu'ils m'ont offert le poste à cause de mon expérience dans le secteur privé avec la nécessité de gérer une organisation de 1,5 milliard de dollars avec les conditions d'efficacité qui existent dans le secteur privé. Cela ne cause pas de problème avec un service public. Cela doit être géré au même niveau de qualité que le secteur privé. Je pense que c'est pour cela qu'ils sont venus me chercher.
M. Maka Kotto: Sous votre administration...
[English]
The Chair: Your time is up. We'll come back to you on a second round if you would like.
[Français]
M. Maka Kotto: Je croyais avoir cinq minutes.
La présidente: Les cinq minutes sont terminées.
M. Maka Kotto: Je ne les ai pas.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, just for clarification may I presume that your mandate comes from the legislation passed by Parliament?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Angus.
Mr. Charlie Angus (
I was interested in talk about your experience in the private sector. In private media, ratings decide everything. I'm looking at the numbers here for the spring of 2000, before the decision to cut the regional news broadcast where we had 60% of the market share in St. John's, we're down to 21% today. We had 18% in
º (1600)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The decision to shrink those shows, they weren't cut, was a decision imposed on the corporation by the financial realities under which the corporation was operating. It had just had a $450 million cut and that was almost 50% of its budget. It was a real reality show as to whether or not we could survive. We at the time presented one option. There was a very negative reaction to that option and we therefore came up with another one because we also thought that the country, the public, might want a national news cast in the 6:00 slot as exists in the United States and has now been done as well by Global Television. We thought the two problems confronted themselves. We had the need to live within our budget because we are not allowed to have a deficit. We had a situation where we thought we could perhaps also develop a national show, not located in
There's also other issues at the same time. In
Mr. Charlie Angus:
I agree entirely. Where I live, we have no regional CBC coverage. We watch private sector, and it's doing a very good job. It does concern me because of the inability of CBC to even come to the plate.
You were mentioning, in terms of your strategic plan, real estate management. Mr. Saint-Cyr is president of the real estate division. Does he report to the board of directors or just to you?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: All of the senior management group, the way things are structured, report to me, and through me to the board. The way we operate, as well, is that all of my senior managers, all of my direct reports, have access to the board and make their presentations to the board. It's just the way I manage. I do not make their presentations. They make their presentations, but I go through them, obviously, beforehand.
Mr. Charlie Angus: On November 25, 2002, he sold the CBC's building at Sainte-Foy for $2,495,000, which I understand was $500,000 below market value. That was sold without public tender to Hydro-Québec. Six months later, Hydro-Québec re-sold that building, pocketing $500,000 in profit. Could you explain how that....
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I would have to check the precise fact. Generally speaking, we have rules of procedure on how one goes about making a sale, what the interest was. My understanding at the time was--in fact the president of Hydro-Québec called me--that Hydro-Québec wanted the site to develop a regional headquarters. The price was determined, and I'm sure we have the papers to show that, at the fair market value at the time.
Mr. Charlie Angus: My understanding--I guess we could all check in and correct this--is that it was sold at $500,000 less than the market value, the exact number that Hydro-Québec turned around and got six months later.
Meanwhile CBC was still using that building. Were you renting that building from Hydro-Québec while they were planning on flipping the property?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I can't confirm nor deny that they flipped the property. I just don't know. I would have to check the facts.
We continued to rent the.... Sorry, I don't think we paid rent for it. We had access to it and use of the facilities. I think it was a fixed period of time. It was part of the strategy. It was part of the way we commenced our move downtown, and how we were able to finance our new location where we were able to collocate all of our services.
º (1605)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rabinovitch.
I have Mr. Rodriguez next.
[Français]
M. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Merci, madame la présidente.
Vous avez fait état de votre expérience, alors qu'est-ce qui fait de vous la personne toute désignée pour diriger la Société Radio-Canada?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: À mon avis, comme sous-ministre au ministère des Communications ainsi qu'au Secrétariat d'État, j'ai acquis la connaissance du système gouvernemental. Également, j'ai été sous-secrétaire au Conseil des ministres, pour la planification et sous-secrétaire auprès du premier ministre à l'époque du gouvernement conservateur, de 1978 à 1979. J'ai donc acquis beaucoup d'expérience dans le fonctionnement du système gouvernemental. Également, lorsque j'étais dans le secteur privé, pendant une période de 13 ans, j'étais membre de plusieurs conseils d'administration. J'ai aussi été membre de compagnies qui ont fait beaucoup d'argent et qui étaient très bien gérées. J'ai aussi travaillé auprès d'une ou deux compagnies qui n'étaient pas aussi bien gérées. On apprend beaucoup lorsqu'on travaille avec une compagnie qui n'est pas très bien gérée. Par exemple, lorsque j'étais représentant de Clarence sous le conseil d'administration pour le Cineplex Odeon, j'ai travaillé presqu'à temps plein pendant une période très difficile durant les années 90. J'étais une des personnes responsables lors de l'achat de RDS et TSN. J'étais donc le premier directeur au conseil d'administration lors de l'achat de ces services de médias. J'ai toujours oeuvré dans ce domaine, même lorsque j'étais dans les secteurs privé et public.
M. Pablo Rodriguez: Selon vous, à quel public s'adresse Radio-Canada?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: À mon avis, il s'adresse à toute la population. En même temps, il faut accepter comme l'a dit le président précédent, que notre mandat provient de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Cela dit précisément que c'est à nous de, je ne sais pas le mot en français,
[English]
to enlighten and to entertain the Canadian public.
[Français]
C'est à nous de développer des services différents pour des publics différents. C'est pour cela que notre service de radio par exemple est l'un des services avec les plus hautes cotes d'écoute que jamais. Même aujourd'hui dans la ville de Québec nous sommes plus hauts que CHOI. À Toronto notre programme du matin est le premier. On essaie donc de donner un service qui n'est pas basé sur la vente des annonces. C'est un service basé sur la livraison d'informations, d'explications au public.
Si on parle de la télévision, d'un autre côté on essaie de faire deux choses en réalité. L'une, c'est la programmation pour des publics différents comme la jeunesse, la programmation canadienne que l'on ne peut pas faire dans des services privés. L'autre, c'est le développement d'un service des nouvelles de qualité. Nous voulons être le service des nouvelles auquel les Canadiens se réfèrent, les Anglais, les Français, quand ils veulent avoir des informations précises.
M. Pablo Rodriguez: Justement, en ce qui concerne les nouvelles, je crois que vous avez réduit le nombre de publicités du bulletin de fin de soirée, du moins en français avec M. Derome. Il y a nécessairement une baisse de revenus. Est-ce que cette baisse revenus est compensée par un plus grand auditoire, par le fait que cela attire plus de gens et que vous atteignez votre objectif? Ou est-ce une plus grande satisfaction des téléspectateurs?
º (1610)
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Monsieur Rodriguez, on a fait cela en anglais quand on a fait ce qui s'appelle la transformation des services anglais, il y a trois ans et demi. On a pensé, avec le vice-président du service français et les grands changements qu'il a voulu faire, qu'un service public, à mon avis, ne doit pas avoir d'annonces à l'intérieur des nouvelles. On peut même discuter si un service public doit avoir des annonces. En réalité il faut prendre les annonces. Nous ne sommes pas la BBC avec un budget de 7 milliards de dollars. Nous avons un budget de 1,5 milliard de dollars même avec les annonces. Il faut qu'on accepte les annonces.
À ce moment-ci, il faut dire que le taux de satisfaction a augmenté. Les cotes d'écoute du service des nouvelles ne sont pas tellement hautes mais elles sont plus hautes qu'elles étaient et c'est bien stabilisé. On a fait des changements. On a changé avec M. Derome. Je ne peux pas vous dire si c'est l'absence d'annonces ou M. Derome mais le résultat est le même. Il y a une stabilisation des cotes d'écoute et une augmentation—certainement en anglais mais en français—du taux de satisfaction. Si on peut continuer sans avoir d'annonces à l'intérieur des nouvelles, c'est une question très importantes à cause des compressions qui peuvent venir.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Rabinovitch.
Madam Oda.
Ms. Bev Oda (
Mr. Rabinovitch, welcome. I'm looking forward to this exchange with you. As you know, in a former life I was used to having at least a minimum of one hour to question, but I will try to expedient.
In your first appearance before the committee in February 2000 you were only three months into your mandate. You then shared your objectives with expressing your desire for CBC to be the true public broadcaster and you outlined four objectives at that time. They were for fewer commercials, credible, independent journalism, distinctive quality programming and excellence in children's programming.
This is my first question. Where are you? Now that you are down the road, has hindsight given you some cause to adjust those objectives?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I tried to write them down as fast as you said them.
Ms. Bev Oda: Right.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I think the objectives are still the correct objectives for a public broadcaster. I believe that we must do more children's programming, and we are now the lead children's programmer in the country. We have made it very clear that we dedicate the morning to children's programming.
We've had somewhat less success in what I would call teenage programming. There is a bit of a debate within the corporation on whether teenagers are interested more in The Simpsons or can we design programs for them. I would not claim we've had great success there, although I think some of our programs for the 10 to 15 year old group are excellent.
Our children's programming, I believe, now speaks for itself and I'd mark that up as a success.
In terms of less advertising, we took out advertising. We have no advertising in children's programming. There's Thursday night's slot, Opening Night, which is high culture with no advertising. We don't do advertising. We do some sponsorship and we're doing a very big program and a special type of program. We took advertising out of the news for the first half hour, all of which has been, quite frankly, very expensive but very important.
Again, our ability to do all of that and walk away from those advertising dollars is a function of what our government grant will be and the flexibility we will have in that.
In terms of excellence in programming, I am quite comfortable both in English and in French that we have been audacious, that we have put on, often in co-production with Channel 4 in the
º (1615)
Ms. Bev Oda: Then you appeared three months later before the committee and Mr. Redekop was with you and you came before the committee to explain the repositioning or the transformation exercise that had actually started before your appointment as president.
The transformation exercise was undertaken for two primary reasons. One was that you felt on CBC English television there was an identity crisis coupled with a financial crisis. Since that time in May 2000 have those two crisis been dealt with? Do you feel that you have succeeded in overcoming those two problems?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: On the identity crisis we have come a long way to defining a distinctive public broadcaster. My feeling was—and Mr. Redekop and I agreed on this which is why I was such an enthusiastic supporter of the transformation exercise—that CBC had to be distinctive, it was not in competition with the private networks, it had to have its own unique set of programs which included programs that tied the country together. I think we have come a long way in defining what you'll find on CBC. Again, it's our specials and programs of that nature like H2Ole dernier chapitre, it is the integration of English and French programming so we can spread the cost over both networks and yet develop programs that talk to both audiences.
We have come a long way. We are constrained by several things. Number one is always money. Number two is the development of quality writing in
The other thing, which I said in one of my appearances here, is that we have to be able to take risks and risk means you are going to fail. You're going to have great successes, but you're also going to fail. When you're so dollar tight as we are it is very hard to contemplate failure, but you have to do it.
The money part is a continuing exercise, and, as you know, we got the $60 million. I think we were given the $60 million for the last four years, which all went into programming, and that was the intent. Because we were able to show the government, in particular the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board that we were well managed and that the money wouldn't be wasted, the money could go where we said it was going to go.
Ms. Bev Oda: Mr.--
The Chair: Ms. Oda, I have Mr. Lemay next.
[Français]
M. Marc Lemay: Bonjour, monsieur Rabinovitch. Effectivement, je pense qu'on devra peut-être vous demander de revenir. C'est possible. J'ai beaucoup de questions.
Au niveau de la régionalisation, vous parlez d'offrir des services. Les services sont plus importants que les cotes d'écoute. Si j'ai bien lu, c'est cela. Comment faites-vous pour évaluer qu'une émission est importante et qu'elle procure un service, même si elle n'a pas de côtes d'écoute? Une émission littéraire, par exemple, il n'y en a plus à Radio-Canada.
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Non, ce n'est pas le cas.
M. Marc Lemay: Bien, il y en a très peu. Je parle d'une émission en français. Moi, ce qui m'intéresse, c'est comment vous faites pour évaluer qu'une émission... Cotes d'écoute, on sait ce que cela veut dire. C'est très facile, c'est quantifiable, c'est beaucoup plus rapide, alors que, vous, vous dites que la priorité, c'est les services. Comment faites-vous?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Premièrement, je dois dire qu'on ne rejette pas la nécessité de regarder les cotes d'écoute. Ce que j'ai dit, c'est que c'était une des mesures et ce n'est pas nécessairement la mesure la plus importante. Par exemple, si on fait la programmation pour un groupe comme les jeunes, c'est certain qu'on va perdre la bataille de la cote d'écoute pendant cette période-là. Mais, en même temps, c'est un service prioritaire du service public de faire de la programmation pour la jeunesse.
Alors, ce que je suggère, c'est qu'il faut mesurer la programmation. Premièrement, il faut avoir dans votre tête une idée de combien de personnes vous espérez rejoindre, c'est une indication du nombre de personnes que vous voulez avoir. Par exemple, si on fait un programme comme Opening Night, en anglais, ou Les Beaux Dimanches, on sait immédiatement qu'on va perdre le soir, si c'est seulement une question de cotes d'écoute. Mais c'est important de donner l'opportunité pour l'autre culture d'être sur les ondes.
Alors, pour nous, c'est une question de plusieurs groupes qui doivent avoir, et j'espère qu'on peut avoir la programmation pour eux. En même temps, il faut avoir les idées peut-être subjectives si un programme est un succès ou non. Cela vient avec les lettres et avec le contact avec les personnes, mais nous avons toujours des systèmes de feedback avec l'audience, non seulement les cotes d'écoute.
º (1620)
M. Marc Lemay: D'accord. Moi, j'ai une question. Monsieur Rabinovitch, est-ce que vous connaissez l'Union nationale des écrivains du Québec?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Comme organisation, oui. Je ne les connais pas directement comme personnes.
M. Marc Lemay: Vous ne les avez jamais rencontrés?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: C'est possible que je les ai rencontrés. C'est certain que j'ai rencontré plusieurs membres, mais je pense que je n'ai jamais eu une présentation de ce groupe.
M. Marc Lemay: Je vais changer. Ceux qui me connaissent autour de la table savent que je suis très impliqué dans le sport. La seule chose qu'on voyait à Radio-Canada, c'était le hockey. Il n'y en a plus, pour des raisons. On voit Radio-Canada très impliquée dans les Jeux olympiques. Il y a une émission en français qui s'appelle Adrénaline, qui parle de sports. Mais je ne vois pas dans votre programmation bâtir l'avenir, 2004-2005 à 2008-2009, à part le fait que vous avez obtenu les Jeux olympiques jusqu'en 2008. Est-ce qu'il y a autre chose dans la programmation pour nous présenter du sport de qualité à Radio-Canada, au cours des prochaines années?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Je dois dire que ce n'est pas une haute priorité, pour être franc. C'est une de nos programmations. Le programme Adrénaline, je pense que cela fait seulement dix ans qu'on a commencé celui-ci. Pour nous, la chose importante, c'est la présentation de nos athlètes en anglais et en français aux Olympiques, cela veut dire les athlètes qui vont aller ou vont espérer d'aller aux Olympiques. Alors, on espère de continuer de faire cela avec une programmation comme Adrénaline. En même temps, il faut dire, et j'étais membre du conseil d'administration de RDS, que c'est un réseau qui traite seulement de sports, mais pas beaucoup des sports des Olympiques.
La présidente: Vous pouvez continuer de répondre.
M. Robert Rabinovitch: On va continuer certainement.
La présidente: D'accord, merci.
[English]
Mr. Khan.
Mr. Wajid Khan (
My question relates to visible minorities. Visible minorities have achieved leadership roles in many fields of enterprise and competition, as you can see around this table. Yet surprisingly, the CBC has no representation of visible minorities in senior management or in the executive branch, unlike its private sector peers.
Why are there no visible minorities in CBC management roles? What is the CBC doing to actively recruit proven visible minority managers and executives with direct or related experiences and skills?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The question raised is one of concern to me. I must say that to the extent I set priorities in this area, the priority I set was to attract people to be on air, to be program producers, to be involved in making sure that we had diversity, and a diversity that represented
Have we done the job in terms of senior executives? I can't pretend that we have. I can tell you this, sir, that the number of people we have working for us who come from the various communities of
º (1625)
Mr. Wajid Khan: Thank you.
I'll combine my last two questions because of shortage of time. My second question is in the last 20 years, despite a growing audience of Canadians hungry for content that reflects the culturally diverse reality of Canada, the CBC has produced very little culturally diverse dramatic programming compared to its overall programming budget.
Why is the ratio of programming funds spent on cultural diversity initiatives to the overall programming budget so low? Why have the projects been done by mostly non-visible minority producers when there are award-winning visible minority producers available to do the work?
My last question, Statistics Canada census projections indicate that by 2011, six years from now, the GTA, which represents 60% of English Canada TV viewing audience, will be comprised of 70% of visible minorities. What long-range strategic plan does CBC have beyond short-term internships, commissioning short films, and training initiatives to employ visible minorities in the challenge of feeding a new and growing audience the kind of programming that reflects the reality of a culturally diverse
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It's a long question and I will try to answer it.
We have done quite a few different things, especially in the GTA and in
At first--I'll be very candid--we had complaints from our traditional listeners and I received a fair number of complaints, “This is not the CBC I'm used to” and “This is not what I would call a white, Anglo-Saxon CBC”, but the complaints disappeared. But not only did the complaints disappear, but the program, Andy Barrie's program, is now number one, which means you're absolutely right, there is an audience for this type of programming and it's our job to develop it and it's our job to find it and it's our job to go after it. Part of that is going after the people. I don't want to belittle intern programs. Internships is a start. Internships is a way to bring people in. Shorts is a way to bring people in. It's a way to teach them the skills, because at the end of the day we all want quality programming on the air. The fact that it's done by a visible minority or a majority or what have you is not an excuse. It's got to be good programming.
A class example was Human Cargo which was a very tough program and it was a program that did not draw a good audience, if audience is your measure, on getting back to the point that Monsieur Lemay made. Audience is not the only measure. We have measures in terms of what was its effect upon the population? Did people talk about it? Did it meet the criteria in terms of being a program about the diversity of the country? It met all those. It didn't win on cotes d'écoute, but it won on every other ground and it's an absolutely first class of, as you know, very tough program. So we're feeling our way, but it's a deliberate strategy and it's a deliberate policy. We have some programs such as express programs to help make sure that programs reflect their community. The places where we've done the most of this has been in
Mr. Merv Tweed (
In June of 2003 this committee made a recommendation in its report entitled “Our Cultural Sovereignty” to change the way your position is hired and a portion of that recommendation states that it is in the interest of fuller accountability and arm's length from government nominations--
º (1630)
The Chair: Mr. Tweed, I don't want to interrupt, but the standing orders specifically limit the committee to questioning Mr. Rabinovitch on his qualifications for the job specifically, not on the procedure of appointments or on other unconnected matters.
Mr. Merv Tweed: I'm clearly reading this statement to lead to my question which will....I'm not crossing the boundary I assure you.
The Chair: All right, thank you.
Mr. Merv Tweed: The portion states that in the interest of fuller accountability and arm's length from government nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources and the CBC president should be hired by and be responsible to the board. The government has indicated that it intends to implement this change, but to date has been unable to do so and instead were reviewing what I would say is a very interesting three-year interim appointment.
Your second term as president and CEO of CBC will expire on November 15, 2007, approximately two and a half months after the renewal of the corporation's television and radio licences. In essence, this will place your long-term vision for the corporation in the hands of your eventual successor and I wonder if this, one, is acceptable to you or as is stated by you November 5 in The Globe and Mail that you were seeking a five-year term, a one-year term was offered and apparently a three-year term was agreed upon?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Madam Chair, I--
The Chair: I think that question does not go to Mr. Rabinovitch's qualifications.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'm ready to answer part of it.
The Chair: Well, I'm just trying to keep the committee consistent with what the standing orders allow us to do and what our mandate is.
Mr. Merv Tweed: Then, Madam Chair, I would ask him, knowing that he's accepted a three-year term, would he have considered...or does he still see the five-year term that he was seeking better for the corporation?
The Chair: Perhaps you can do a link to your qualifications to the film industry.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Well I have had five years to try and learn the job.
Mr. Tweed, if I may and I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds, the government's appointment and discussions with me occurred after my board unanimously recommended me for appointment. So it partly met what you are talking about to start with. In terms of the length of the appointment, I feel that three years will represent an eight year appointment, which is more than adequate for me to continue and complete the work that we have started and that is why I accepted it.
Mr. Merv Tweed: Thank you.
You've also said that we have added more regional content to reflect the diversity that stems from our nations geographic make-up, yet in October 2000 CBC unveiled a new blended regional national format for supper hour newscast called Canada Now eliminating the full one hour regional newscast that Canadians were familiar with. The decision was completely counter to the CRTC recommendations to increase, not decrease, regional planning. As a result, as stated earlier by my colleagues, audience share has dropped. I can tell you that in the
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes, we did several things and I think it's worth reviewing them. We didn't just cut back, we tried to change the mix on the national newscast. To do that we opened up 22 new bureaus across the country. We've introduced new programs such as All Points West, which is a program out of
At the same time, as you will know, we were highly constrained in terms of our budget. We were facing, when I came in, a $60 million shortfall. We had to figure out a way to live within the budget that we had. We made the changes we did in the supper hours. As I've mentioned before, sir, the supper hours were on a slope downwards for at least the whole of the 1990's.
Did that slope accelerate as a result of the decisions made five years ago? I don't think so, but I don't think we arrested it either. I don't think there's an overwhelming acceptance on our part that we've got it right. On the contrary, I think we realize that we must re-evaluate, as you must do with all programs. When you don't have it right you must be ready to accept that there are other ways of doing things to the extent that we have the funds.
If I may, and I know I'm going on so I apologize, because of new technology, because of changes such as ParkerVision which allows us to produce a program with much fewer resources, because of news integration between radio and T.V., we believe that we may very well be able to do things, especially if we get some help from the government on regional programming, that we couldn't have done before.
º (1635)
The Chair: That's seven minutes, Mr. Tweed. I was a little careless in watching my timing here.
Mr. Simms.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—
I'm going to belabour the point even further about the supper hour newscasts just to say that from my home province as well it was a huge hit. I think it has more to do with just the content itself, in other words the news item, it also has to do with the mix of programming. There's a popular one called Here and Now in Newfoundland, Labrador and it there was more to it than just the content; it was commentary, it was a slice of entertainment, and so on. At the time you made the decision was there at any point consideration that you would maintain some of these newscasts in full format as before and perhaps eliminate others where it just was not feasible? Is that a possibility in the future?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch:
At the time my board counselled very strongly against doing different things in different parts of the country and that was the basic advice that we had received. I will take the responsibility for doing that, that we did not go with a different model in different parts of the country. But to get to the point you made to start with, and I think you're absolutely right, I don't think it's just a matter of resources, I don't think it's just a matter of doing more local programming; I think it is a matter of the mix, it is the matter of attitude. And I can say that I think historically, in CBC, the regions, the local news casts were very often seen as the jumping off point to a national desk, to a national job. Whereas with a lot of the private stations, when you have got to be the anchor of the local news, you had made it. And if you look around you will see that a lot of them have made it and the result of that of course is they have more connection with their community, they're really much more part of the community, they're not just passing through. We have to change our attitude towards local and regional news. It's a money issue; it's also an attitude issue. And if we can succeed in doing that you will see significant change in our role.
Mr. Scott Simms: I just want to switch gears for bit.
You talk about no major private sector pursuit. Did I get that right? Am I quoting you right on that one? You mentioned earlier about private sector and I want to zero in on CBC sports here for a minute. Because the way I look at CBC sports is something that is very, very aggressive in private sector pursuits. And you said earlier “If the audience isn't the measure...”, I guess what I'm asking you is, what is when it comes to CBC Sports?
I understand Hockey Night in Canada is an institution, but you are the Olympic network, is that right?
º (1640)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes, now.
Mr. Scott Simms: Now you are.
When it comes to the Olympics and that sort of thing you've been very, very aggressive in achieving that coverage. So it's kind of the antithesis, not being, you know, totally wrapped up in the private sector. Would you agree?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Let me be a bit more precise on what I said about going after ratings. There are certain types of programs where ratings are important and one of those is sports, except for what we call Olympic sports. Our Saturday afternoon program is designed more than anything else to expose the athletes. We have a saying that we don't want you to see an athlete for the first time at the Olympics. You should be able to have seen them on CBC sports at some other time. And we're the only ones who cover these events, these Olympic sport events. TSN covers maybe three year, SportsNet maybe four a year. We do about 40 a year of the various different sports.
So from our point of view the Olympics is a jewel in the crown. It's the culmination of four years of work in the sports arena and that's why we go after the Olympics. We also feel it is very much one of these programs that unites the country and bring the country together. But there is a certain price at which we will not go after the Olympics. We will go only to a certain amount, but I must say, at that point, we'll have to reconsider what are we doing in Olympic-type sports?
When it comes to hockey it's a different story. We were the only one who was willing to bid for hockey because we were the only one who had the flexibility to change its schedule from April to June. If you are a private broadcaster--and believe me, I was one and I fully understand and accept it--you're into simulcasting. That's where your money is. You're simulcasting American product. And American product is produced right through to the third week of May. There's a sweeps period even in May. So you can't; you're going to lose money if you show a hockey game rather than a new copy of Law and Order. So we're the only ones who actually showed up to bid when it came to hockey.
Now, at the same time, I'm proud of what we do in hockey. We do things like Hockey Day in Canada, where we take hockey to small communities and do three games, all Canadian teams. I think it's part of the Canadian psyche and we should be involved in that, as much as we should be involved in coaching.
Mr. Scott Simms: Would you consider your Olympic coverage to be a success? I'm assuming you do, but how do you gauge that?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch:
I would say, quite frankly, our Olympic coverage is a very difficult situation right now. I would say the Summer Olympics are a success technically--the quality of production--so much so that in Athens in the hotel where the Olympic family lives, and that is all the big shots in the Olympics, the program they were showing was CBC. The CBC feed was the one they chose to show over all of the other feeds. Why? Because they say, and even NBC says, we have the best quality of production, relatively speaking, with a very small number of people compared to them. So on that point of view I'd say yes, it was a success.
Winter Olympics is a success because Canadians identify with winter sports. Summer Olympics, quite frankly, was a very hard sell. We met our numbers, but just barely, and we did lose money.
The Chair: Mr. Obhrai.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Thank you.
Thank you for coming. May I ask a question here that I keep getting from my constituents. However, when you came in front of the committee, you indicated that CBC's English-language local and supper-hour newscast does not attract large audiences and it keeps going down and down. You told the committee in 2000 that CBC Radio must maintain credible independent journalism.
What I'm hearing from my constituents in the west is that CBC does not present a balanced view. Now there's a difference between independent view and a balanced view and people are looking for a balanced view from CBC and if they don't get a balanced view, they shut it off. It's as simple as that.
If I look at a bigger picture of what is happening--and as my colleague talked about diversity--we're getting all this third-language television coming in here because you somehow seem to be missing that connection. You've identified yourself with local (inaudible).
My concern remains that when my constituents say that CBC is not providing a balanced view, it's a concern because it's shutting you off, your ratings are going down, the advertising revenue probably goes down, you'll be back saying you need more money, so I think it's all tied in to people watching CBC and getting a level of confidence that what CBC is giving is reflective of Canadians, of a balanced view that they can put trust in CBC. This rating business of going down is not showing the trust from my point of view, of CBC. And you have this new mandate to review, what would you like to say to that?
º (1645)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: First, I'd like a bit of a clarification. Are you talking about balance in news or balance in programming or both?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, balanced news and documentaries. Like when you want to put trust into CBC, you should be able to see that yes, when I switch on CBC, I feel comfortable, it's a public broadcasting. You know, the way BBC has established itself as a credible, balanced radio network around the world.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It depends on the community, sir. There are many who don't believe that.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Nevertheless, CBC has to be seen, and I'm getting it in my constituency and I'm sorry to say that people are tuning you off. They say they're not getting a balanced view; they're getting a one-sided view of topics and issues.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I would be disappointed to hear that. I must say that, as you know, we have the most comprehensive ombudsman system probably in the world and the purpose of the ombudsman is to ensure there isn't bias and there is a balance in the programming. I have had complaints from different communities at different times and I've also had the same communities come back and say, “You're now balanced again” or “We're now much more comfortable”.
I must say, our ratings are not going down. If anything, this year our ratings until October 31 were at 7.9% which is quite amazing considering everything. And last year we finished at 7.4% and that again represented an increase. I think Canadians are coming to us because we are doing distinctive, different programming and I think just the numbers from that point of view speak for themselves.
In terms of balance, I would be very concerned and I would ask anybody if they have any specifics, to please bring them to my attention.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Do I have more time?
The Chair: One more minute.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, you know, you may have an ombudsman, and I don't say that there's no need for an ombudsman, but the problem is people, instead of going to the ombudsman, will just tune you out, they'll tune you out. You have, of course, indicated here, like the (inaud.) in some of the programs that are of the nature that will attract ratings over there, and people will watch CBC on that aspect. As you rightly pointed out, it brings the nation together.
I want to let you know what I'm hearing from my (inaud) ##, where it's news, documentaries, those types of things, people are not confident with the CBC. I'm letting you know what I'm hearing, they're not comfortable with it.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I don't challenge you, sir. I'm just concerned and would love to have specifics, both to me and to the ombudsman, because it's only with specifics that I can react, and quite frankly I have. We have looked when people have been concerned with balance and fairness.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thought I would let you know.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Please.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.
Now, since everybody has had one round, if the committee would indulge your chair for one or two questions, and we'll come right back and start the rounds again.
I just wanted to say that anytime I have the opportunity to watch a couple or more hours of American television, I'm grateful for the CBC, because I think that not only has the CBC played an important role as such, but that it has set a higher standard for private broadcasting, telecasting, in Canada as well.
I would like to know of everything that's happened in the last five years, what is the most important thing you feel you have done for Canada as president of the CBC, and three years from now what do you hope will be the most important thing you have done in those three years?
º (1650)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It's a very wide question, and as a consequence it's a very difficult question to answer.
I'm really quite comfortable with the progress that we have made to date. I am very concerned about the future in terms of our ability to fund new programming. The shelf life of a program is so short, you're constantly having to come up with new interesting programs.
What I feel I have done more than anything else is, in a period where the government was not willing to give us more money, we have been able to finance from within some very dramatic changes, including the news integration, the Ottawa project right here on Sparks Street, which is a phenomenal project, and bringing all the services together. We've done the same thing in Edmonton, we've done the same thing in Quebec City.
We have been able to milk our resources and get money out of the resources. It's been painful, it's hurt people, people have been concerned, but we have raised on a continuing basis $65 million. That has given us, I won't say a cushion, but it's allowed us to absorb the normal inflationary pressures that we have.
I am very satisfied with the extent to which we are now running one corporation. We were running four separate corporations when I came in, and that was the history of the CBC. The president stayed in Ottawa and the vice-presidents came up on a shuttle service, and each ran their own independent entity. We now do a lot of programs together, and there's a lot that francophones can learn from English Canadians, and that English Canadians can learn from francophones. That's part of making a country, especially this country.
So programs like
[Français]
Le dernier chapitre
[English]
or programs like Trudeau, these to me are great successes, and more importantly, they're successes because it's gotten people to think and work together, and not see themselves as separate entities who come together only for one thing, presenting their budget and coming before this committee. So, from my point of view, that is a very, very important integrating function, which in the long run will help build the CBC into a quality public broadcaster.
I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I also wanted to explore, since this is a very current issue, what is the CBC's relationship with Sirius, and how does that fit in with your mandate? I'm sure you understand some of the reasons I'm concerned when I see quotes from one of the program hosts who is kind of the star of the Sirius programming.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Right. If you'll indulge me, let me put it into context. There are two satellite systems launched by American corporations for the sole purpose of delivering radio, basically, to 100% of North America. Both of these companies have a very significant relationship with the automobile industry. So the automobile industry is installing, as primary equipment, these receivers, as we speak. As a consequence, these services will be available in Canada, whether we like it or not, through a grey market or directly.
We had conversations with satellite operators when we did our homework--and we are always trying to look at different ways that things are operating--we had conversations with satellite operators in Canada and we were told very clearly that no Canadian company could afford to launch these type of satellite. This was the case of the Sirius satellite system, which costs $800 million U.S., and there's no way that you could recapture those funds. We were also very concerned that these services would be available to Canadians and CBC would not be available because it would not be on the bird.
And the other thing, as well, we have a music service called Galaxy, which has done extremely well for ourselves, and now nets us about $10 million a year. As a businessman, I was concerned that it was vulnerable to the satellite services coming in. So the two of these issues, plus, I guess, a third, and that is the possibility of making money and, from our point of view, to the extent I can make funds available to the CBC separate from the appropriation, the more I cannot so much insulate the CBC but I can give it the funds it needs to be able to do programming that we want. If you look at all of these factors together, we decided that it would be ostrich-like to put our heads in the sand. It would be a better opportunity for us to do a partnership with the corporation, called Sirius, and in that way get Canadian services on the satellite.
Therefore, it starts from the principle that this is inevitable, t's coming, it's here already, and there is a grey market already. But what we said to the CRTC is the Canadian corporation will have total control over what will be on air. So while there are a hundred services up there, we will decide, and we will decide, obviously, in consultation a) with good taste; b) with this committee, if the committee wants to discuss it; c) with the CRTC, whether or not certain programs will be allowed.
º (1655)
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rabinovitch.
My apologies to Mr. Angus. I skipped over him.
Mr. Charlie Angus: Oh, that's okay, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Well, I think you hadn't raised your hands, so that's my excuse.
Mr. Charlie Angus: I was looking at you.
Mr. Rabinovitch, 1999: I'm looking at Globe and Mail article that talks about the angry feud between you and the CRTC, and the headline is, “Broadcaster President Says Sees National Service Rather Than Reliance on Local TV Stations”. At that time, that was very much identified with what you were coming in to do, which was to move us away from reliance on local to national. Two months later, you appeared before the heritage committee and you said: “I would like to make one thing clear at the outset, we are not asking for additional funding”. A few months after that, the decision was made to start cutting, shrinking, the regional newscasts, which lost over 200,000 viewers.
Today, when I asked you about that, you said that you had to make those cuts because there was a funding shortfall. I don't understand why you didn't tell the committee in 2000: “We are going to be making serious cuts to regional programming across the country because we don't have any money. We need money”. It seems to me that it was very clear that your mandate was to move away from regional funding.
I would ask you today, was that decision, to cut those local networks, was that a mistake?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: When I appeared before the committee I said that we would not at this time ask for additional funds and it was for a couple of reasons. Number one, CBC did not have credibility with government and that was clear from the fact that CBC had been cut every year since about 1984 either directly or through inflation. As well in 1995, 1996 the CBC was cut by $450 million. So it was sort of silly to say I'm going to go to government and ask for money when in fact the message was extremely clear that at that point in time CBC did not have credibility with government.
My intention was to show the senior managers of government and the senior ministers in government that we could run an efficient operation and that we could generate the funds we needed from within. The cuts that you are talking about, sir, are the cuts that resulted directly from the $450 million cut that was imposed on the CBC. It was the last step in the process. It was well advanced by the time I came in, but I will take the responsibility for it.
We had a $60 million or $70 million shortfall in the English network. The French network had already done its adjustments, radio had already done some adjustments, but the English network had not yet completed its adjustments. In the wisdom of the times, firstly with the CRTC, we said that the decision they came out with pretended that there was no funding problems. The fact was there were serious funding problems and therefore I said I could not live with the decision because it took away from my board the responsibility to manage the corporation, but it also set targets that were impossible to meet.
Now would I have cut regional programming? At the time I did not know of any other way to manage the CBC. I knew that if we didn't have a strong core program across the country we would definitely move into irrelevance. Today we are in a different situation. Today there've been significant technological breakthroughs; server technology has helped to a very real extent in lowering costs; systems like ParkerVision have reduced costs; the integration of the news rooms, so it's one news room whether it's radio or T.V., and we can train people to be both D.J.'s and radio reporters; has allowed us to reconsider whether or not we have the mix right.
I'm not going to say that we don't make mistakes. We put on programs that sometimes don't work. Sometimes we have a program that works and you do a reprise of the program and it doesn't work. Only a fool, and I don't think I'm that, would ever say we get every decision right or that we're not willing to reconsider decisions. What I am saying is we are really re-evaluating the entire supper hour model, which by the way, my friends in the private sector will not be happy about.
» (1700)
Mr. Charlie Angus: Thank you for that answer.
The other night I was watching the 1975 showdown between the Montreal Canadiens and the Red Army team and a mighty fine game it was. In fact I couldn't remember who won so I watched it right to the end.
I understand we're looking at $50 million to $60 million in losses from advertising this year. On top of that we will see $10 million being cut by this government. In light of those losses I'd ask you two questions. You'd said that we had continual cuts because CBC did not have credibility with the government at the time. Does CBC still not have credibility with this government? Secondly, what will the loss of this $10 million on top of the severe losses of advertising revenue do to your ability to provide programming?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch:
There are several parts to this question. Number one, the loss on hockey is not as great as has been reported. It's more in the $20 million range, but I can't pretend that that's not significant. That is also the reason why we have sacrificed Saturday nights to movies, which are drawing really quite well, but it's not our intention to have to run a movie service. Our intention is to protect the other six days of Canadian content. But we are drawing reasonably well in the 1 million to 1.2 million view range and that's a case where “les cotes d'écoute c'est tout” and we were after audience, pure and simple. We show Indiana Jones to get audience, to sell advertising, to protect the service. So that strategy is helping us, but it will be a minimum $20 million loss that we're looking at.
The $10 million cut is serious. It seems like nothing on a budget that we have, but remember it comes out of programming. Now, the government has been good to us and has given us $60 million, which I think I've said to the committee at one point, is two-thirds of the way to where I think we have to be, and that's without going into regional local programming, if we're going to maintain and develop the quality of service that we want to in terms of the quality of programs. But basically, the $60 million is now really $50 million and we don't have a guarantee that we're going to get the $60 million. On top of that, as you know, the government is going through an expenditure evaluation and we have no idea whether or not we will have a cut there.
All of these cuts, and I say this quite frankly, because of the five years of squeezing and looking for economies within the corporation, will be seen on the air. That's what it comes down to. At the end of the day our product is on the air and any money we have we put back on the air. I don't pay dividends. I'm not like Hydro- Quebec where I'm expected to pay the government a dividend. Every cent we have we put into programming. So cuts to the Canadian Television Fund, because we're the largest user of the Canadian Television Fund, whether it's $8 million here, $10 million there, it looks like peanuts, but the reality is it's hurts.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rabinovitch. A very clear message there, I thought.
Mr. Kotto and then Mr. Schellenberger and Ms. Jennings.
[Français]
M. Maka Kotto: Merci, madame la présidente.
Monsieur Rabinovitch, bonsoir. Je vais vous poser des questions courtes et je souhaiterais avoir des réponses courtes, vu que nous n'avons pas beaucoup de temps.
Est-ce que vous vous préparez à privatiser en partie ou la totalité de la Société Radio-Canada?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Non.
M. Maka Kotto: Est-ce que vous avez eu écho de certains commentaires qui ont été faits à votre endroit à l'effet que vous n'écoutez pas?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Je n'écoute pas quoi?
M. Maka Kotto: Je prends l'exemple de l'UNEQ, l'Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois qui, à plusieurs reprises, a voulu vous rencontrer pour vous adresser des problèmes qui les affectaient, notamment la carence d'émissions littéraires à la télévision de Radio-Canada. Comment expliquez-vous cet état de fait et comment comptez-vous y remédier? Également, comment expliquez-vous la disparition de la Chaîne culturelle qui a causé énormément de remous dans la société? Pourquoi l'initiative a-t-elle été prise sans aucune consultation du milieu?
» (1705)
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Monsieur Kotto, il y a peut-être là un manque de communication. Cependant, je dois vous dire franchement que je n'ai jamais reçu de demande, de n'importe quel groupe, à laquelle je n'ai répondu. Alors, je suis toujours prêt...
M. Maka Kotto: Personnellement?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Personnellement. Je suis toujours prêt à les rencontrer. Vous savez que je viens de Montréal et que j'y passe au moins un ou deux jours par semaine. Alors, aussitôt que je reçois une demande, nous organisons une réunion. Donc, soit qu'il s'agisse d'un manque de communication ou que la demande ait été faite par l'entremise de quelqu'un d'autre. Toutefois, si je reçois une demande, je peux vous assurer que je vais les rencontrer.
M. Maka Kotto: Comment expliquez-vous la disparition de la Chaîne culturelle?
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Premièrement, on a complété la Chaîne culturelle l'année passée. On a mis en place—c'était une de mes priorités—20 émetteurs pour couvrir tout le pays. Cela nous a également donné plus de flexibilité pour penser à la programmation. On n'a pas changé la programmation culturelle. En réalité on l'a mis sur la Première chaîne et on a augmenté les heures de culture, les écrivains, etc., de 20 p. 100 de 10 heures à 12 heures. Non seulement cela, mais l'appareil de la Première chaîne est beaucoup plus grand que l'appareil de la Chaîne culturelle.
De l'autre côté, on a conclu qu'avec les autres services de radio à Montréal et dans le reste du Canada français, il y avait des alternatives pour les services classiques. Ce qu'on a bien voulu faire c'est de développer un service musique qui est vraiment de la musique diversifiée, toutes sortes de musique. Un quart d'heure de musique classique tous les jours, cela existe toujours, plus de musique classique pendant la fin de semaine mais aussi de la musique de jazz, de la musique qui vient de l'Union européenne des radiodiffuseurs. On a essayé de faire une programmation plus intéressante qui peut capter un plus grand auditoire.
M. Maka Kotto: C'était le but de ma première question à savoir si vous envisagiez de privatiser en partie ou entièrement la Société Radio-Canada. Une institution d'État comme la Société Radio-Canada entreprenant une telle initiative, celle que beaucoup considèrent comme un démantèlement du vecteur culturel, aurait nécessité par ce geste, la consultation du milieu, c'est-à-dire des gens concernés. Vous n'êtes pas sans savoir le nombre de courriels envoyés ici et là, d'articles parus dans les journaux et le nombre de désertions de la Chaîne radio en particulier.
M. Robert Rabinovitch: Je sais. En même temps, n'oubliez pas d'une autre côté que plusieurs articles dans les journaux français du Québec ont dit que la Chaîne culturelle était une chaîne avec une cote d'écoute qui descend toujours. Même les personnes qui veulent qu'on utilise leur programmation ne l'écoutent pas. Si on peut augmenter la programmation culturelle sur la Première chaîne, cela peut donner plus d'opportunités à des discussions réelles de la culture. On en a assez de faire des changements. Il faut en faire de temps en temps. On a pensé qu'en réalité la programmation de la Chaîne culturelle doit changer, être de plus en plus un espace musique.
[English]
The Chair:
Mr. Schellenberger, then Ms. Jennings.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I have a quick one here, probably. The report that was brought in, in June of 2003 and the committee tabled took more than two years of committee work and it produced 870 pages, and I think it was 97 recommendations. Many of these recommendations applied, again, directly to the CBC.
My question is a kind of twofold question. Based on your experience at the CBC, how many of these recommendations has the government acted on and have there been major changes in the industry in Canada over the last few months that would explain inaction on these recommendations or make the committee's recommendations obsolete?
» (1710)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch:
I can only comment on those that have a direct impact on management. A lot of the recommendations, as you know, were recommendations to government. On those, I really can't and should not comment.
I can tell you that from our point of view as management, we have no problems with the recommendations that were made. In fact, as we said before, at the last meeting I attended here, we actually prioritized the recommendations and said “Come forward, first, with your regional and local plan, and then we'll go on from there”.
With respect to the last part of your question, we are in an industry in major flux. With the development of personal video recorders, with the change in people's listening habits as a consequence, the personal video recorder is now getting 25%-40% and being given away as free goods in the United States. This is having a dramatic effect on the television industry. It has a lot of people very worried because the television industry is based on advertising. We're unique, even though advertising is important to us, we are unique. I make no bones about it. Without the help of government, we can't do the type of programming that we're doing.
There are a lot of people who are talking, sir, about how broadcasting now in the United States has been flattened out, and radio having gone down, I'm talking in terms of market valuations. As a consequence, people are not recommending the purchase of broadcasting stocks, which is usually a good indication of what's going on in the industry.
There are some very dramatic changes. The committee may wish to look into that and bringing some experts to look at that. From the point of view of the CBC, these are opportunities. We have to recognize that people will not necessarily watch the programs when you show it to them, but with their PVRs, they will watch them on weekends or at other times. That's just fine. As far as I'm concerned, our job is to create quality programming. It's the public's opportunity to watch it when they see fit.
I don't think your recommendations have much of an impact upon us directly, given the world's change, but the world has changed.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Is the mandate you've been given at the CBC as realistic one, given the resources you have? I understand, it sounds like $1 billion is a lot of money, but is the mandate to deliver those services, is it $1.2 billion worth that this government wants from the $1 billion it's putting up?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'll answer the question indirectly, and then answer it directly. The BBC gets $7 billion a year with which to produce in one language and covering the whole country, you can do about 6 transmitters. We have 1,500 transmitters. We have many services. Our total budget from government is about $950 million, including our capital budget. The rest we get through advertising through specialty services. We generate about 40% now of our budget.
It is the bare minimum. I can hide behind it when I say that is the reason why we did what we did on local programming. We felt we didn't have a choice, as bad and as a painful as it was. It's just the technology changes that may give us the opportunity and the help of this committee that will give us the opportunity to revisit that.
We are really on the thin edge of the line, especially when you consider inflation, natural inflation, le droit de l'auteur, things of this nature that are eminently fair and logical, but cost us with every decision that's made, and therefore takes money out of programming.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: One last, quick question. I will be quick.
The Chair: You have 32 seconds left.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I do know that it's up to the Olympic committee to decide who receives the contract for the Olympics. Will there be a level playing field for the 2010 Canadian Olympics or Winter Olympics? In your mind, do you feel that there is a fair and transparent bidding process between our public broadcasters and our private broadcasters.
» (1715)
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The answer is, yes. We were the ones who were most concerned about a fair, level playing field and actually talked to the Competition Bureau. We felt that it was a deliberate attempt to take us out of the play. Since that time, we've had discussions with other private broadcasters. I'm now quite confident that from that point of view it is a level playing field.
I can assure committee members we are not going to bid like drunken sailors. There's a price up to which we will go. After that price, we will not go beyond that. We believe that we do the job well. IOC believes that we do the job well.
Remember, from our point of view the Olympics is one piece of a four-year strategy of showing Olympic athletes. We lose money on all our programming on Saturdays, whether it's Adrénaline in French, or whether it is That Saturday Show. We lose big money, relatively speaking. I'm sure if we don't get the Olympics, my board is going to ask us to re-evaluate our commitment to Olympic sports.
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
Ms. Jennings, and then after that I'm going to call this session to a close. I'd like to have a few minutes to find out how the committee wants to proceed from here, for our next meeting in particular.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rabinovitch, for your presence here today.
I have two questions. One has to do with the multicultural content. Let me start by saying that I consider myself a friend of CBC and Radio-Canada. I believe that you're underfunded, and I certainly support significant increase in the budget.
That being said, I do want to herald the fact that there is more multicultural content; however, I believe that there is a hole that has been identified. When we look at Canadian Television Fund, Téléfilm Canada, it has what you'd call a “stream” for visible minority producers. However the bulk of that funding goes to visible minority producers outside of Quebec, and within Quebec to francophone visible minority producers.
English-speaking film makers who are visible minorities in Quebec are basically left out of the loop; one, because they're English speaking, and therefore don't get to tap into the funding that goes to just generally English-speaking programming; and two, because they're visible minorities. Visible minorities in Quebec do not have the same critical mass, for instance in Montreal, that we would have in Toronto where close to 50% of the population is visible minority.
I'd like to know what you, as the head of CBC, would do to ensure that gap and those two silos come together cross (inaudible) in order to ensure that visible minority film makers who are English speaking in Quebec have more access to the dollars to actually produce our stories. That's the first question.
The second question is about labour conflict. You've just gone through a major labour conflict last year with the union on the French side with Moncton, Montreal, and I believe it's Manitoba. It was negotiations which were very conflictual. I received a lot of documentation from the union.
One of the main pieces was the fact that there's inequality in the salaries that are paid depending on one's gender in certain positions. That has been documented and confirmed by an independent inquiry. I would like to know what you, as the head of CBC, intend to do to correct that, one; and secondly, generally in terms of labour relation, how do you foresee that in the future?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Should I start with the second question first?
Hon. Marlene Jennings: You can start wherever you want as long as you answer all of them.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I will try, and I'm sure you will make sure that I answer them.
There was no labour conflict. There was a difficult negotiation. There were no walkouts, no lockouts.
» (1720)
Hon. Marlene Jennings: True.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: If I may say, Madam, I really believe that the union tried to make it political, and came here and talked to MPs. And we did as well.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: So you tried to make it political too.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We never went first. We always followed the--
Hon. Marlene Jennings: It doesn't matter. If you went there--
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We have to answer to positions that I make. This is managing a company and at the end of the day, by 75%, which is the highest number we have ever had with a journalist union, we had agreement. That is quite a feather in all of our caps, and I put that to both the union and ourselves. There is a game that is played in union negotiations, as you know, and it can be quite tough.
In terms of the inequality of gender, we have had an independent report done. There is a committee that is a joint labour/management committee and I made a commitment to this committee, I believe the last time I was here, that we would not tolerate this. We are eliminating it as quickly as we can, but it is done jointly with the union. I am quite confident. If you hear otherwise, please let me know because it's my commitment and my chair's commitment that we would not tolerate this.
With respect to the Anglophone community in Montreal's access to the CTF, there's not much I can do directly because we don't control the CTF, but I can tell you this. We will look at any proposal that comes forward from the point of view of whether we can support it and therefore help them to get access to those funds. Sometimes it's programming for RDI. Sometimes it's for Newsworld. Sometimes, in fact, it can be co-programming. Some of the best stuff that's coming out of Montreal is this cross-cultural programming. There's no reason why we can't tap into those funds as well. I would encourage them to talk to our people and if they have a problem they can contact me. The contacts may be in Toronto because that's where the bulk of the English money is negotiated even though there are over 75 individual producers outside of the Toronto area who get funds to produce programming on the English side.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: How many of them are visible minorities from Quebec?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I can't answer that question. I have a funny feeling that you know the answer.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: Actually I don't. That's why I'm asking the question.
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I honestly don't know. I will try to find out.
The Chair: May I ask that Mr. Rabinovitch undertake to provide that answer not only to Ms. Jennings but to all members of the committee?
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like to take the remaining time for a bit of discussion about how we want to proceed.
I thank you, Mr. Rabinovitch, for coming. We'll let you know if the committee wants you back.
We only have a few minutes left so I'd like to get the business of the committee for the next little while resolved.
Question number one is the agenda for our Wednesday meeting, whether the committee would like to have Mr. Rabinovitch back and whether you would like to consider a report on the testimony we've heard today.
There is one thing I would like to do in response to our last meeting and discussion. Our committee staff has put together a proposed schedule of meetings from now until the Christmas recess and then early into the new year. I would like to get that resolved so we know what we're doing from now until Christmas. I'd like to take a bit of time for that at our Wednesday meeting.
The Minister of State (Sport) was invited but is not able to be here, so we have that meeting for other issues you might want to address.
Can I have some response from the committee?
Hon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): If I may, Madam Chairman, are we moving to future business?
The Chair: No, I don't want to deal with it right now but I would like to put that on as the first item on our Wednesday meeting.
Hon. Sarmite Bulte: Will we have had a chance to review what your researchers have put together so we can prioritize it before we come back?
» (1725)
The Chair: Yes.
Hon. Sarmite Bulte: I just want to follow up on what Mr. Kotta talked about today in the House, the UNESCO convention. It is important that we deal with that.
The Chair: As I say, we expected to have the Minister of State for Sport on Wednesday. He's not available, so we have a bit of time. Could I just get an indication whether (1) does the committee want Mr. Rabinovitch back for any reason?
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: No, I don't think we need him to come back.
The Chair: Are we reasonably satisfied?
Does the committee--
[Français]
M. Maka Kotto: Vous savez, M. Rabinovitch va être nommé pour trois ans et passer deux heures pour amener une telle reconduction sans aller au fond des choses. J'avais beaucoup d'autres questions à poser. J'ai eu une dizaine de minutes et les réponses étaient tellement longues que les questions qui