HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch (President and CEO, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1120

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Harold Redekopp (Executive Vice-President, English Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Á

1130

Mr. Daniel Gourd (Executive Vice-President, French Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Á

1140

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Á

1145

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Á

1150

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Á

1155

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC)

Â

1200

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.)

Â

1205

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Â

1210

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Â

1215

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Â

1220

Ms. Johanne Charbonneau (Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Johanne Charbonneau

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Â

1225

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Â

1230

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. Harold Redekopp

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Â

1235

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Â

1240

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Johanne Charbonneau

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Johanne Charbonneau

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Â

1245

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Â

1250

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

Â

1255

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 053

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

    The committee is meeting today pursuant to a motion moved by Mr. John Harvard and adopted by the committee. The motion, a short one, reads as follows:

It was agreed,—That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite the President and Executive Vice-President, French Television of CBC/Radio-Canada to appear before the committee to discuss the recent $10 million cut in the Corporation's budget.

[English]

It was agreed, — That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite the President and the Executive Vice-President, French Television of CBC/Radio-Canada to appear before the Committee to discuss the recent $10 million dollar cut in the Corporation’s budget.

    Before I give the floor to Mr. Rabinovitch, I was wondering, Mr. Harvard, if you want to say anything in regard to your motion, or will you let it speak for itself?

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think it does largely speak for itself, but I think this is an opportunity for Mr. Rabinovitch to put certain things on record.

    I have always been a well-known supporter of public broadcasting. When matters of this kind come not only to my attention but to the public's attention, you wonder about the impact, and I just want to hear from Mr. Rabinovitch not only what's been happening of late at the CBC, but also the kind of impact this might have on operations.

    We're into a new fall television schedule, and of course there's a new schedule on CBC Radio as well, and I'd like to have an update on that. I hear there are possibly some very good things coming out of the new fall programming.

    I look forward to Mr. Rabinovitch's presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. Rabinovitch, welcome to our committee hearing. I was wondering if, to start with and to put it on the record, you might introduce your colleagues here.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch (President and CEO, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to introduce Daniel Gourd, the executive vice-president of French television; Harold Redekopp, executive vice-president of English television; and Johanne Charbonneau, vice-president and chief financial officer.

    I have a short statement, if that's okay with you.

    The Chair: That's all right, Mr. Rabinovitch. Please go ahead.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: All of us will also be willing to answer questions, not only on television but also on radio, Internet, and everything else we try to do.

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for inviting us to speak with you today about the impact of the recent reallocation of $10 million from the CBC's parliamentary appropriations as part of the government's one billion dollar exercise.

    As I already mentioned, with me today is Daniel Gourd, Executive Vice-President of French Television, and Harold Redekopp, Executive Vice-President of English Television, whose service faces similar challenges to French television. I'm also accompanied by Joanne Charbonneau, CBC/Radio-Canada Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer. All are prepared to answer your questions, particularly with respect to the impact of the cuts in their area of operations.

    As this is our first appearance before the committee since it began its important review of the Canadian broadcasting system, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the committee for its report: Our cultural sovereignty. We agree with many, many of your recommendations. We are heartened by the keen understanding of public broadcasting evidenced in the report and the recognition of the important role CBC/Radio-Canada plays in broadcasting and in the cultural development of Canada.

[English]

    In this report you showed an understanding of the need for adequate stable funding if CBC/Radio-Canada is to meet its mandate and assigned responsibilities. You also recommended that our funding be increased. You also recognized the unique circumstance of the television production environment, especially the length of time it takes to bring a program idea to the screen, and that this means we need multi-year funding to develop Canadian programming.

    We are here today because you've asked us about the impact of yet another cut to our funding. Let me say at the outset that the simple answer to the question is that the impact of this reduction will inevitably be on programming across all of our services--television, radio, specialty services, and the new media. This $10 million reduction was apportioned in the following manner: $3.5 million to English television, $3 million to French television, $500,000 to French radio, $500,000 to English radio, and $2.5 million to corporate components.

    My colleagues and I are willing to share some information on how we are implementing these budget reductions. I would also add at this time that we have managed to limit the impact on the regions of Canada.

    While the impact of these reductions is on our programming, it will not be immediately visible because we had some advance warning and were able to plan. As well, we were able to limit the inevitable effects on our workforce.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    But this reduction cannot be seen in isolation, and when seen in a broader context, it has a much more significant impact.

    As you are well aware, in the 2003 budget the Canadian Television Fund was reduced by $50 million over two years. With reduced funding to independent producers, broadcasters, including CBC/Radio-Canada, had to increase their own commitments to productions, through enhanced licence fees and equity investments, or see many projects simply die. For CBC/Radio-Canada, this means that approximately 100 hours of programming—original, Canadian programming—will not be produced and will not be seen.

[English]

    The value of CBC's pension plan, like other employer pension plans, is affected by the changes in interest rates and the stock market. As a result, the contribution holiday that both the corporation and its employees have enjoyed since January 2000 will come to an end in January 2004. This means the corporation faces an additional $43-million-per-year expenditure, which for the last several years has been going into enhancing our programming and our services.

    I don't want to be misunderstood. We are not complaining or wishing to shirk our responsibilities in this regard, but an additional $10 million reduction to our appropriation in this context clearly has a compounding effect.

    In addition, we must often contend with the unknown and with unplanned events. This year, the war in Iraq--which continues--multiple provincial elections, and natural catastrophes such as the forest fires in the west, the eastern North America blackout, and Hurricane Juan have put a greater strain on our resources than anticipated. But these are not the types of events we can ignore or give short shrift to. As the nation's public broadcaster, we have an even more important role to inform in these times.

    As our chair, Madam Taylor, noted, our appropriations in constant 2003 dollars are $319 million lower than they were in 1990. Yet, as you know, we provide more services on more platforms. The cost of doing business is also consistently on the rise.

    For example, according to the CTF, the Canadian Television Fund, in 2001 it cost an average of $990,000 to produce one hour of high-quality Canadian drama. In 2003, the average cost of production rose substantially to $1.1 million.

[Translation]

    Nonetheless, we have been able to support our services in this environment. We have so far been able to limit the impact through internal efficiencies, especially in the areas of real estate and technology. For example, over the past three years, we have generated proceeds of $15.3 million from the sale of real estate assets. We are also generating approximately $5 million per year through various leases. We have restructured and renegotiated maintenance budgets without reducing service and have started an energy conservation program, with combined annual savings of $4.2 million.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    Moving forward, we anticipate additional savings. For example, a number of ongoing technology projects, once fully implemented in the next couple of years, will yield over $7 million in annual savings. In all, generated savings will help to offset some of the rising costs of doing business.

    We estimate that beyond the funding received from government, CBC must absorb annually $12 million in salary commitments, inflationary pressures such as rights fees, electricity, etc. This is new money that we need to find every year.

    It is within this total context of decreasing real appropriations, increasing costs of doing business, increasing commitments for pension plan payments, that the additional $10 million is a bitter pill to swallow. This lack of stability and predictability in our funding levels reduces our ability to create programming and to consistently increase our services and the value of these services to Canadians.

    I believe this committee has already deciphered the solution. In chapter 6 of Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting, your recommendation 6.1 states:

    

The Committee recommends that Parliament provide the CBC with increased and stable multi-year funding...so that it may adequately fulfill its mandate as expressed in the Broadcasting Act.

    Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I could have said it any better than that. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We are now ready to take your questions, sir.

    The Chair: We are opening the floor to questions. We'll start with Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Rabinovitch and others, for coming today. It's a little bit oddball in a sense. We're debating a motion from Liberals who support the CBC, who also cut your funding by $10 million, so it's an interesting discussion.

    Of course, you've already had one go at it in the Senate last week. Most of us watched that with interest, and you had a bit of a rough ride there. One of the things you said at that meeting, Mr. Rabinovitch, is:

If we were just being driven by ratings, it's a very easy way to do things. But that's not what our objectives have been.

You said that as a public broadcaster, “we have to recognize that ratings can't be the driving force”.

    You've mentioned, and I think Canadians agree, that one of the CBC's objectives is to tell--and I think Ms. Taylor made this point--Canadian stories to one another. But if market share is not the driving force and if your market share generally, because of the expanding number of channels in the universe, is declining, how do you measure your success? With the $10 million or not, how do you measure your success if it's not in the ratings?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Mr. Strahl, I would never suggest that ratings are not important. They just cannot be the only driving force in determining programming. We would not be doing children's programming to the extent that we do it. We would not be doing programs like Opening Nighton Thursdays, which is our high-culture program, if we were ratings-driven.

    As a public broadcaster, it's a combination of things. It's the reach. It's giving a service to people who would not otherwise have a service, and it is telling those Canadian stories, and it is telling them well, and investing in a quality program such as the one that's been on for the last two nights about the Halifax disaster. There is definitely a market for those programs.

    But at the same time, what I meant to say, and I repeat, is that if we're solely driven by ratings, then the logic for a public broadcaster would begin to diminish quite significantly, because there are other alternatives for the Canadian population to get their American programs and other forms of light entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that, but our job is to give a mix and not be driven by ratings.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: We're talking about the $10 million, but there's a lot of money involved, and every year you have to make presentations to the finance committee to justify your existence. You go through this frequently, as you should, as is necessary for all crown corporations and people who receive money from the public taxpayer.

    When you get a show like what was aired the last couple of nights, people are thrilled. They say, that's good; it's a Canadian story that's been well done.

    Congratulations, by the way, to everyone involved in that. It's been well done, it's been well received, it gets a good market share, and people like it. It makes them feel they understand that story a little bit better. They feel it's Canadians telling stories to one another in a way that makes them feel positive about CBC and positive about other Canadians, but that's also filling a market share. It's something people like. Your numbers are going to be good for that show, I predict. It tells a Canadian story. It fulfills your mandate that way.

    The puzzle for many of us is, that works, you have broad success in that and large amounts of public support both in Parliament and outside of it, but when you wander off into some of the stuff that is so specialized, with such a small niche market, wouldn't that be better looked after by the small niche specialty channels, of which there are a plethora? Rather than spend a huge amount of money on the 1% or 2% who might actually watch that, the 90% who don't bother, and maybe the 10% who are offended by it, why not stick to what you do best?

    Last night was a good example. You'd have more support both in the public, with the ratings, and in Parliament if you do what you did best. Last night was good.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I have a couple of answers to your questions, sir.

    First, we could not afford to do a whole schedule of the quality we did last night. This was a very expensive production, and that is, quite frankly, where the cuts really hurt, in the money we could put up to do programs of that nature. I'll ask Mr. Redekopp to expand on that a bit.

    At the same time, I believe the mandate we have received from Parliament in terms of the Broadcasting Act calls for us to do services that are not financially viable for private undertakings. Programs like Opening Night would not appear on any other service and have not appeared on any other service. It's not as if we have grabbed the market for high cultural programming like the Royal Winnipeg Ballet or the Calgary Symphony or the Vancouver Symphony. These programs just won't appear if we, the public broadcaster, don't step forward and do it. When we do that we know that our maximum audience is not over a million, like last night. Our maximum audience is maybe 150,000 to 250,000, but they're Canadians as well, and we feel we should be delivering some service to them, to other Canadians who are interested in this type of programming.

    Similarly, we don't do advertising in children's programming. It's a safe haven. It's a place for parents to allow their children to watch TV and feel comfortable with what they're seeing, and it's also, quite frankly, educational. Other private broadcasters--and I don't knock them, sir, they're in the business of making money--cannot afford to undertake to serve that community like we can.

    I think we would be derelict in our responsibility if we didn't look to a balance of programming between high-profile events like last night--we call them “impact specials”--and other programming that is just as successful in terms of serving a certain audience, even though the numbers are radically less.

    The Chair: Does somebody else wish to comment?

    Mr. Redekopp.

    Mr. Harold Redekopp (Executive Vice-President, English Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Yes, I'll try to pick up on the president's point, but I would like to give an additional answer to your question, Mr. Strahl, which was on the question of ratings. First of all, if you deal with share, the way to deal with keeping your share up is to make sure that all of your programming is as popular as possible. The president has spoken about the kind of mixed portfolio programming we have to deliver.

    Let me talk about other measures. The measure that we look to use is one that measures both use or usage and value. When you're talking about usage, share is only one measure, and reach is another. For example, A Shattered City-The Halifax Explosion, got us 1.4 million average viewers on Sunday night, and that's a good number by any measure. CTV was running Cold Case, and I think they got 1.1 million from 8 to 9 p.m., and then from 9 to 10 p.m. they ran Law and Order for 1.7 million. So that's the competition. Anything over one million is, I think, a real success, but that's not the only measure.

    Let's talk about value. Five times a year we go into the field and measure impact, what people think about our programming. In the case of news, for example, we're number one in terms of breaking national news, we're number one in terms of credibility, we're number one in terms of depth. That, together with usage, becomes some kind of measure in terms of how successful we are. So, really, that's what I would say about measurement.

    In terms of the high-impact programming, we agree with you, Mr. Strahl, that this is in fact where we should be going. We aim--that's our objective--to have seven per year. But these high-impact programs cost in the neighbourhood of $10-million-plus. That's not a big budget compared to what we're facing from south of the border. Our portion of that is not $10 million because we go through the fund and it's roughly a 4:1 ratio, but the cost of such programming is in the order of $10 million and more. That is precisely the problem we're facing in terms of financing that with some assurance over subsequent years.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: We'll come back to that, Mr. Strahl.

    Madam Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for accepting to appear before the committee, particularly since in the current situation, the CBC is facing a crisis. Mr. Rabinovitch, I know that you blamed yourself in the newspapers last weekend. Right now the CBC is attempting to come up with its brand image and the viewer ratings do not seem to be good enough to allow the corporation to provide the kind of programming that is likely to satisfy the public.

    I have some questions about the programming of Radio-Canada. I know that the committee, as was previously mentioned, would like to ensure stable funding. On the other hand, the programming of CBC/Radio-Canada would have to attract a certain percentage of viewers, it could be 7, 10 or 15%, and be of sufficient quality.

    This weekend, in La Presse, you said that your responsibility is to never lose sight of your fundamental values. I'd like to ask you some questions about this, Mr. Rabinovitch. When I look at the television of Radio-Canada, I sometimes wonder whether I'm watching Radio-Canada or TQS. For example, when I'm watching the show Catherine and I hear a voice-over, it feels to me like I'm watching something on TQS or TVA. Even though when I check, I see it is Radio-Canada. I've been a Radio-Canada fan for a long time. Unfortunately, the type of programming that we are offered gives us the impression that the corporation is trying to compete with TVA. The end result is that the product is watered down.

    Another example. In my opinion, Radio-Canada makes good documentaries. In spite of this, we have heard that the corporation intends to reduce the number of documentaries from 15 to 5. I don't know whether you know anything about this. You say you are willing to admit blame with respect to the programming you are providing. On that particular point, I'd be curious to know how many documentaries will be spared.

    It appears that the intention is to give over the responsibility for the program Découverte to a private sector broadcaster. Yet the reputation of Radio-Canada is based on the fact that its programs were produced by a specialized and stable team able to provide a good analysis of issues, as I see it. In my opinion, Radio-Canada has lost this advantage, or at least it's losing it. The fact that we supported the idea of stable funding in our review of the Broadcasting Act should be an incentive for the CBC/Radio-Canada management to make this kind of choice when it comes to its programming. I'd like to hear your comments on the admission that you made and the future programming of the CBC/Radio-Canada.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'll attempt to answer your question and will ask for some help from Daniel. In my opinion, Radio-Canada must sometimes take the risk of failing, that is realizing that its programs will not always be a success. Because of our values, we take more risks than the private sector. If one of our programs is successful, it may end up being copied by the private sector. There will be an imitation. A series like Le Dernier Chapitre could not be done by TVA because it would not have high enough viewer ratings. The series Bunker: Le Cirque was not very successful but we have to take risks. We are a public television and we receive government money. This gives us the necessary flexibility to have innovative and distinct programming that is sometimes popular but not always.

    As far as the news is concerned, I wasn't satisfied with the presentation but there was no problem with the values. We have never set aside our values. The message I wanted to get across was that the most important thing for management was not viewer ratings but the quality of our news broadcasts.

    It's quite possible that during the 1990s, Radio-Canada did lose a number of key persons in programming and program creation. Government policy is to make use of the private sector through the Canadian Television Fund. In such cases, Radio-Canada pays fees but does not produce such programs. In my opinion, it is very important to strike the right balance between the two. We must be able to use private sector programming because it can be very original. At the same time, we have to take a number or risks when it comes to programming. Radio-Canada must innovate.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd (Executive Vice-President, French Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Let me first of all discuss the specific points you raised at the beginning of your comments and then I will speak more generally.

    In the case of Catherine, you are alluding to the fact that you can hear canned laugher rather than live spectators. Let me remind you that Catherine was an experiment. There were two new writers as well as a new company of actors that Sylvie Moreau belonged to, a group that was not at all known at the time. They came up with the idea for a sitcom that, at the beginning, seemed quite unusual. It took us quite a while before we made up our minds. We opted for a solution that would not cost a lot of money. Producing the show before a live audience is far more expensive than producing it in a studio. You need a security service, the right kind of set-up, etc. We chose this type of production to avoid high costs because it was a significant risk we were taking. This risk eventually turned out rather well, because these two writers have become increasingly recognized as humorists and Ms. Sylvie Moreau has become a recognized star, in drama, film and humour.

    Catherine is an example of a kind of program that is reaching the end of its cycle. It has been on now for five years. There won't be any new productions of Catherine after this year. It will come to an end in December.

    As for documentaries, the problem of all broadcasters is that there has been such an increase in the cost of these productions that we have had trouble keeping up. This is particularly true for public television. It is true for TFO, for Télé-Québec and for ourselves. There is a constant increase in the cost of a licence. Three years ago, we were paying $35,000 for a one-hour documentary, the production cost of which was $300,000 to $400,000. Today, the licence costs us $80,000, $85,000, $90,000 and sometimes $100,000. We have to have outside funding, normally from the Canadian Television Fund. We can certainly not do it on our own. With the cost of four documentaries, we would be able to produce Découverte for a whole year. As this ratio makes it clear, it would be an investment that makes no sense.

    There are fewer and fewer external sources of funding for such productions available. So it ends up with simple arithmetic: no fans to finance the production, increased cost of licences and a budget that remains stable. We have no choice but to gradually reduce the number of productions and rebroadcast them more often or else make international co-productions. In that case, there may be great documentaries that compete in festivals and they will be funded by 8, 9 or 10 countries. That means serving all these audiences. In other words, there is something for everyone but no one in particular. We are attempting, with documentary filmmakers, to find out how we can lower the production costs of documentaries and come up with sources of funding outside large institutions because there is less money. This is an increasingly important problem that we are also experiencing when it comes to the serious drama programs that make the reputation of Radio-Canada and other broadcasters.

    We know that TVA is now refusing to invest in big drama series because they cost too much. We think that it is our duty to continue to do this.

    The same applies to Canadian film. In the course of a normal year we produce 17 films. We sponsor 17 films. We know that Canadian movies do not attract large audiences but it is our job and it is important in terms of supporting the industry.

    Generally speaking, our approach is based on the repositioning that was announced in the spring and described to your committee. We must remain active in the areas where we have made our mark. We must offer the greatest possible support to the industry, to culture, to francophone culture throughout the country, to the artistic community, to music, theatre, etc. We have to continue our work in information, particularly at the international and national levels, where we can make an important contribution, as well as in public affairs, where our approach is unique. As far as we are concerned, the documentary is part of our responsibilities under information and is complementary to this activity.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gourd.

    I will come back to you, Ms. Gagnon.

    Mr. Harvard, you have the floor.

[English]

    Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Mr. Rabinovitch and your colleagues for coming today.

    In a moment I want to ask a couple of questions, one having to do with stable funding or lack of such funding, but I don't want to miss the opportunity, Mr. Rabinovitch, to make two or three observations, given the fact that I am not only a fan of CBC but also a Newsworld addict.

    Despite the fact that I perhaps watch too much of Newsworld, the crawl or news bar at the bottom of the screen drives me crazy. I think it's a huge distraction. I know it's the fad of the day and that other networks do it, and I suspect that as a competitor you have no choice now but to continue it, but there must be a better way of presenting it, because my eyes leave the main program and the major part of the screen and go down to the crawl. I find myself watching a program, and then I miss it because I can't keep my eyes off the crawl. I don't know what you can do about it, a modern invention that doesn't really appeal to me.

    Another thing, Mr. Rabinovitch, is in your breaks for Newsworld you have bumpers that make reference to the contemporary and very hot issues of marriage and marijuana legislation, but I'm not really a fan of using or exploiting issues of those kinds in that fashion. I think those issues require delicate context, and if I were you, I would just stay away from them. I just don't think it's fair to those issues, regardless of which side of them you come down on.

    And on one more thing, Mr. Strahl asked a question about your being driven by ratings. I agree with you; it seems to me that if you're driven solely by ratings, you get, for example, the Fox News Network in the United States. That's what ratings are all about, getting the largest audience, and then you get something like the Fox News Network.

    It was interesting, and I think this would be of interest to people who do support public broadcasting, that there is a survey, which I read in one of the newspapers over the weekend. The survey showed that of those people who got their news from the Fox News Network, 80% of them were misinformed on some of the major issues of the day, whereas of those who got their news from PBS, which is not unlike CBC, only 23% were misinformed on some of the major issues of the day. I think that tells you a lot. That's one of the reasons why I support public broadcasting, because it does try to be fair and balanced, if you know what I mean.

    Now, to go to my questions. The $10 million cut flies in the face of what we believe to be the right direction of stable funding. In the Canadian Parliament we have been talking about stable funding for eons, it seems, and we never get it. To me, the arguments in support of stable funding are unassailable, including the fact that it takes two, three, or four years to do programming, and that you can't do it with short-term budgets. I don't know why we can't get that message through; it's just beyond me, Mr. Rabinovitch.

    My other question has to do with our foreign service. I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I've just returned from South Asia, and I can tell you that people in countries like Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Malaysia would give their eye teeth or would love to have a television service from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The reason they say that is because they're simply fed up with the kind of service they get from either Fox or CNN. I think they like the BBC better, but given the current political environment, they just feel they need an alternative voice in television. They honestly asked whether it was possible for the CBC to provide that kind of service.

    So basically those are my two questions, Mr. Rabinovitch.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: With respect to your comments, sir, I would suggest the crawler has had a mixed reaction. Some people love it; some people hate it. We keep reviewing these matters and keep looking at it.

    Sometimes I find it frustrating. Sometimes I turn it on actually to see the crawler, to see what are the top lines. But I think it is one of those programming matters that the programming specialists are constantly reviewing. Remember, it is a news service, and we have to be seen as such in today's world.

    The breaks are designed to do exactly what you suggested. The breaks are designed to say to people, these are big issues, get the facts, learn, then make up your mind. We deliberately chose controversial issues, because you can't handle an issue unless you have the facts. We hope to give the facts to people so they can then make up their minds.

    With respect to stable funding, sir, if you could help me come up with the right answer, I'd love it. We have tried everything. We have tried to explain to people that the television business is a unique business. It takes three to four years from the time you have a concept till the time it's on the screen. Even then, sometimes you shoot in one fiscal year and you show it in another fiscal year, and that causes you other problems with the accounting profession on how things are to be accounted for. It makes our life very, very complicated.

    Sometimes I wonder how our people—Daniel's people and Harold's—go out to the international conferences and get into international agreements when the show will not be available for two or three or four years and without knowing whether the money is going to be there. It's a very, very risky business. It's a very dangerous situation they put themselves in, because of course, on the other hand, we cannot and will not run a deficit.

    It also means we cannot participate to the extent we would like in foreign productions, and as a consequence we don't get as many jobs for Canadians because we don't have the cheque book to sit there and write and say, yes, we'll do this, we can do it under our co-production agreement, and therefore let's bring it to Canada. They'll say, well, show us your money.

    Because we don't know what money we're going to have two or three years out, we really can't play at that table. We can play in a minor role, but we can't play in a major role, which would help create jobs for Canadians. That is part of our responsibility as a cultural institution.

    With respect to the foreign service, we could talk about this one for a long time, because it's one of my chair's most important areas. She thinks there is a very real role to bring foreign information to Canadians, and that's why we have so many people as foreign correspondents outside the country both to give a Canadian interpretation of events and, just as importantly, to tell the Canadian story to other countries and to other people.

    We have, as you know, Radio Canada International, which has been grossly underfunded for years and has lived on a shoe string, yet broadcasts in seven languages around the world. Harold met a person when he was in China a couple of years ago who learned her English listening to Radio Canada International.

    We have all heard the story of the Iraqi general who surrendered, not when he heard it on Voice of America that the war was won, but when he heard it on Radio Canada International. That was the service he trusted.

    So there's no question that there is a demand out there for that service. We see the same thing in the United States with Newsworld International. Newsworld International has been a great success for Canada. We get a tremendous amount of e-mail and letters from Americans who want the alternative, more objective news service that Newsworld International can and does provide directly or when it's picked up on either C-SPAN or PBS.

    We would very much like to consider expansion and development of a foreign service television channel around the world, because RCI is only radio.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. John Harvard: Would it be expensive?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It's relatively doable, especially if we could attract a couple more public sector partners such as the Australians and a couple of others to come in with us. The BBC has no interest, because they're so flush with money that they don't need us. We have just received formal notification that in France the government has just underwritten the formation of, for lack of a better term, a French CNN, TF 1 and TF 2, and we are in contact with them and we hope to participate with them to serve la francophonie. We'd love to do the same thing on the English side with other partners. It's not expensive per se, but it's not cheap, and it would take a commitment of funds and a desire by government that we move in that direction.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good morning. I am pleased to see you here, Mr. Rabinovitch, particularly since—and you may not be aware of this—early in my career I worked for the CBC. I have maintained a level of respect for the institution. I would like to thank you for being here today.

    Mr. Gourd, I would like to come back to something you said earlier. You mentioned a repositioning in the spring that would fulfil the requirement to serve the francophone population throughout Canada. However, a few weeks later, you suddenly announced that sports news would no longer be broadcast after the late night news program on the Première chaîne.

    What you did not tell us is that 25% of francophones living outside Quebec, since they are only served by cable, would be deprived of the late night sports cast. I would like to know how you reconcile this decision with what you said about the repositioning. That is my first question, and I have another one.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: I believe that Mr. Rabinovitch sent a long letter to the committee to explain our decision to do away with the sportscast and to indicate that we will continue to provide the service, but in a different way. If I remember correctly, we also explained that in the regions, all of our Ce soir programming also includes sports news, along with the scores.

    We had two problems with the sportscast. There was a sharp drop in the ratings because the earlier newscasts already provided the information. Also, the major sports story was reserved for that time slot, and was no longer part of the main news programming like the early evening broadcasts or Le Téléjournal.

    We wanted the sports news, something that is as legitimate as culture or the economy, to be included in our main news programming, on the main newscasts and we particularly wanted RDI to serve as a vehicle for sports programming. All of the journalists where therefore relocated within RDI. This news is now covered through an hourly four-minute segment.

    Sports news can in any case be accessed through our website, through RDI, etc. The fact is that at the end of the evening there was a half hour program that may or may not have been all that useful. What followed it, Canadian films, the rebroadcast of Découverte and Ciné-Club, and other programs, aired one half hour later. We felt that we could perhaps make better use of these time slots while finding some other way to broadcast the sports news.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would like to say something if I may, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Gourd, I don't think you understood my question. I was referring to the 25% of Canadian households that do not subscribe to cable. They would not have access to RDI.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: The figure is now lower than 25%; it is closer to 18 per cent. Nevertheless, Ce soir is broadcast to the regions through antennas. The program includes sports news so people are in no way deprived. There is no late evening sports news, but it is available in many forms during the rest of the day.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have another question.

    The Chair: Briefly, Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In the sovereignist documentary on the latest Quebec election campaign, we hear Bernard Landry, the former Premier of Quebec, call the CBC a federal propaganda tool. I would like you to tell us about the in-house reaction to this statement and what you have to say about it.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Well—

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It was a hit.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Well that is not how we feel about the CBC.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Let me put it this way. When Daniel Lamarre was the CEO of TVA, we often found ourselves on opposite sides of an issue when we were together in the same forums. Yet today, we are both partners in the Cirque du Soleil.

    Just lately I told him that he was quite fortunate. When he is in Quebec, he is seen as a nationalist in favour of the independence of that province, and when he is in Ottawa, they see him as a strong Canadian who is trying to keep the country together. In our case, the situation is reversed. In Quebec we are considered to be active federalists who are against the very present nationalist fact in that province. In Ottawa, it is the other way around. So we are never right, but we have learned to live with that.

    Quite obviously, our journalists left no stone unturned during the election campaign. We are often given the same treatment by journalists and we understand that people can become impatient with us. This perception is truly reversed. We have become accustomed to the idea, and we must constantly convince some people, whether we are in Ottawa or in Quebec, that we are not involved in any type of plot.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: On revient après.

    Mrs. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thanks very much.

    First of all, thank you very much for coming today. I guess everybody has their pet peeve about the CBC. I actually don't really see it as our role here as MPs to question you on the bar underneath or things like that. We can do that in other venues and avenues.

    I think there's a very fundamental question here, and that is the contradiction—the completely avoidable contradiction—that on the one hand the CBC is held up as a great instrument of Canadian culture and a very unique institution, but on the other hand it doesn't get the tools it needs to carry out its mandates. So it really does come back to this very fundamental question of your funding.

    I'd like to pick up where you left off, which was the committee's recommendation, because that's the core question. Is there or is there not going to be stable multi-year funding for the CBC? It appears that at this point the answer is no. So I think the federal government has done an atrocious job of dealing with that question.

    In terms of the $10 million cut, I'm curious to know what impact that has, for example, on staffing levels. Can you give us some idea of what that means in terms of full-time equivalents of staff, what it will mean in terms of local and regional programming?

    Secondly, I would think that one of the issues around long-term stability is that it allows you to do proper program development and buy rights and so on. With this kind of budget scenario where you are now faced with a $10 million cut, what kind of impact does that have on your ability to actually act in a professional way out there in the marketplace in terms of program development or rights that you may be looking at, other programs and so on?

    Could you answer those two questions, please?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Sure. I will definitely try.

    We don't know what the government's answer is on stable funding or increased funding. We've made the case. We believe your committee has made the case extremely well. We hope it will ultimately result in precisely that—more stable funding—so that we can do our planning and know where we're going, etc.

    With respect to the $10 million cut, as I tried to explain in my introductory comments, it is not any one cut that hurts. That's why we call it death by a thousand cuts. It's the sum of the cuts and the sum of the pressures that are on the corporation, whether it's the $43 million for the pension—the pension holiday is now over—or whether it is the $12 million we literally have to raise every year before we open the doors. It is the sum of all this in an environment of not only stable but fixed or decreasing-in-real-terms funding, which is so painful for us and so difficult.

    I can say that the $10 million per se we have been able to absorb because we had some advanced warning and we could plan ahead of time. We have been able to absorb that $10 million. Staffing levels, because of that $10 million cut, will not change, and there will be no impact on local and regional programming at this time.

    In all honesty and frankness, I have to say that this is looking very, very narrowly, Ms. Davies. This is looking at just this $10 million. But if you look at it within the entire picture, first, we will inevitably, continuously, because of changing technology and everything of that nature, constantly be making workforce adjustments.

    Secondly, we must pay for those extra costs one way or another. One way or another they will--I can't say anything else--have an impact on the number of employees we have, the number of employees we can afford to have.

    Thirdly, in terms of local and regional programming, we have basically already cut that to the bone. There's very little more we could do. I'm embarrassed to say that the quality of the programming shows. It is not first-class programming by the standards we would like to have. It's one of the reasons why we welcomed as well the recommendation by your committee that we come forward with a strategic plan on how we would enhance and develop local and regional programming.

    You were absolutely right as well to say, give us the price. A plan without a price is not worth very much. We'd be more than willing to do that and hope that we will be able to proceed in that manner. I think I've hit your questions.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Do I have more time?

    The Chair: Please be brief.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Just in terms of your response about what I think you called “workforce adjustments”, either in the short term or the longer term, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about moving toward more short-term contracts with people? Again, I wonder at what point that begins to impact on the quality of programming, if people have a lack of security about the environment they're in and they don't know if they're going to be there in the next six months or the next year.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: There's no intention on our part to go to a change in structure in terms of short-term contracts to a greater extent than we now use them. In a creative organization, as you know, a lot of people are on short-term contracts. Others are permanent employees, and so they should be.

    What I meant by what I said is that it is inevitable that the combination of financial pressures on the one hand and changes in technology will result in a change in the mix in our labour force over time. That's one of the reasons we've enhanced our training programs, so we can give our current employees more opportunity for the new jobs as they become available. There are quite dramatic changes going on and they've been going on for quite some time. If anything, that's what has saved CBC and Radio-Canada to this point. Whether it was the delay system of editing on radio or new systems of delivering signals, these have dramatically changed the mix of employees you will inevitably need and have, and quite frankly, it focuses more on what we would like to be, which is a creative organization.

    But we recognize a very real responsibility to assist our current employees to be retrained and have first crack at new positions as they develop.

    The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): Thank you.

    Mr. Rabinovitch, I would just like to say that I come from Perth--Middlesex where the Stratford Shakespearean Festival is located, and I understand very much what you say in response to some of the questions. I know the Stratford Shakespearean Festival does a lot of Shakespeare, which has been tried and true over the years. At the same time, they bring out various new productions. They do this to try to advance theatre. They aren't all money-makers. This has to be done to advance theatre. It has to be done to advance actors and the various people who fill those positions.

    I would also like to say that during the eastern North American blackout, it just so happened that particular day I had a little function at my home. It was after a caucus meeting. As our people left to return to their homes or to Ottawa, the power went out. And lo and behold, the only radio station we could receive in southwestern Ontario was the CBC. That's where a lot of people took direction from. In fact, some of them came back to my place because they didn't want to get stopped on the 401 and various areas.

    Again, I do know how budgets work and I'm very conscious of funding cuts and what stable funding can mean. I think it's deplorable that a corporation is promised money and then has it withdrawn as it proceeds.

    So again, this committee's 2003 report recommended stable, long-term funding for the CBC. How much funding does the CBC need to be effective?

  (1200)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: That's a question I love.

    Let me first say, sir, that my wife is on the board of Stratford, so we are there a lot. I think it's one of the most wonderful institutions we have, and I sometimes use it as an example of how difficult it is to be a creative person. June, in many ways, is the most wonderful month in Stratford. It's the month of new plays and openings. It's also the month when you ask yourself what you're going to be doing next year, because all of these people are on very short-term contracts. To develop it now to the fourth stage to allow for new Canadian plays, new Canadian writers, I think is absolutely critical and important.

    With respect to your question, sir, we have said that if the $60 million were to be made permanent, and if we were to receive another $40 million, in other words a total of $100 million, and if--and this is an important “if” because we get so much money from it--funding for the Canadian Television Fund were stabilized and we knew what our share of that fund would be, then we could meet the needs of the current mandate in terms of enhancing programming, doing more of what Mr. Strahl asked for before in terms of blockbuster programs, high-impact programs--that's better than blockbuster, I apologize.

    With $100 million we would find the funds from internal economies to meet the other costs we have, but I hasten to add we would not be able to expand our services to enrich local and regional programming, and that is what your committee has asked for--a strategic plan with a price tag. I think you're still responsible.

    So the answer to your question is we believe $100 million would do it for the current mandate, but to expand into local and regional, as we should as the public broadcaster, that is a number I'm not ready to put forward right now because I don't have it. But we very much acknowledge the request of the committee to come forward.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: If you had that type of funding for five years, if that were committed funding for five years, could you work within that mandate for five years?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: If I got that, I could retire very happily.

    I would be very happy if we had that. I think it would be a wonderful basis for the renewal of CBC/Radio-Canada.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Thank you.

    The Chair: Madam Frulla and Mr. Shepherd.

    Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. President. It's a pleasure to have you here, especially when you have your ex-bosses in front of you. This is great.

    As you can see, I would say almost all of us really believe in stable funding. We said it in our report. We really believe also in a very strong public service. I appreciate what Mrs. Taylor said, that nobody else can comment on or write our history; we have to do it on our own. We believe all that.

    But there's the money and there's what you do with it. I really want to go back to what you wrote last week.

[Translation]

    Last week, Mr. Rabinovitch, you made a presentation to the Senate committee which resulted in a letter stating that we had to get back to basics. You yourself admit to having possibly been influenced by the competition. You have gone from a few channels to a number of channels and there has been a great increase in what television has to offer; you have fought to maintain your market share and you might have been mistaken. Reference was made to amea culpa.

    We wholeheartedly agree that your responsibility is to produce daily news reference broadcasts. But when you talk about reference television, Mr. Rabinovitch, I imagine that this includes not only news but also general programming?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I dealt only with news in that article. I don't know if this principle would exist in other areas such as drama or variety. It is not so much a matter of reference programs but rather programming that is more daring, that takes risks. These are programs that push the envelope, that do things differently. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: But in a way that is what you are saying about reference television. In your master plan you refer to excellence in television, because when we speak of reference television we also mean excellence.

    There is something that bothers me. We agree with the letter that you have written, and I think that it is well reflected in your master plan. However, we were surprised to see the analysis made by the new program director, particularly as it applies to the French side of the corporation. He says that Radio-Canada must be responsible for popular culture and develop products that will appeal to everyone. In reference to TVA, he says:

They would like us to be involved in something other than popular television. However, our mandate requires us to be able to compete.

    Do you not feel that in wanting to compete—and you say this yourself in your letter—and to beat everyone else at their own game, the CBC has forgotten about the values of a national broadcaster?

    Often, in trying to reach everyone, one risks reaching no one at all. In wanting to compete with TVA or TQS, which are both well-positioned on the private market, you risk losing your identity as the public broadcaster.

    Your letter states that quite clearly and in your master plan you seem to have understood what the CBC is facing and what must be done in the coming years; however, what your programming director has said is cause for concern. I must say that I am worried, particularly since some products were quite interchangeable.

    Ms. Gagnon is right. We have seen some Radio-Canada stalwarts end up at TQS. For example, Bernard Nadeau works for TQS now, along with Jean Pagé. We have also seen Durivage crisscross from one to the other. We eventually forget what public television is all about and we wonder if we really need it. In any case, if the same people work for either network, then they must all be equally professional.

    I would like to come back to the reference television issue. Is this reference, excellent and quality television or is it competitive television?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I didn't discuss Mr. Clément's ideas with him, but I have spoken with him often. We found him not at TVA or at TQS, but at Télé-Québec; we chose him because of his performance there and the quality of his programming. To me, competition doesn't mean that we have to wage an hourly battle for the ratings. Competition also involves providing reference programming, high-quality programs to attract an audience. We may not be winning the ratings war, because we are too specialized, but I hope that we are prepared to produce high-quality programming so that at the end of the day, people watching the CBC will be able to say that it is truly different from TVA and TQS.

    I can also tell you that if we have a hit, since Quebec is a small market, I can almost guarantee that TVA will take it and adapt it for its own audience. Even today, we are quite different from TQS. Some comparisons can be made, but we are quite different and I hope we will be even more so with the repositioning.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: We are familiar with Mario Clément and we have watched his career. If we hired Mario Clément it is because he is very well-versed in public television. In our conversations before he was hired, it was clear that we intended to have a strong public orientation for this network.

    We still have to compete for the talent with other broadcasters. Some time ago, maybe 20 years back, the talent didn't move from one broadcaster to another. There were not that many networks and each one protected its own artists. Today, actors, writers etc. move from one place to another. So we have to compete for the talent.

    Secondly, we have to compete for the audience share, even though they are not our main criterion. For example, we broadcast the Gala de l'ADISQ on a Sunday evening, because we want to make sure that people will be watching. It is an important vehicle for popular culture, song and music. Our work is to support popular culture and music, which is the best representation of what popular culture has to offer.

    At the same time, we have Loft Story on TQS. Loft Story is competing with our program. If Loft Story draws an audience of 500,000 who would otherwise be watching the Gala de l'ADISQ, then we have a problem. So we must constantly aim for the highest rating for each of our products.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: I agree with you: Mario Clément has a very good idea of what public television is all about. It involves popular culture and developing products that everyone can identify with. You say that Radio-Canada should have no problem if Loft Story, for example, is seen by 500,000 viewers or if this program cuts into the ratings for Virginie because public television must be reference television, well-established and providing a showcase for authors and excellent programming.

    We have to find some way to continue to air documentaries. That is what Radio-Canada is all about. Radio-Canada radio does it quite well; it is a model of this type of programming. It is always well-positioned and well-targeted. It has never strayed. And we see that it has paid off today because the Radio-Canada morning program is not only running close behind but is even ahead of the CKAC morning show.

    Are you really intending to return to solid positioning and forget about what everyone else is doing? Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster with a mission, and this mission was clearly described in your material.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Absolutely, and it is something that has already been done on the English-language side. We began about three or four years ago, but it does take time. We hired Mario and I found Mr. Gourd because I was convinced that they understood the changes that had to be made to reposition a public broadcaster.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Rabinovitch, as I understand the reallocation exercises going on in government, this is something that came in a recent budget announcement, that basically what we're going to do is from time to time take money away from, presumably, low-priority items to higher-priority items.

    I think the theory behind that was that various departments of government--not that you're a department of government, but you're being funded by government--would have inefficiencies and that there must be some kind of measure, a way in which to extract those inefficiencies.

    You've just told me you've absorbed the $10 million, doing it in such a way that you found technological efficiencies. Isn't that sort of saying the government orientation to this file was correct, that there are inefficiencies in the CBC, and that you were able to eliminate them?

  (1215)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I don't think there's a relationship, sir. When I took this position about four years ago and I came before the committee, the committee said, “Why won't you go and just ask for more money?” I said I wouldn't go and ask for more money until I was comfortable that we had shaken the inefficiencies out of the corporation, or at least most of them, and we will continue to do that over my tenure in this operation because I believe it should be done from a good public management point of view.

    The $10 million was officially for one purpose. In reality, it was just a negotiation. It wasn't as if somebody came to us and said, “We think there's $10 million worth of efficiencies to be found with the CBC”. It was, “Your share of the cut will be $10 million”. So it wasn't a reappropriation exercise; it was really a classic X budget.

    We absorbed it, and when I say we absorbed it, we didn't absorb it with no pain; I'm just suggesting that you won't see it on the screen. We've cut back in different ways, and at the end of the day we've cut back probably on programs that would be on the air or an extra copy of a program that we could do.... This Hour Has 22 Minutes will not have as many this year as it had last year. There was supposed to be an hour-long special that was planned. Had we had this money, we could have put that on, but it had to be cancelled.

    These are small items, but they're right on your screen, and they don't drive efficiency; the efficiencies, quite frankly, drive, because I'm a person from the private sector and I have a staff of people, and my senior people realize that we must run an efficient operation. So that's what we're driving to do.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: As you say, you're from the private sector. That said, though, the private sector has profit maximization as their goal. Their goal is a little different. Do you feel there's adequate restraint within your own organization to make you go and find those inefficiencies? Presumably, if you could find them, you would reinvest them in things that you thought were more efficient.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It's a very, very good question.

    There's never enough in terms of adequate controls and pushing in an organization as large as the CBC. But at the same time--this is why I brought in the chief technology officer--we are looking at every possible way we can to save money.

    This is why we brought in a person from the private sector to be the president of our real estate division. We've created a real estate division to manage our real estate. He has found, on his own, $15 million in surplus, $5 million on an annual basis, from renting extra space in the Toronto broadcasting centre.

    We are looking at new ways of delivering our signals through satellite, which will save, when it's finally up and running, between $7 million and $10 million.

    The business of business today, sir, I think, is to constantly drive for efficiencies, the purpose being to get more money to the programmers. My bottom line is to create an atmosphere where creativity can work and to get them the money so they can do their job.

    The Chair: I should mention to the members that there is practically three-quarters of an hour to go, so there will be lots of time for another round of questions.

    Just before we start, Mr. Rabinovitch, I would like to get a clarification from you so that we are all reading from the same page.

    Just thinking of the appropriations in the CBC over a year, from the figures--maybe Madame Charbonneau could confirm them--what I have is that the CBC gets approximately $875 million a year, plus or minus. Then there was another $60 million voted in by Parliament, which made a total of $935 million or $937 million. Then they took $10 million away, so we are down to $925 million, in round figures.

    From the figures I've seen, the CTF provides the CBC with another $70 million or $75 million. So we are talking about $1 billion dollars, all in all. Is that correct, approximately?

  (1220)  

    Ms. Johanne Charbonneau (Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): The numbers you've quoted on the appropriation and the $60 million are correct. The funding we receive from the CTF is not actually funding received by CBC--

    The Chair: I understand that.

    Ms. Johanne Charbonneau: --but yes, your numbers are correct.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Let's just say, with the CTF, the way it was, the CBC would get $1 billion a year, plus or minus.

    I want to make sure we understand correctly your statements in the Senate last week and what you are telling us today. You said, in answering Mr. Schellenberger, if you had another $100 million, it would be adequate to carry out your present mandate, but in addition to this, you would need extra funding for local and regional programming to get back to the way it was. Did I understand that right?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: There is just, I think, a slight touch of double counting. The $60 million you added into our numbers from $875 million...I included that in my $100 million.

    The Chair: Oh, you've included that in your $100 million.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: So all I'm really asking for is $40 million in addition to making the $60 million permanent. With that, which is approximately $1 billion, we can meet the current mandate.

    The Chair: But then you would need additional moneys, which you haven't costed yet, for local and regional programming.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: To be precise, sir, we do, as you know, local and regional programming--

    The Chair: I know that.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: --but to the level that--

    The Chair: --the committee had asked for--

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes. To do it to the level that the committee has asked for, we would have to bring you a strategic plan with a dollar tag.

    The Chair: Is it possible, without asking you to stretch your work to the limit, to provide the committee with some kind of ballpark figure as to what that could be?

    If you want pressure points, we have to know. We have to know whether increased and stable funding over so many years means $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion, or what that is, so that we can effectively interpret your concerns before parliamentarians and the cabinet.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We will endeavour to put together a strategic plan with the dollar amount that we believe will be necessary.

    The Chair: That would be very useful.

    Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for clarifying some of that.

    I do think we need to be clear. There was $60 million over the last two years, with the promise of $60 million over the next two years...or is it one more year?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The promise was for the current year, sir, and for this coming year, 2004-05.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. So is it a total of three years or four years?

    Ms. Johanne Charbonneau: Four years.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Four years, if we go back.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Four years may not be the stable, long-term funding that everyone at CBC would like, but it is $240 million over that four-year period and we're talking about a $10 million cut in there. I realize there are other things going on--you mentioned the pension stuff--but it's not like there hasn't been money available.

    In one sense, I compliment CBC on perpetuating...not the myth, but the story that no one else can write our history. It's a bit of a strange one. I think local radios, newspapers, cultural events, museums--you name it--are all part of telling our story. The supporters of the CBC would have us believe that without the CBC we'd all be doing the American jive in a minute, and I'm not sure that's entirely true.

    I do want to take issue with something that was said over here about more popular programming, and this gets back to my earlier statement. I don't understand why, in a business world, when your most popular best bang for your buck is in CBC Radio.... You have a huge listenership in CBC Radio. You talked about the show the other night having 1.1 million listeners, yet CBC Radio sucks in that many people every day. There's a huge listenership. Yet when the $10 million cut came, part of your cut went to CBC Radio.

    Why wouldn't you support that which is most successful? Canadians love it. It gives them a sense of common identity. It does it on the cheap. It's a good bang for your buck. Why would you cut in CBC Radio when it's arguably the most successful portion of your programming?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: What I did was try to allocate the pain as fairly as I could. CBC Radio is not a cheap undertaking, because remember, there is no advertising on CBC Radio. CBC Radio gets about $177 million from our appropriation, so it's a significant amount. I felt it was appropriate for them.... Within a corporation you have to spread matters; you just have to balance it differently. It's a function of what the situation is at a particular point in time. I felt they could absorb that amount if they had to, and it was only fair to the other services.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

    On another front, I think CBC Radio does more good for your image overall than just about anything else I can think of. You get everybody from dirt farmers on the prairies to people in northern B.C. to listeners in downtown Toronto all listening to some common programming that, although it takes government funding to do, is I think your best advertising. Even though there's no advertising on CBC, it's a self-perpetuating advertising machine, and it does a good job of programming. I think it's broadly supported by Canadians.

    I just have one more question. You sent me a document on your corporate plan summary a week ago, and on page 7 you mentioned the importance of journalistic independence as one of your broadcasting environments--one of the summaries you have here on your situation analysis. The quote is:

While the pressure on public broadcasters is mounting, their relevance and importance in preserving a democratic public space and journalistic independence is growing.

    I assume that's one of the values you're promoting. It's not market driven or “share of the market” driven, viewership driven, but it's one of the values you promote.

    One of the questions that some of us had here a while ago, something you must have seen in the House, was when there was an accusation that the show Disclosure was not aired in its allotted time slot because it was critical of Paul Martin. There was a question of whether your independence was being threatened. This was part of the public debate, and it certainly has been part of our parliamentary debate--whether it is somehow compromised because it's critical of the incoming Prime Minister.

    How do you assure that independence is not threatened by a phone call from Earnscliffe and crowd, and how do you make sure we get the balanced reporting we expect--not just favourable to one party or another, but balanced in its criticism and its plaudits?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We have over the years set up a system at the CBC as a result of discussions with parliamentarians and others, and we are constantly evaluating what is going on in other countries in terms of how to ensure the independence of a public broadcaster. Let me just run through a couple of these points.

    Number one, I'm not the editor-in-chief. They can call me, and my editors—Tony Burman, Claude Saint-Laurent—can and would tell me where to go, and that's deliberate.

    Number two, my appointment is not “at pleasure”, but “on good behaviour”, and that is deliberate to insulate the CBC from the normal political process. It was the wisdom of Parliament to do that. In fact, it was actually debated in 1991 because there was a possibility of changing it to “at pleasure”. The decision was made by parliamentarians that this would be improper, to ensure the independence of the CBC.

    Number three, we have by all accounts the most sophisticated ombudsman procedures of almost any broadcaster in the world, I dare say, and definitely in Canada. The ombudsman, both in English and in French, is there precisely for complaints with respect to balance and bias, and we encourage the public, if they see something or hear something they find to be wrong, to please bring it forward to the ombudsman. And the ombudsman's reports, quite frankly, sir, have at times been critical; it is not a whitewashing routine. Several significant journalists have had their hands slapped—not their faces, I hope, but their hands—for some of the programming they have done, and I know our journalists take it extremely seriously. It's not a career-ender, but it definitely has an impact on how they're seen, on how their colleagues see them; therefore they take any concerns raised by the ombudsman very seriously.

    So we've built a series of these steps over time. It didn't happen in one day, and it definitely didn't happen under my period here, but it's been built up over time for precisely the purpose you describe.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Let me just ask, then, what happened on the show Disclosure. Did the ombudsman look into it, or what was the determination on that matter?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I will tell you one thing, and then Harold will give you the detail. I never received any phone calls, suggestions, or what have you with respect to that show.

    Mr. Harold Redekopp: The problem with a lot of these programs is the deadlines under which they work. I have to tell you that Tony Burman took a firm hand in this one. First of all, it did go to air. It went to air, I believe, within the next week, or certainly within two weeks.

    He looked at the piece and said it was flawed. It was a stronger piece in the end and, you could argue, more critical. But the point is, it was a piece that was fully lawyered, fully researched, and the kind of thing that will in fact help our credibility.

    The credibility we test, by the way, is, when you're faced with two or more opposing opinions, whom do you trust most? You have to get it right.

    Tony's rule of thumb is not necessarily to get it first but to get it right. In this case it was a matter of getting it right, and it did go to air. I think if they saw it, a number of people would have said it was fairly critical.

    The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I hope you will not mind my putting one or two little questions. I will try to be brief.

    I would like to get back to the $10 million in cuts. How are you going to distribute them? It would seem that Radio-Canada French television will be more severely affected than the CBC on the English side and Radio-Canada International. Apparently, for some weeks now, we have been witnessing all kinds of layoffs on the French television side. There is an embargo on overtime, absent employees are not replaced and we are hearing about internal complaints. We know that Radio-Canada went through a crisis last year and we heard a lot about the working conditions prevailing in that organization. I would like you to tell me if it is true that French television, more than any other sector, is going to be a victim of those budget cuts.

    Then, I would like to talk about the quality of content at Radio-Canada. Earlier, I mentioned the choice of the program Catherine, especially as concerns its formula. Now, that comment had no bearing on the quality of the actors and actresses. However, you say it was hard to make that choice. Maybe you could have chosen a program closer to the nature of the audience drawn in by Radio-Canada's French television. Why did you not accept to broadcast Simonne et Chartrand? You would have had a guaranteed audience. For Quebeckers that story is just as significant as La Famille Plouffe or Un homme et son péché. Besides, it is within Radio-Canada's tradition.

    In La Presse, Louise Cousineau mentioned that the reasons behind that choice—which apparently is rather political—were still obscure. Now, we would like Radio-Canada to be neutral and to accept scenarios for reasons other than political ones.

    I have questions on that matter. As far as Catherine goes, you have lost me; I find that program does not bear any resemblance to Radio-Canada. On the other hand, I as well as quite a number of Quebeckers would have been interested by Simonne et Chartrand.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: The $10 million budget cut did not penalize us more than our other colleagues. The fact is that our situation is unique: our commercial revenues are going down, not up. Consequently, unlike our anglophone colleagues who, this year, had very high commercial revenues—in fact they had surpluses—we had to reduce our target of $6 million, and even with that, it will be difficult to meet this target.

    In the context of a restructuring of public services, when we are doing more documentaries and public affairs programming, the number of listeners will necessarily drop, which means that our commercial revenues will also drop. Our situation is more difficult this year. That is why we had to adjust our target now so as not to find ourselves with a deficit at the end of the year. Such a situation is out of the question. Thus, for a combination of reasons, we were unable to absorb the $7 million, since our commercial revenues were lower than anticipated.

    Why did we implement this program under which, where possible, overtime and staff replacement are not authorized? It would be ridiculous to replace people just to lay them off immediately afterwards. We are therefore trying to minimize the layoffs of existing staff. Fewer than 20 people have been laid off. Since we are talking about $7 million, you can imagine what we had to do in terms of policy to manage to have so few layoffs. It is true that when we have less money it is more difficult to manage things. Nevertheless, we are trying to do so with as few layoffs as possible.

    With respect to Simonne et Chartrand, Radio-Canada originated the project. We broadcast Chartrand et Simonne. This series, which ran for six hours, was a very big success. We also did two documentaries before that: one on Michel Chartrand and another on Simonne Chartrand. So we had a total of eight hours of programming on the Chartrands.

    At the time, the Director of Drama, Jean Salvy, who had other projects underway, decided that it would be risky to continue the adventure. The series was getting into the contemporary period, and the Chartrand's son was around at that time. Salvy was afraid that the series might become too subjective and that we would get away from what made the series so good—namely, a type of historical truth.

    This was not a political choice. Rather than having another six hours on the Chartrands, we decided to present a series on Félix Leclerc, which is in production at the moment, and other drama series. In short, the decision was made at the time for reasons having to do with the drama series.

    Télé-Québec decided to rebroadcast the series, which is great. We released our rights so that it could rebroadcast the first series, and that is just fine. We did not continue with the Lance et Compte series either, even though we presented it initially. We decided rather to focus on other projects. TQS was pleased to pick it up later—its ratings have been very good—and TVA has just acquired the last version.

    Ultimately, we have to choose among the various options we have. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong: this is not an exact science. In the case you raised, that was the choice Salvy made at the time, and given the situation that existed then, we simply endorsed his decision. We did not want to do another six hours of programming on this couple to whom we'd already given so much coverage. We therefore opted to do something else.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Is it not because the series was getting into the 1970s?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Not at all.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The war measures, the imprisonment of Chartrand, all of this might have displeased the federal government. That is one part of our history that it would prefer not to see again.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Not at all. We are currently working on a drama series project on the October crisis. So those were not the reasons.

    You spoke earlier about Découverte. It remains an in-house production and that will definitely not change.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You reassure me.

    The Chair: The floor is yours, Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: You say you are prepared to submit a strategic plan and to appear before parliamentarians, Mr. Rabinovitch. Radio-Canada underwent a repositioning in the spring. That was done on the quiet and it came like a cold shower to television viewers in Quebec. Allow me to express some doubts about your desire to keep us informed about what you want to do in the future. However, I do assume that your intentions are good.

    You spoke earlier about the budget. As you know, Radio-Canada gets about $1 billion in public funding every year. The audiences are no longer there, and I hope you realize that the next minister will have a hard time selling this budget to cabinet.

    In the last two years, you have received supplementary estimates of $60 million a year. This year, the amount is $50 million. You are getting $10 million less and it is traumatic—positions are being cut everywhere.

    It is difficult not to question your good faith, because at the same time, we are hearing about supplementary estimates of $170 million and you told us that a huge Taj Mahal is being built in Ottawa, supposedly to fulfil your mandate as the public broadcaster.

    I have three specific questions for you.

    Can you tell us how much will be spent to build this Taj Mahal in Ottawa? Are you expecting cost overruns on this construction project in downtown Ottawa?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The Taj Mahal is a 3-story building, not a 10-story building. We rent these three floors. We will be able to consolidate the French and English services for radio and television, as well as the Parliament Hill office, in one location. At the moment, we are in six different places in Ottawa. We will be able to be much more efficient, improve the quality of our product and have greater cooperation between our English and French colleagues.

    We are under-budget. The money is coming from the sale of our office on Lanark Avenue. This amount had already been forecast in our five-year budget for developing digital systems. We carried out the entire operation in one year. This was made possible by the sale of Newsworld International to the United States three or four years ago. That netted us $75 million. We are using this money for special projects such as this one, the one in Edmonton and the one underway in downtown Quebec City. These funds have also allowed us to improve the quality of our service and to make changes to our digital systems. All this can be done much more quickly as a result of this sale.

  (1240)  

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: What is the cost of building this centre in Ottawa?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The cost is $46 million, but that includes all the technology-related costs.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: That is the total?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Are you expecting any cost overruns?

    Ms. Johanne Charbonneau: There are some pressures, because the budget is quite tight. Nevertheless, we will be able to keep within our envelope, because there are no huge upward pressures on the budget.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: When is the work scheduled to be completed?

    Ms. Johanne Charbonneau: The completion date is set out over a certain period of time. The move will take place between March 2004 and October or November 2004. All the production services will be moved at that time.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: If I may, I would like to explain something.

[English]

    None of this money comes from the money we're talking about for programming. This is the capital account, or separate funds, which allows us to undertake this without undermining our programming whatsoever. In fact, it will enhance and enrich it.

    The Chair: Mr. Harvard and Ms. Lill.

    Mr. John Harvard: I just have one question.

    Mr. Rabinovitch, I want to know whether you feel that the CBC has been treated fairly or even-handedly versus other government-funded entities that were put through this so called budgetary reallocation process.

    My understanding was that process was to identify $1 billion in spending cuts or potential spending cuts. In your case, I guess you were ordered to find $10 million, and you went ahead and found the $10 million.

    I'm just wondering whether everybody else had to find their cuts and return money back to the centre, because if that isn't the case, I don't see the fairness in that.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I hasten to say, sir, I'm not a government official any more, and I really don't know the inward workings of the system and who had to put up funds and who did not have to put up funds.

    I know that our contribution represents about one-third of the contribution of the heritage department, and in turn our regular budget is about one-third. I believe that was how the number was arrived at, but what wasn't discussed were priorities. It wasn't discussed. There was just a basic assumption, “You can find $10 million”. Well, we have found $10 million.

    We did not complain. We have told people what the consequences of this are, and I suspect that other departments are telling people what the consequences of their cuts are, or they were able to make the cuts through more efficiencies.

    In our case, because we are program oriented and because most of our funds are salaries, it has a direct impact on what we can put on the air. But I cannot say we were treated unfairly. Though I can have a discussion with you about the whole logic of these types of cuts and “reallocation” exercises, we were not treated any worse than anybody else.

    Mr. John Harvard: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

    I just want to ask you a couple of things. We talk about the cuts that have occurred over the many years, and we know there has been a lot of hurt in terms of the cultural fabric and the job the CBC has been able to do. When you talk about having less of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, it means a lot. I know a lot of the people who work on the show. That means something.

    I was just at the International Festival of Authors and I heard about the Jonathan Crosses Canada show, which doesn't have any money to cross Canada; most of it just doesn't happen because they can't afford it. So with creative staff cuts, burnout, and technical staff cuts, we've seen a huge blow to the corporation.

    As you know, this committee has put forward very strong recommendations that we continue to provide stable and increased funding.

    We've heard a lot of important stuff here today. You've had a $10 million cut, which is something we had not expected. The minister had promised in the spring that the $60 million would be there.

    So I guess the question is, what are your feelings? Are you optimistic or are you pessimistic as you look down the road? There's a change of guard; the Chrétien years are over. We now have Paul Martin coming in, who I guess is talking already about more cuts.

    Are you optimistic that you are moving into a period where public broadcasting is going to be given the credit and support it needs? I'd like your opinion on that.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I have to start by saying I'm an optimist by nature. To me the glass is half full, not half empty. The very fact that your committee turned out the report it did, the very fact that you have called us to come forward, the session we had with senators, which I thought was extremely positive.... I feel there's more understanding of the role of public broadcasting in today's broadcasting environment, which has changed so dramatically, than I've seen in a long time. I am very hopeful it will convert into stable public funding for the public broadcaster.

    I also believe that with globalization, with the integration of economies, with the desire to maintain good relations with our various economic partners, it is all the more important if we are going to be an independent country that we have a public broadcaster that will tell those Canadian stories, that will have people overseas.

    We have 40 people in Iraq and that area. TVA had one. I'm still looking for somebody from Global; they did not cover the story except for the feeds they got from American broadcasters. We still have people there. It has cost us a lot of money, but it's a story that has to be told, and told to Canadians in French and in English, from a Canadian perspective. That's part of being an independent country; it's part of the soul of our nation. It's not only our stories, but it's events out there, and telling stories about what's going on.

    One of the things we've done over the last couple of years with all these cuts is open up 20 new bureaus across Canada. We've opened up and we've completed La Chaîne culturelle across the country. We have squeezed and found the money to do these things because we believe it's critical for the fabric of the nation. We believe that's why Parliament created a public broadcaster. I am an optimist and I hope my optimism is well placed.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: In one of the recommendations we made after hearing from across the country, we recommended changes to the CRTC's 1999 television policy, because it appears it is fundamentally eroding Canadian content and people's ability to get work and create Canadian content. I wonder what CBC's take is on that and how that policy has been worked through in your own operation.

    Following that, what kinds of changes could occur here in this place—not financial ones, but ones at a policy level—that could strengthen your hand and strengthen the hand of public broadcasting?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I don't believe public broadcasting should have a monopoly on Canadian programs, on Canadian talent, and on Canadian shows. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in what the Broadcasting Act said: that the airwaves are public property. When you get a licence, with it comes certain responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is Canadian content.

    In our appearance before the Senate we never made the argument, and never would make the argument, that the CBC can do it all. What we want and would recommend and believe in is that there be multiple choices for Canadians, whether in news, in drama, or in shows, English and French. We are not affected, I believe—are we, Harold?—by the 1999 rules. Our Canadian content is so high and our programming is so focused that they're not conditions we have anything to worry about.

    I think the evidence is pretty clear, and I think the commission understands this and is wise to begin to hold hearings on the issue of drama, that the 1999 rules may have had an unintended consequence—maybe it was intended; I don't think it was—leading to less Canadian drama production and a cheaper form of production, such as documentaries.

    There is no question in my mind that it's not just a money issue when it comes to the private sector. That's part of Ms. McQueen's report, that there may be ways to stimulate the production of Canadian content that do not call for more money from the state but recognize that conditions of licence can have a very positive impact on this—and can also have a very negative impact. The private sector will always do what it's supposed to do, and that is try to maximize profit. They will look at the rules with that in mind.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Mrs. Frulla, we'll close with you.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: It's nice to hear you speaking about the conditions of licence and making sure we have good Canadian content, because there's a lot of worry within ACTRA, for example. They have trouble finding work and just being actors and doing what they do best. They don't have a margin of error. They do a show, and if that show is a flop, then goodbye; then you have American content all over.

    I just want to come back to the role of the CBC. In our report, we also said that CBC,

[Translation]

Telefilm Canada, the NFB and the Canadian Television Fund

[English]

should really work together. Sometimes we feel that the ONF, for example, is on one side and CBC is on the other. We have a lot of tools. If we put everything together, there are a lot of resources—financial, intellectual, creative—but sometimes we have the impression that there's one body that works here and another one that works there, and it's not perfectly combined. Is it possible? Is what we've written in our recommendation feasible? You're talking about documentaries, and you're saying that documentaries are more and more expensive or whatever, but the ONF, for example, could be of use there. Is it possible for everybody to work together to maximize our resources?

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I think you should be under no misunderstanding that CBC and Telefilm work quite closely together, through CTF and all that. We believe there should be very fundamental changes to the CTF, that our programming objectives are very different from the private sector's, and that in the long run the CTF should have a distinct public broadcasting CBC envelope, as it once did. Right now you're comparing apples and oranges. Having said that, we do work very carefully and very well within the CTF and with Telefilm.

    The ONF is a very interesting phenomenon. It has a small budget—$60 million—and a lot of overhead for an organization of that size, and as a consequence produces, relatively speaking, little for the funds it has, which are not much, just $60 million in total. I can tell you that in English almost everything they produce goes on air. We've had a very good working relationship with them for several years now, and the result has been that almost anything they produce, especially if they are conscious of the fact that it's going on television and therefore must be cut to television, makes it to air.

  (1255)  

[Translation]

    Things used to be much more difficult with the NFB. For several years, the board saw itself as working essentially on personal documentary cinema.

[English]

    Since the change in leadership, there has been a move at ONF to be more consistent and to work with us and to understand that the demands of broadcasting—the return is a large audience—are quite different from the screenings they were doing. We've done things like the....

[Translation]

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: The six half-hour series called Le marché Jean-Talon was made in cooperation with the NFB. The site Silence, on court, for example, is now an NFB-Radio-Canada project on short features on the web. There are also other documentary series at the moment that are being made in cooperation with the NFB. We work a great deal more with them than formerly, because they understand very well that the requirements for television are very different from those of the cinema, and we manage to do some very interesting projects.

[English]

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: But if you're looking at it from the point of view of maximizing public expenditures, there are changes that could be made.

    The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, I think this has been an extremely useful session for us. If you could follow up on your offer of sending us some kind of blueprint or strategic plan showing exactly how much ideally you would be looking for, including local and regional programming, it would be extremely useful for the committee.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Thank you, sir.

    The Chair: I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for appearing here today and for being very forthright with us in your answers.

    Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Thank you for the opportunity.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.