HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 0901

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I now call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. During the first three hours of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to noon, we will be hearing the president and a vice-president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[English]

We are very pleased today to—

Mr. Dennis J. Mills ( Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: I'll give you the floor in just a second.

[Translation]

We are very pleased to welcome before us today the president and one of the vice-presidents of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[English]

Mr. Rabinovitch, you can appreciate from the attendance here how interested Canadians and of course parliamentarians are in whatever touches the CBC, which is an icon to all of us. I really appreciate your having come here on short notice to meet with us.

Before we start our proceedings, Mr. Mills has asked to intervene on a point of order. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask for the support of this committee to waive the normal requirement for a notice of motion. The motion has been circulated in both official languages. It deals with the substance of what we'll all be talking about here today.

The first important thing is whether or not we could waive the requirement of notice so that the motion could be presented. The motion I present has been seconded by Mr. de Savoye, so I would seek that consent from the committee.

The Chair: First of all, we don't need any seconding; just the presentation of the motion is enough in itself. Of course, to waive the notice we have to have the unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. Mills wants to present a motion. You've heard that he's seeking unanimous consent.

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I have no problem with giving consent as well, but will we debate that motion after the presentation? I think it would be more appropriate to hear what the CBC has to say first.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I would defer to the consensus of the committee on when we debate it, but I think it's important that Mr. Rabinovitch hear what parliamentarians are saying on this very important issue. That was part of the reason why we thought we could have some short interventions from members, so that he could hear directly about some of our thoughts and our ideas.

I'm easy, but I think from a tactical point of view it might be better that we debate or we talk about the motion. Perhaps if we could each take two or three minutes to talk about some of our basic thoughts on the motion, then we could listen to Mr. Rabinovitch and then we could come back to a proper dialogue.

• 0905

The Chair: Mr. Mills, we have ten of us here. Two or three minutes each means half an hour for the proceedings to start off.

I don't know what the members want to do, whether they want to hear the motion now or defer it until later. That will be up to them to decide. If we do hear it now, perhaps there will be just a few representatives that will speak on behalf of the motion or against the motion, rather than having every member expressing their view. In fairness, we're here to listen to Mr. Rabinovitch, and I think that should be the main thrust of the exercise.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I would like to hear what other members have to say about that. The most important thing is that we table the motion and we have the motion read into the record before the witness.

The Chair: Okay. Could we agree on this? Could I ask if there's unanimous consent, so that the motion can be tabled? Then we'll decide whether we'll hear it now or afterwards.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger, I will give you the floor in a moment.

[English]

Is there unanimous consent? If there isn't, then we don't go any further.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. So why don't you table the motion and read it and then we'll go on from there.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

The motion is as follows:

Whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plays a vital role in television communication in Canada;

And whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides regional and local television coverage throughout Canada and all provinces and territories;

And whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides a direct link to our diverse cultures;

And whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plays an essential role as a training ground in the film and television industry as a showcase for young journalists, producers and entertainers from every part of Canada;

Therefore be it resolved that this Committee opposes any plan by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to dismantle existing CBC regional television capacity;

And further be it resolved that this Committee calls on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to expand and enhance its regional English and French television production and capacity;

And further be it resolved that this Committee calls on the Federal Government to provide adequate and stable funding to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to expand and enhance regional television production capacity;

And further be it resolved that this Committee undertake an urgent study of issues related to the distribution and transmission of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television signals.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, you wished to speak?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like committee members to first be allowed to hear the presentation of the representatives of the CBC and then, as is customary, to ask them questions, after which we might accept or reject our colleagues' motion. I believe that in all fairness we should begin by listening to what they have to say and having them listen to what we have to say before dealing with Mr. Mills' motion.

The Chair: Before giving the floor to Mr. de Savoye, I must tell committee members that this meeting will be interrupted because of votes in the House, and Mr. Rabinovitch will thus have less time available to him to make his presentation. Out of courtesy to him—after all, he accepted to appear before us on very short notice—, I would prefer that he make his presentation first and that we deal afterwards with the motion that has been tabled.

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I agree with your reasoning. I would however suggest that we deal with the motion as soon as we come back after the vote. In this way, we will have allowed Mr. Rabinovitch to share his concerns with us and we will have been able to voice our own. I presume that after the vote we would be in a position to deal with the motion that Mr. Mills tabled and that I seconded.

The Chair: We must also take into account the fact that after having heard Mr. Rabinovitch's presentation, committee members will probably wish to ask him questions. Could we therefore postpone this matter and come back to it when we have a better idea of the way in which the meeting will flow? I fully understand the views you have expressed.

[English]

Okay, Mr. Rabinovitch.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. At 10:30 we'll have the vote and then will we come back and continue with the committee?

The Chair: Why don't we play it by ear and see? I don't know how long Mr. Rabinovitch is going to take. I think in fairness there might be some members who might want to question him about what he has to say first. Let's not get into a fixed timetable. I don't know how long the vote will take. We have until 12 noon for Mr. Rabinovitch. It's already 9:10, so let's get on with it and see how it goes.

Mr. Rabinovitch.

• 0910

[Translation]

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

[English]

We look forward to this opportunity to discuss these issues with you. There has been a lot of discussion in the press. Yesterday was my six-month anniversary on the job, and I'm learning the difference between the private sector and the public sector. It's very different.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for inviting us. Let me introduce the Vice-president of English Television, Harold Redekopp.

[English]

We welcome this opportunity to consult and hear your concerns before our board makes a final decision on the future of English television.

[Translation]

We welcome this opportunity to consult with you and hear your concerns before our Board makes a final decision on the future of English Television.

[English]

The CBC—in this case, English television—is a treasured Canadian institution with a special place in our society. The need for a distinctive Canadian public service broadcaster will only increase. Canada will need a CBC even more in the future than it does now.

We have a strength, which I wish to focus on before continuing, and this is the quality and the loyalty of our staff. Without their commitment we would be a shadow of what we put on the air today. Our staff have suffered the cuts, they have been starved for funds for programming, and yet they have maintained a level of professionalism and quality second to none.

Mr. Chairman, we have two fundamental problems: a financial crisis in the short term and a profound identity crisis in the long term.

As I outlined to you in February, English television is in a serious financial crisis. You have before you a deck, which will refresh your memory. This is basically the deck we talked about before, and I don't intend to go into it unless you have particular questions. The purpose is basically to indicate that nothing has changed. We are in dire financial straits.

In fact, if I were still in the private sector and I brought the CBC plan as it now exists and what they were expected to do, I would be told by my bankers that it was structurally flawed, and unless we addressed those structural problems we would be well on our way to bankruptcy.

Let me put the current financial situation into an historical context. For the last 16 years English television has tried to continue to provide the same level of service with slashed budgets. I emphasize that this has gone on now for 16 years. Through a series of band-aid solutions, one-time funds, increasing reliance on advertising dollars and, most important, the unbelievable dedication of our employees, CBC has limped along until it has arrived at its current state.

Despite an increased dependence on advertising and many layoffs, English TV continues to be unable to balance its budget and maintain the current level of quality programming. That, Mr. Chairman, is our short-term problem.

In the long term, in order to be relevant and watched in a multi-channel universe dominated largely by programming from our neighbours to the south, we have to provide distinctive, quality Canadian programming. I want Canadians to know when they have landed on CBC television, just as they know when they have landed on CBC radio when they turn their dial.

Harold will present management's plans to you, but I would first like to correct some myths and misconceptions that have been circulating in the past few weeks.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, can I interrupt you for just a second?

We are trying to get some chairs set up so that the people in the back don't have to stand for a long while.

Thank you. Excuse me.

• 0915

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'd like to correct some of the myths and misconceptions that have been circulating for the past few weeks.

First of all, the proposed changes deal only with English television.

[Translation]

Our French services and English radio have met their financial commitments and are providing high quality public broadcasting. In fact, the March Board of Directors reinforced its commitment to our radio services by adding an additional 10 million dollars to their budgets dedicated to programming. I repeat: radio is not affected by the current discussions, nor is French Television.

[English]

Our French services and English radio have met their financial commitments and are providing high-quality public service. In fact in March the board of directors reinforced its commitment to our radio services by adding $10 million to the budget dedicated to programming. And I'm proud to say, as you may have read in the paper today, the enhancement of the quality of radio programming has started with the programs This Morning and Sunday Morning and the enhanced budget we've been able to give that set of programs.

I will repeat again, radio is not affected by the current discussions, nor is French television.

Secondly, many people have confused local and regional services and have stated the CBC intends to get out of the regions. Our mandate, according to the Broadcasting Act, is to provide a national service that reflects Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions. We will continue to meet that mandate.

Any suggestion that the CBC is leaving town is a gross misrepresentation. We have no intention of getting out of the regions. In fact, as you will see when Harold puts on his presentation and in the video we have prepared, our plans include increasing our journalistic presence in more communities, establishing a development seed fund to help regional ideas see the light of day, and ensuring regional staff determine what people in their regions will see every night on the six o'clock news. No one in Canada will lose access to the CBC signal.

Our plan will remake CBC Television in the way CBC Radio was redesigned in the 1970s. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted plan. These proposals to reposition English television in the new competitive environment and reality are critical to its long-term survival and to getting beyond the financial challenges of the moment. Without fundamental change, we will continue to slide into oblivion, despite the heroic efforts of our staff.

Finally, some have suggested we continue with the status quo. Let me make it perfectly clear: that option will lead to as may layoffs as the plan we are presenting today, given our financial crisis. This plan, the new plan, allows us to meet our mandate within our budget and to emerge as a true Canadian public broadcaster with distinct Canadian programming. As such, we would merit a spot on the dial, and we would do what is expected of us by Canadians: provide a distinctive quality service.

I am now going to ask Harold Redekopp to lead you through the proposed changes. It is a comprehensive presentation, and the important thing to point out is this is a long-term solution we are proposing, it is a detailed solution, and it has been worked on for a very lengthy period of time.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Redekopp, the floor is yours.

Mr. Harold Redekopp (Vice-President, English Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you, Mr. President.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

My remarks are not contained in your kit, but I will be speaking to materials you do have in your kit.

There's been a lot of talk about CBC Television making changes, and you may have concluded that these changes relate only to supper hours. Well, as you've heard the president say, the proposed changes are much more than that, and I'd like to take a few minutes to tell you about the plan we're proposing, what we're trying to achieve. After that we'd like to play you a short video, and then we would like to answer any questions you might have.

• 0920

We have embarked upon a fundamental transformation of English television. I would say, as the president has said, this plan is bold, it's big, and it's complicated.

It started fifteen months ago, and it had two goals in mind. The first was to create a Canadian public television service that would increase the loyalty and support of viewers for English television, much as CBC Radio has been able to build a loyal and strong following among its listeners. The second was to put English television on a sound financial basis, and as the president has said, you have information about our financial situation in your kit.

There are two major reasons for going for transformation. The first is we have an identity crisis and the second is we have a financial crisis, and I want to speak to both.

Let me start by our identity crisis. We wanted to create something called Canadian public television. The Canadian part of it has largely been achieved, and I have to say I wasn't there for it. I was in radio at the time. My predecessors did a heroic job in Canadianizing the television schedule during the most difficult period in our history, so that today we are at over 80% Canadian content all day and 90% Canadian content in prime. Just as a benchmark, you should know, for example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in its prime time carries about 40% Australian content. So we are proud of what we have achieved.

In addition to that, our programs are popular. Nine of the top ten Canadian entertainment series are carried on CBC Television. More than 40% of all viewing of Canadian programs is on CBC Television. It's a success story in terms of the Canadian part of it.

But ladies and gentlemen, the identity crisis comes as follows. When we canvass Canadians, we discover we are not seen as sufficiently different from other broadcasters. In fact we suffer from what we call a blurred image. We are seen as part commercial broadcaster, part public broadcaster. Indeed when you ask Canadians about public television, they're not even certain what public television is. So we have a huge challenge to explain and to demonstrate in clear and compelling terms what public television is and why it's worthy of public support. It's not hard to understand that if you don't understand what public television is, you're not likely to support it.

The second crisis is our financial crisis, and you've heard the president speak to it. Let me speak to it in really plain terms. We are seriously overextended. I cannot support all of our regional locations. I cannot support all of our network programs. I have inadequate money for program development. I have too much infrastructure. I have too many fixed costs. Of my budget, 40% represents fixed costs, so when there's a reduction, I go to the other 60%, which is programming. In the short term I have to balance the books, but in the long term I want to free up money so that I can address program development and program expenditure and make program improvements.

So our reasons for transformation are our identity crisis and financial crisis, and here is our response. What we want to do is focus on and reinvest in our core strengths, what we do well. I have to say our plan seeks to be relevant first within the conventional television world. The conventional television world will be with us for some time, and we need to be relevant and competitive in that world for some time. But we also want to establish an early and effective presence in new media areas, and that's also what our plan speaks to: the future.

So I'm going to talk about our core competencies or our core strengths: news, current affairs, comedy, drama, and sports—and when I talk about sports, I mean amateur sports, Olympic sports, and NHL hockey. But beyond that, I want to talk about six areas in which we want to reinvest, and that's what this plan is designed to do.

We'll start with our top priority, which is a more consistent and accurate reflection of all parts of the country to the whole, in news, public affairs, drama, the arts, comedy, and sports.

Let me confront the whole idea that we are pulling out of the regions. We're not. We're not pulling out of the regions. Currently English television has a presence in 27 locations across the system. What we would like to do is in fact increase that. This plan allows us to at least move into eight new locations, and we'd like to go beyond that, funds permitting.

• 0925

This committee should know that in this country we have huge geographic black holes where there is no service and no expectation of service. I'm originally from Winnipeg and I've often travelled by car from Toronto to Winnipeg. You go through a time zone and you go through a place called Thunder Bay and you go through Dryden and you go through Kenora on the Manitoba border and there's never a consistent television presence. It's a huge area. There's no expectation that there would be service, unless we do something about it. There would be something if there were a major fire; of course we'd send out a unit. But there's no consistent reflection of that part of the country.

One could make the same argument for southern Alberta or the interior of B.C. In other words, we have huge geographic holes in this country that are not being reflected on a consistent basis, and that's what we want to attempt to address. As I said, we want to establish a minimum of eight new bureaus, as we call them, that would be centres from which people would fan out and cover issues and stories, be part of the Canadian debate on a more consistent basis.

As the president said, we also want to set up what we call an early development fund. Let me give an example of what this fund might do. I'll come back to this example.

We have now a funded proposal called Random Passage. Random Passage is based on an epic story, a novel by Bernice Morgan in Newfoundland. It speaks about early Irish immigration. It's going to be one of those box sets that's going to have a life well beyond its telecast. It's going to be seen in Quebec and it's going to be seen on the English network. In fact, it's a co-production between a Quebec producer and a Newfoundland producer. It has epic proportions. It speaks to this country.

That idea, by the way, got started with a tiny grant from the regional director of television in Newfoundland. He didn't have much money, but he thought this was a terrific idea and he made the first important investment. What we're talking about here is setting up a fund for all regional locations, determined regionally but against network priorities.

I'd also like to address the notion that we are somehow setting up some kind of Torontocentric system or service. Look at our service. When you look at children's programming, we have Theodore Tugboat and Street Cents from Atlantic Canada. When you look at comedy, we have Made in Canada and This Hour Has 22 Minutes from Atlantic Canada. We can talk about Da Vinci's Inquest, Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy, and North of 60 from the west of this country, and so on. We are committed to that kind of reflection from across the country.

Finally, under this whole notion of a more consistent and accurate reflection of this country, our major programs don't travel any more. The National doesn't travel. It should, a minimum of four times a year. The Royal Canadian Air Farce should travel a minimum of four times a year. The Nature of Things, which is celebrating its fortieth season this year, should travel and wants to travel. I have no funds. What we're talking about is not leaving the regions, not creating a Toronto-centric system, but creating a national system that will be more accurate and consistent in its reflection of all parts of the country.

Let me move to a secondary issue of reinvestment, and that's children and youth. Children's programming is the hallmark of every major public television broadcaster in the world. It doesn't make money. It loses money because we can't advertise in that time period. Yet it invests in the future. It speaks to the future.

We have already distinguished ourselves with our programming in the mornings, CBC Playground. We are aligned with a not-for-profit organization in this country called Get Set for Life, which invests in the critical first five years of a child's life. We are seen to be promoting educational values, providing a healthy learning environment, and promoting parenting skills, all of which is part of our mandate. We want to expand this area by one-third to 40 hours a week.

A third area we want to reinvest in is what I'm calling thoughtful journalism. I hope people in this room don't think that's an oxymoron. I'll give examples of what I mean by thoughtful journalism.

We want to place a greater emphasis on documentaries. The documentary is a simple format of storytelling. Well, it's simple to say, but it's hard to produce. It's extremely effective and CBC has been among its chief practitioners. And we want to maintain our position of pre-eminence. Indeed, we're looking at creating a regionally based documentary series called The Canadian Experience.

• 0930

In the areas of investigative journalism, CBC TV is now alone in this country doing investigative journalism. I'm sure many of you saw the piece on The Fifth Estate on Stephen Truscott. Not only did we have a huge audience, we had a huge impact.

In the area of public affairs, we want to create new programs. Particularly on Sunday mornings, we want to create what we call a “serious block”, which would include a program that's devoted to political discourse, a program on politics, a program that would examine media accountability, not only at the CBC but elsewhere, and a program that would have a serious exploration on matters spiritual. I have to say that at the CBC we have some difficulty in dealing with matters of transcendence, but we're going to make a serious attempt at doing that.

In regard to the ten o'clock hour, we want to reinvest. We want to be more contextual. We want to be more international. And above all, we want to be more original, not just to carry the summation of the day's events but in fact add programming, add new material.

Under the whole area of thoughtful journalism, we want to create and produce more of what we call “specials”, whether they deal with health care or with the crisis on the farm.

A fourth area in which we want to invest relates to the arts. Last September we launched something called CBC Thursday. It's a commercial-free, hour-long program that deals with the best in performance at home in Canada and around the world. We want to expand that to two hours in the coming season. So we would have, for example, the opening of the National Arts Centre, but we would also have the reopening of Covent Garden.

Here I want to stop for a moment and tell you about missed opportunities. This past New Year's Eve, the eve of the new millennium, there was a major event in Toronto, with 15 Canadian opera stars, 10 of whom I had barely heard of. The amazing thing is that they come from all parts of this country, they're all young, and they all have established careers outside of this country. It was a stunning event. It was something we should have done, we knew we should have, but I didn't have the resources to do it. So CBC Radio carried it, and the people lucky enough to be in the hall heard it. But it was a nation-sharing event that ought to have been on CBC Thursday. We have to find funds to do that more consistently. That is what we're called to do in the arts.

A fifth area, which really follows on what I've just been saying, is to do more on what we call “high-impact specials”. I'm going to give you some examples, if I may. The most recent successful nation-sharing event, I believe, was what we did around the new millennium. It was a 26-hour program that linked us and the world. At some point in that 26 hours, 40% of English-speaking Canadians tuned in.

Last July, CBC TV was the host broadcaster at the opening of Pier 21, which commemorates millions of Canadians who've come into this country as immigrants and thousands who have left from Pier 21 to serve in World War II. We were there. We told the stories of the immigrants. We were there and set it up as a nation-sharing occasion.

This July we're going to be in Halifax again for the appearance of the tall ships.

Coming up in the next few weeks, CBC will be providing live coverage of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I think many of you in this room know that the remains will move from Vimy Ridge to the cenotaph here in Ottawa. We will cover that whole process live. We'll be there live on Newsworld on Thursday, May 25, and we'll be live here in Ottawa on Sunday, May 28, when the remains lie in state and the Governor General and the Prime Minister pay their respects. We will be here on the main channel and on Newsworld as we move to the final reinterment at the national cenotaph.

Those are all examples of what I mean by nation-sharing events. They're not cheap, and I have to find ways and money to do more of those. That's the first kind of high-impact special we're interested in doing more of. They're interactive; they depend upon partnerships.

• 0935

There's another kind of high-impact special that we want to produce. We're calling those box-set projects. Box-set suggests longer shelf life.

The best example is the Canadian history project that's going to air on both the French and the English television networks on October 22. It's the first comprehensive Canadian history on television. It was established at the outset for both linguistic groups. It's not designed for English and translated into French. It will deal with the same interpretations around historic events and around Canadian events for both audiences. It will obviously have a life well beyond the telecast. There will be materials for schools. There will books, and there will be a website. It will be a legacy to this country.

I've talked briefly about Random Passage. I don't want to spend much more time on that, but Random Passage is a literary example of one of these box-set projects. It will have a life beyond its telecast as well in terms of video cassettes and further use.

The last area I would like to talk about reinvesting in is the whole area of the future. That's what I call “new voices”. When I was in radio, we created a new voices zone that has been very successful. In fact, it won a Prix Italia this past year for CBC Radio.

What we want to do in television is create what we call an “innovation zone”, late-night prime, in which you will see new faces, new talents, new formats, new ideas, new filmmakers, cross-cultural and multicultural programming, the kind of programming that no other broadcaster can or will do.

That then brings me to how do we make this plan work—how do we achieve this transformation? I guess the first thing I have to say is that it means tough choices.

There are really two approaches I'd like to talk about. The first is that we have to go after what we call “the big cost drivers”. We have to find a way of converting fixed costs into program dollars, and we'll do it over time. That also includes the supper hours. So one suggestion we have is to create a new blended national and regional program at six o'clock that is live, and it's live in five time zones. So it has five editions. Each edition would be co-anchored regionally. It would have a regional line-up, and the stories will be determined regionally. We would also call upon a larger bureau system that I talked about earlier, and it would allow us to be topical, to deal with domestic issues in a way we haven't, and to allow regions to speak to each other in a way we haven't been able to do.

I could give a couple of examples. If we were looking, for example, at last night's Newfoundland by-election in St. John's West, obviously that would be carried on all five editions; it would be a national story. But in the Atlantic edition it would obviously have greater prominence.

As another example, the snow and cold weather that we've had recently in Manitoba, given that all the crops have been seeded, is a national story, but in the central time zone it would have far greater prominence. Or Bill 11, as it was being debated in Alberta, would obviously be a national story but have far greater prominence in the mountain time zone.

So that blended national-regional program would be a different program, provide a different service, and it would not be a program that would include local material.

The second part of our approach to distinguishing ourselves and creating value and support for CBC Television is to reduce the impact of commercials. Let me take a moment to explain why.

Currently, 40% of my budget comes from commercial revenue. That's up from 35% five years ago. It's not that I'm making more commercial revenue, it's that my total budget has changed, the composition has changed, and the proportion of commercial revenue has gone up. If I have to keep everything going, you can understand the pressures in trying to make sure I get programs that get the largest possible audience, as opposed to the programs that might belong in a public service offering.

• 0940

So the pressures of commercial revenue are intense in terms of shaping the schedule, and shaping the schedule in a way that may not always be in the public interest.

A second reason for reducing the impact of commercials is because of the clutter it creates. Currently in prime time we carry twelve minutes of commercials an hour, like every other broadcaster. This is the maximum allowable under the CRTC. Add to that two minutes of promotional material to promote our programs, and you have a quarter of each hour in prime time, which makes us look no different from CTV, CBS, City—you name any other channel out there. If you're going up and down the dial, we are indistinguishable from them. So not only do we want to differentiate ourselves in terms of content, we also want to differentiate ourselves in terms of the look. As the president said earlier, we want to be able to create a look on CBC television that is unmistakably Canadian and public, much as CBC radio has achieved that when you go across the dial.

So if I can recap, English television transformation means a better-defined public television service; it means that we sharpen our focus as content providers; that we reinvest in our core strengths and those things that we do well, and we position ourselves for the new media world; and finally, that we build support and loyalty over time for CBC television.

I thank you for listening. I would ask if we could play a video that would actually demonstrate in far more eloquent terms what we're trying to achieve. It's just over seven minutes long, but, as requested, we'll play it twice—once in English and once in French. Thank you.

[Video Presentation]

• 0955

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rabinovitch and Mr. Redekopp. I take it now you're open for questions from the members.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by thanking you for coming.

What I'd like to do is refocus our attention to why we're here. After listening to both of you, I think I have mixed messages. The reason we're here is the message we all receive at home and in the media.

The CBC is a sacred cow in this country. When I read in the paper here and on TV that three provincial legislatures passed resolutions because they're concerned about the loss of regional broadcasting, to me that's the real message they receive.

Your message to me was very different this morning, as well as messages from my constituents. I'll read one to you. In fact, I just received this not long ago from a constituent at home. He says:

Hi, Inky.

Through you I would like to voice my disgust at the CBC plan to gut local supper-hour news. As you are aware, CBC Winnipeg is the only TV news outlet that comes close to offering some sort of news coverage outside the perimeter of Winnipeg. What we absolutely don't need is another news broadcast from Toronto with snippets thrown in from the regions.

So this is the real message I'm getting.

As I've said and you've said, CBC can't be everything to everybody. We understand that. And we understand you're the expert in terms of running the business. But I think, in this case, this is a public broadcaster and this is the country's business. And as you indicated this morning, it is different from running a private business.

So if the message you gave us this morning is the real one, are you going to get that message out? And are you going to make sure the people buy into that message?

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch.

• 1000

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

I think I should put this a bit into context. We began, as any organization would do, to do research and look at alternatives to meet our financial situation and the problems of identification quite some time ago and well before my arrival. We brought forward some ideas to our board on April 26, 2000. We also alerted the board over a period of time to the financial crisis we were facing.

In respect of my board, we did not begin to explain what the entire package was to the public. In fact, this is the first presentation we are making to a non-closed audience and basically to the public.

Unfortunately, as is true about many places, in the CBC you live in a glass house. People chose to leak the parts they didn't like. So unfortunately the message of the cuts and the potential cuts has gone out. The message of a particular program that is not performing well in general and is not necessarily part of what a public broadcaster should be doing has gone out. But the message as to the changes we wish to make and why we are going through these changes is only now beginning to go out. That is what you see today in this video and this presentation. What we are trying to do is a fundamental change in public broadcasting for English television because of a firm belief that it is necessary and a firm belief that without it we will not survive.

The Chair: Mr. Mark, you may have a brief question.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have a question on the rationale for all these cuts. The fact is that what has been stated in the public is that 50% of the labour force is going to get the pink slip. I wondered if you've done any research to see the impact this will have, not only in the short term but also in the long term, not only on our local economy but also on the national stage. Would you do the same thing if you were a private businessman, whack off or cut half your skilled labour force? The special thing about the CBC and the people they develop is that they have a huge impact on our film industry as well. So I wonder how much impact analysis you did before you put this plan on paper.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We have been analysing and looking at ways to limit the cuts in people power that we will have to go through. As you know, we had to do a 150-person layoff in Toronto in February. So this is a continuing exercise, unfortunately. We do it not out of love of cutting people; we do it because we have to fit into a fiscal straitjacket. And we do it because our primary objective is quality programming.

We are very concerned about the loss of quality people. We're very concerned about the greying of our organization, and how we bring in young people into the organization, because that is our future. But we have a reality as well. I took the job with the understanding that we would have to make tough choices if we were going to survive. That is basically, unfortunately, what we've had to do. Unfortunately, downsizing and changing and restructuring is a way of life in the 1990s, and now into the year 2000, in all companies.

As you restructure your labour force, fortunately, we're doing it at a time when the industry is growing, when there are going to be many more alternatives for people who wish to stay in the industry as a result of the new licences that are coming in. So it's a mixed blessing from our point of view. It's more competition and more change in our structure, but at the same time it will result in more opportunities for people who wish to stay in the industry.

I guess at the end of the day, at the bottom line, what we have to do is focus as much as we can on programming. Wherever we can save resources to put into programming, that is what we must do. We must run as efficiently as if we were in the private sector.

The Chair: We will come back to you.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Good morning Mr. Rabinovitch and Mr. Redekopp.

You have delivered to us here this morning a very well packaged message. It is exciting; we look at it and we say to ourselves that it is fantastic. Everyone understands what is well packaged, but I would like to take a look at the small print.

• 1005

All your reasoning is based on a redistribution of financial resources, and you are telling us that you will accomplish all of this through reallocation. In fact, what I sensed was a change in direction in which the regional look will give more and more way to the national look. This is a political decision and you are perfectly entitled to it.

But I wonder what will be sacrificed. If resources are to be redistributed, that means that they are taken from the left hand and given to the right. Who will wind up naked? There will be job losses, as you have stated, and some are even guessing that they will be major. What will these job losses impact upon exactly? Will they impact upon the regions? I understood that there will be a supper hour show within which all the regions would speak to each other, which means that no region will be speaking to itself for very long.

You also talk about productions. These productions might be made outside and perhaps we will call upon cross-culturalism; in other words, we will use the budgets of the French network to co-produce or to bring about the co-production of English network productions.

I remember one Mr. Manera who resigned because he felt unable to carry out his mandate because of the insufficient budget he was given. His successors, and you are one of them, have told us that there is light at the end of the tunnel. But when you arrived, the light was not all that obvious. I fear that your successor will in two, three, four or five years—all depending on your longevity and your patience—find him or herself before the committee to tell us a story that will probably be similar to yours, with new predictions.

Mr. Rabinovitch, there is phenomenon called inflation, and the inflation rate is at 2% per year and it is inescapable. I have not mentioned the salary increases that we would obviously hope for all of our good CBC and Société Radio-Canada employees. You yourself said that if you were a private company and went to see your banker, he would tell you that you are on the road to bankruptcy. Tell me the truth, Mr. Rabinovitch: do you need money from the government?

Some members: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I must nevertheless stress that as managers it is up to us to manage this organization within the limits of the existing budgetary envelope. We must try to find the necessary funds within the budgetary envelope of our organization. I am working with our re-engineering task force in order to find the means to manage our assets more efficiently so as to be able to identify new monies that would allow us to manage the organization in an environment where costs are constantly on the rise.

You mentioned inflation. We must also take into account salaries and the agreements we have signed with the unions, which provide for even higher increases than those accepted by Treasury Board. It is up to us to try to manage with the assets we have, to operate the corporation and to find, if possible, the money we need inside the box. If we do our work and if we want to succeed in offering the public service we have developed and presented here today, this will cost money, lots of money. The government and the public will have to come to a decision on this. For now, we must manage the organization within the limits of the budgetary envelope we have been given.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Rabinovitch, if you implement the proposal that you have made, will the regions' reflection of themselves not be diminished? You cannot at the same time lay off staff and maintain the same quality of regional production as previously, unless your resources are being very poorly used. You stated that your staff is extremely devoted and competent. I therefore must presume that it is already doing its utmost. Therefore, less personnel means less regional programming.

• 1010

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: No, not at all. On the contrary, we are saying that we want to change production methods and in particular one type of program, a program that is not necessarily well adapted to the public sector. This is a program that costs us an awful lot of money and we could save money through reallocation.

We have our basic budget. We must control our deficit, but we could increase the number of people in the regions. These people are there to report on the regions. Therefore, programming will not be reduced in the regions. Furthermore, there is a type of program that will disappear.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Which one?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Local newscasts, what in English we call the supper hours.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Rabinovitch....

The Chair: I will come back to you.

[English]

Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rabinovitch and Mr. Redekopp, thank you for coming.

I'd like to start by echoing what was said on the video: that the CBC is an indispensable part of Canadian life. That's what the CBC is to me and it's also what it is to many, many of my constituents. As Albert Schultz so eloquently put it, it tells our story and it reflects our lives. But telling stories and reflecting our lives mean different things in different regions.

You started today by saying you have two crises: an identity crisis and a financial crisis. Mr. Redekopp says you have a fundamental new vision. Forgive me for being skeptical of this new vision. Yes, you have addressed the identity crisis, absolutely, and it's a wonderful vision. But dealing with the financial crisis or the financial insecurity, how is this a fundamental new vision? Is this not just a repeat of previous cutbacks of local programming? I remember going to law school in Windsor when they cut the programming there. That was going to be the solution then.

Also my concern is that you have talked time and time again about financial straitjackets, the bottom line. You say in the long term you need to free up more money. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. If we start cutting here, where else do we cut?

Your vision is wonderful. It's a wonderful mandate to sell to Canadians, and it will reflect us. But people are concerned that by starting to cut these regional broadcasts, that is just the thin edge of the wedge, and they will continue withering away.

Where is the plan to get the money to do all these wonderful things? You talked about eight new bureaus and these early development funds. You said don't have the funds to travel. Where is that money going to come from? At the same time you're talking about reducing commercials. Where is the money going to come from?

I'm concerned. I am concerned. I want you to have the money. I want you to be able to live out your mandate. How are you going to deal with the financial insecurity you have? We haven't heard how that plan is going to be addressed.

And I have just one other question. Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Rabinovitch, that the role of the public broadcaster is not to do local newscasting?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Let me start with the last question first. I've said before publicly that we have to have the courage, given our limited resources, to ask ourselves, are there areas where the service is being provided competently by the private sector? In those areas we may have to withdraw, because we cannot be all things to all people.

What I have said and what I have meant to say in the context of this program we're putting forward is that in the area of local supper hours, I use the words “by and large”, in almost all parts of the country, the private sector has picked up the challenge and is providing it and doing it in a very competent manner.

That gives us, to get back to your first question, the flexibility to reorganize the corporation in such a way as to free up the resources to achieve the program you've seen that we've put forward. I can assure you that the program as presented, with the changes we wish to make, is fiscally prudent and can be achieved. I cannot assure you that in the long run we will not need more money. On the contrary, if we wish to maintain and enhance the public broadcaster, with the threats and challenges we have of globalization, we will have to enrich public broadcasting. But the program as you've seen it, with the changes we wish to make, is fiscally responsible.

• 1015

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But again, how is it different from what was done in the past, when the CBC cut before?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Well, firstly, I wasn't there.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I know that.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: So I can't comment on that. But it can be said that we have endured at CBC, over a period of sixteen years, cuts almost every year, if not in dollar terms, in real terms. It is very difficult to try to continue to be all things to all people.

The difference is—and perhaps this is not a nice thing to say—this time we're cutting off a limb. We are not spreading the pain across the company. The alternative to the status quo, and let me be very clear, is we will spread the pain, but there will still be the same job losses, because we cannot do what we have to do, and what we are programmed to do today cannot be delivered in the year 2000-2001—in other words, within this cycle—without significant job losses. I've said that from the day I came into the job and was shown and went through the numbers. It is impossible to do.

What we're hoping to do here is take job losses and restructuring in a way that focuses the company for the future rather than looks to the past.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Shepherd is listed next, but I understand, Mr. Wilfert, you have to go and you're going to see if you can take his place.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've talked a lot today about vision and resources. A lot of the debate has been in the shadows. I understand you had about seven plans over the last eighteen months. We've heard snippets. Some of it you've now tried to correct today. Part of the responsibility obviously was on your shoulders, because this debate should have been more forthcoming rather than leading to certain conclusions that parliamentarians or the public or the media have made.

You talk about the identity crisis. You present a very interesting picture, which I think we can all say sounds very exciting. But again there's the issue of resources, having the actual dollars to do the job. Usually you have a vision and you say, “This is what it will cost. These are the options if we want to go with model A, model B, or model C.” I don't know what your other six plans were. I don't know if anybody does, other than maybe your board of directors. I'd certainly like to know what the other options were.

I'd like to know what are the minimum dollars required. Obviously you're less dependent on.... You have 40% fixed costs, which affects your programming, and yet you're going to reduce, ideally, commercials. You're still talking about over 670 job cuts. And at the end of the day you make comparisons, I notice, in your fact sheet.... I don't understand why you'd compare the CBC to the BBC. Maybe you could compare the CBC to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in terms of the large land mass and a similar population. You point out they get $7.5 billion for a population three to four times the size of Canada's.

I'd really like to know, through you, Mr. Chairman, rather than this bleeding that is going on, why don't we put on the table, “These are the options we see if you want this type of CBC, if this is what Canadians want”? And according to the polling Polaris did in 1999.... But you've only presented one option, and an option that, quite frankly, sounds nice, but again, I don't want you back here a year from now, two years from now, or five years from now, saying, “Well, we thought we could do this, but this didn't pan out, so we need these dollars.”

I realize on your first day on the job, Mr. Rabinovitch, when you came here, you didn't want to ask for more money. But on the other hand, if you really are going to steer the CBC into the 21st century, let's put the facts on the table as to what you need, and then we can go back to other issues, such as regional programming, etc. But I'd like to really see what the options are, rather than just saying, “Well, here it is. Take it or leave it.”

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I have a couple of points to make, if I may.

• 1020

I guess I do have to take a mea culpa for having the plan leak out in pieces. Next time I'll ignore my board and publish the plan. The reality was I was trying to play by the rules, and I understood them and I thought others did. They were that you do your homework as a management group and you bring your ideas, as harsh as they may be, as difficult as they may be, and you make your decisions on a board rather than on misrepresentations and half truths about leaving town and things of this nature. So on that I made the mistake. Quite frankly, I would make it again, because I have a respect for my board. I believe the board has to have the opportunity and the time to look at various plans.

With respect to the job cuts, and I know this will come up again and again, what you have, I believe, is an example of one piece of paper that was presented to our board as one of the most extreme possibilities. We always present our board, when we know it, with the most extreme possibilities and what would be necessary in order to fit it back into the budget, as defined.

I can't guarantee you I won't be back in two to five years. This is one of the most dramatic and dynamic markets in the world at the present time. It's extremely exciting to be in the broadcasting business. It is changing by the day. Whether there are new entrants, on the one hand, moving to different ways of delivery of the programming service, the one thing you know is it's not going to be the same the next day.

It is very conceivable, given the extent to which we will rely on advertising, no matter what plan is put forward. We have not gone through a major downsizing, a major recession, which I have lived in the broadcasting business, and all of a sudden seen your advertising dollars crash and change dramatically. We haven't gone through advertisers deciding to advertise in different fora.

So I can assure you of one thing, and that is I don't know whether I'll be back in two to five years saying it didn't work or we don't have the money. What I can assure you, and that's all I can do at the present time within the budget we were given, within our structure, is that this is a dynamic new program, which you say yourself, and we can do it if we can make the changes necessary. We can make the financial ends meet today. We see it at least for the next two or three years. We are comfortable that we have a structure. We have an approach. We have the funding, as a result of these adjustments that will make this possible.

The Chair: Mrs. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to welcome our guests here this morning and say how very important I think this discussion is.

I first want to underscore how critically important the regional and local programming part of the CBC mandate is and associate myself with Northrop Frye's notion that culture is regional.

For that reason, I am absolutely aghast at what your thinking is with respect to a decision to deal a death blow to the suppertime programming, particularly when you look at the audience ratings. If you look at the rating in Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland for the local suppertime program, it exceeds, by a long shot, the ratings for the final episode of MASH. I don't know how you could ask for a stronger vote, by means of the dial by your audience, than the kinds of ratings you see for the suppertime programs.

I've listened to you talk about how you recognize that regional programming and local programming are important. I've heard you express your appreciation for the loyalty of staff and the loyalty of the audience through this tremendously difficult period of cuts. Then I watch you deliver proposals for how you're going to thumb your nose at that audience loyalty, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, but it's also true in places like Windsor and Winnipeg. You have very strong audiences. With respect to rewarding staff for their loyalty, after 3,000 cuts to turn around and propose another 674 cuts in an area that is so critically important as that of local and regional programming, it's just very difficult to make sense of it.

• 1025

I think some of your bold innovations and your vision for some radical change is very welcome. I think it looks exciting. I also want to raise a question. If you believe in it, and I think you do—I think you see the excitement behind it—why don't you invest in it? Don't do it at the expense of something as important as the local and regional programming, which has been so well rewarded by your loyal audiences.

Obviously I'm a proud Atlantic Canadian. In the last four days I've been in three of the four Atlantic capitals where the suppertime programming is produced—in St. John's, in Charlottetown, and in Halifax. I think you have some explanations owing to people who believe fundamentally in public broadcasting, who believe in the importance of regional and local programming, but who simply don't understand why you would sacrifice this, which is the real guts of nation-building.

Nation-sharing is fine. The notion of sharing some of the big spectacles, the big stories, that's fine. Surely what nation-building is about is putting forward people's stories from what's happening in their local community, from what's impacting on the region. Particularly at a time when so many decisions are impacting on people's lives out there in smaller communities, out there in the less populous and less prosperous regions, that's when a public broadcaster has a very particular responsibility. A lot of impacts on people's lives are tearing down their sense of nation, tearing down the sense of who we are and how we fit, how we belong to the Canadian family.

So I wonder if I might ask you to address what really is a desperate plea. It's not just members of Parliament from those regions who are feeling desperate about why you would sacrifice the success of that suppertime programming and other regional programming. It's legislators, it's people on the street. It's everyone saying “What is happening to our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is supposed to be including us in the notion of the Canadian family?”

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It's hard. I can't disagree with a word you said.

I went to Newfoundland and I was overwhelmed with the support for the program. I am travelling in the east next week again, and I know of what you speak.

I believe, with all due respect, that you are mixing up two ideas, plus some other concepts. You are mixing up two ideas, namely regional and the local supper hour. The local supper hour works in a couple of places only. It is an embarrassment to the extent to which it does not work in most places. And we have to look at it in general to see what can be done.

The reality is that from where I sit I have to make painful decisions and choices in terms of what I recommend to my board. We have to move forward and ask questions at times and do things we're not very proud of doing and not very happy to do. If I may put it this way, and you may disagree with me, it is this type of a choice, given the budgetary situation within which we operate.

It's a choice between Street Cents and This Hour Has 22 Minutes and programs of that nature that come out of regions we want to protect, develop, and enhance. It's a choice to have more regional representation in terms of our programming, as compared to a particular genre called “the supper hour”. That's basically the dilemma. We are not financially in a situation where we can do both.

We have made a decision. Others might make a different decision; our board may make a different decision. But let's not kid ourselves, at the end of the day something will have to go or else we just continue to cut across everything and watch the slippery slide to nowhere, and then we'll have no CBC.

The Chair: Ms. McDonough, we have two votes coming. In fairness to the others, I think we will come back.

Mr. Muise.

• 1030

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our guests.

Mr. Rabinovitch, in order to save time I won't repeat all the important things that were said here today about why we should keep our local suppertime news broadcasts, but especially things like First Edition and Compass and Here and Now.

As a member of this committee and as a proud Nova Scotian, I want to impress upon you all that was said here today and echo that. And I would also impress upon you the importance of bringing that message to your board, because you say that you respect your board. But, sir, they have to respect you and what Canadians are saying. These are not parliamentarians in a standing committee of the House of Commons who are speaking. We are speaking on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Rabinovitch, I would urge you, I would plead with you, to bring that message to your board with as much emphasis as we are doing with you here today.

You made no qualms earlier about the fact that you are upset with the conditions of licensing that were imposed by the CRTC. I'm wondering whether by threatening to basically remove local suppertime broadcasts of the news and the production you are basically trying to create an uproar to just get more funding.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I wish I were that good.

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe you are that good.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Let me answer a couple of points, if I may.

I do believe that a debate about public broadcasting is critical. And quite frankly, one of the best things that came out of the January contretemps with the CRTC was the beginning of such a debate in the country. And I do believe and trust in the political process: that if the public reacts and calls upon government to put more funding into the public broadcaster, we will have succeeded and we will have a healthier, stronger public broadcasting system.

So I don't deny the debate. In fact, I enjoy the debate immensely and I think it's what must happen. I believe the cuts that have gone on, as I say, over 16 years have really destroyed and taken their toll, and if it weren't for the quality of people we have, and the people who have stayed and worked, and have done things that one could never have expected, we would be in much more trouble today.

I should stop there, but I haven't learned yet to keep my mouth shut, so I will say this. We will definitely bring the message to the board. In fact, I think it's absolutely critical that we do bring the message to the board. But I will have to bring a couple of messages to the board, sir. I will have to bring the message of the concern that we all have and you have about local supper hours. I will have to bring the message of the fact that we are financially in a situation where we must cut and cut significantly. I will have to bring the message that except for one or two places, when you look at the performance of the supper hours, we have a 2% share in Edmonton, with 10,000 people watching it, and we have a 3% share in Saskatoon.

We can quote numbers at each other. Of the 14 shows, there are three or four that have done very well, I fully agree, and that will be put to the board. But the whole story will be put to them and has been put to the board.

Mr. Mark Muise: Don't destroy the good ones.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I understand, yes.

The Chair: May I mention to members that I think we have a bit of a problem with the questions and the time we allowed, because we have a long list still, obviously, and we have two votes coming up. There's going to be a first 30-minute bell, which is going to start ringing any time now, so we'll have 30 minutes to go. As soon as we finish the vote there will be another 30-minute bell, which means that if members come back here they'll be due to go back again to the House of Commons almost immediately. So virtually we have to use the next 25 minutes to finish our work here if we want to come back and attend to Mr. Mills' resolution. This is the story, sadly. So maybe we could confine ourselves to brief questions so that everybody gets a chance.

There's a long list. There's Mr. Limoges, Mr. Easter, Ms. Carroll, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Bélanger. So if we can be brief, maybe we can get through as much as possible before the 30-minute bell.

Mr. Limoges.

• 1035

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be right to the point. I think you know the numbers. The BBM statistics show that cutting the local news in Windsor means you're cutting the most popular program offered by the CBC in Windsor.

I don't think I have to reiterate. Although you weren't with the CBC ten years ago, I'm sure you've heard of a march led by the then-mayor John Milson, which had in excess of 10,000 people. I took part in that as a member of city council ten years ago. And it shows that the CBC local news program is extremely important to us in Windsor. The 350,000 people in Windsor and Essex County frankly are on the front lines. We form a beachhead of Canadianism against the behemoth U.S. that surrounds us. And we're different from a lot of other places in Canada. Perhaps there are some similarities to other areas in Canada that are on the extremities, but even on the east or west coast, they're surrounded much more by water. We are surrounded by a very large market that is not Canadian, and it's a different situation.

I understand as well, from what you're saying, we can start to mourn the loss of local news if you get your way. But I also understand that you're going to be giving up about $120 million in advertising revenue if you're not offering local programming. I understand from previous CRTC rulings that in fact you would have to restrict yourself to solicitation of sales of national and regional advertising only, and not local advertising, should you not offer local programming. I guess that's why, as well, you're saying you're going to redefine or reduce the impact of commercials.

I love what you're saying you're going to offer in terms of redefining CBC. It's all great. But why do it at the cost of, in Windsor, anyway, your most popular program? We need that local news in Windsor more than anywhere to help us to maintain our Canadian identity.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: All I can say is that I hear you. We will present it to the board. Our concern and our problem remains the same. We are in a financial straitjacket. If it is not the local news and we decide, as a board, to keep the local news, then we will cut something else. We will cut something that is distinctively Canadian. We will cut programming that we want to put on the air because it helps define the CBC as a unique Canadian instrument, and we will continue the slope to Nowheresville.

I'm not trying to paint this solely as the good guy versus the bad guy. I'm trying to paint it in terms of if you have a limited budget, if you have a focused budget, you must have—and this is, I'm sorry, maybe because I'm from the private sector—you must cut the cloth to fit the clothes that you have. And there are certain things we just cannot do.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Are you then saying that if you had more money this would not be an issue? Let's get to the point.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: No. If we had more money I would discuss the matter with my board and we would discuss what the best uses for those funds were, given the programming that you've seen we want to put on the air and given where we want to take the CBC. We would not—

Mr. Rick Limoges: Giving you more money will not restore the local programming. I want you to clarify that.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Giving us more money would result in a discussion with our board, and it may or may not restore local programming.

The Chair: I've just been advised that although there is going to be a 30-minute bell, it's a maximum of 30 minutes. We'll start to vote as soon as there are enough people in the House. So they want us there as soon as possible. So we can press on with the questions so that when the bell starts to ring we'll just have a few minutes to get to the House.

I feel really sad for Mr. Shepherd. He traded his slot and he's down in the dumps now. So I think we'll start with him if that's okay. All right.

• 1040

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rabinovitch, when you were with us in February, you made the statement that you would not be here again unless you were able to present a financial plan and that you would not ask us for money unless you had a financial plan in place. What you've given us today, to me, is not a financial plan. It seems there are a lot of good intentions and a lot of innuendo.

I'm assuming what we're doing is some kind of shift of resources within the corporation. Some of that is to reduce the bleeding and some of it is to finance some of your new programming.

When you were here in February, another point you raised was the disposal of fixed assets. You've come back constantly about 40% fixed cost. What always bothered me about that thought process is we were taking capital assets and throwing them into a pot that basically was a sieve. Your comments hearken back to that, coming back in two or three years saying, “Gosh, that money's all gone. Now what are we going to do?”

So what I want to know is, where is the financial plan? Do you intend to present members of Parliament and therefore the country with a specific financial plan for where the resources are going to be cut, not only including job losses but some of your fixed assets? I know you also talked about renting some of these assets. You talked about maybe changing some of the culture of the CBC so that you are no longer just a broadcaster; you are a landlord.

I'd like you to address some of those issues, but specifically where is the plan?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The plan, sir, is that the program we have put forward is a balanced program that we have assured our board we can meet financially. It is our board that has to make the decision to accept it or reject it, and our board understands our financial constraints. What we have put forward and what you have seen is a balanced plan that we believe is fiscally prudent and will work.

With respect to the issue of disposal of assets and capital assets, let me be very clear. We are examining the way in which we manage our property, of which we have a lot across the country, and the way in which we manage transmission and distribution. Our re-engineering task force is undertaking work with respect to how the CBC manages its capital plant and all aspects of its capital plant.

There is no intention to sell anything as a short-term fix. Any moneys we receive.... What we wish to do is manage those assets in a prudent way that will generate a flow of revenue to the corporation. In other words, we're not putting buildings up for sale unless we have no use for the buildings, in which case we will get the funds and we will basically bank the funds and live off the interest from those funds and use those funds as we need to for programming and development purposes. But it is not a short-term fix, which is why we're going through this pain right now.

We have no idea, sir, what we will get out of our property. We are looking at it seriously; we are looking at it professionally. We are bringing in professionals to help us with the management of our property assets. I know enough from my role in the private sector to know you don't make money on property before investing money. We will have to do TIs, tenant improvements, and things of that nature in order to create a revenue stream from those properties. But we will manage that in such a way that we hope will give us more funds in the future.

But from a planning point of view—and I've told this to management explicitly—we cannot spend money we don't have yet and that we haven't generated, because it may not be there. It may come out that we in fact cannot generate the funds we wish to generate. I have the confidence that we will, but I believe it's a two- to three-year venture before I'll have a bottom-line item that is revenue from property management, revenue from transmission facilities.

I have reason to be confident because of the expressions of interest that have come from the private sector and from means and methods I've seen in terms of the management of property and transmission facilities, but these are only reasons to be confident; they're not facts. It won't be a fact and I won't spend money and we won't spend money until we can see it actually coming in. We won't spend the money until in fact we can see a revenue stream that will serve the company into the long run.

The Chair: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to know in the general sense how you've determined what the public, in your view, wants. You've outlined a number of areas, going to a number of other programs, etc. In my view, for supper-hour programs, what's more distinctly Canadian than what Canadians do on a daily basis? Look at the ratings. Alexa and others mentioned the ratings in Charlottetown and Saint John.

• 1045

If you're talking about your new blended national-regional programs, if an example of that is what we get in Prince Edward Island on the weekends, called The Maritimes Tonight, I for one won't turn it on, nor will most other Islanders, because it's not.... We'll turn on The National. We like The National. It gives us the Canadian context. But in terms of The Maritimes Tonight on the weekends, you go back and do some polling on that and you'll find, instead of the 68% to 76% rating CBC Charlottetown has during the evening news hour on the weekdays, on the weekends that's cut to probably 20% or somewhere in that range. I don't know the figures, but we just won't watch it, because we don't identify with it.

In Charlottetown we don't have other alternatives to the CBC. It's part of the community. Everything from the Easter Seals campaign to telethons, you name it, the CBC is part of our community.

The last point I want to make is, don't throw out a financial resource that is there now. A strange place I'm getting criticism from is the business community. The business community does advertise on CBC in Prince Edward Island, and they're saying it's not a problem. With those kinds of ratings, they want the opportunity to advertise, and they say “Where are we going to do our advertising now?” They're sure as blazes not going to do it on The Maritimes Tonight, because that's not what they want.

You have a success. Why don't you build on it instead of destroying it?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Perhaps I can start.

First of all, I think the landscape is mixed. I can tell you I know the history of supper hours only too well. Over the past decade we have made at least four significant changes to the supper hours, because of financial constraints. We've had to make tough choices, and on every single occasion we have chosen to support The National—that is, the pan-Canadian service—over the local supper hour.

So we have today situations in which, against incredible odds, our folks just cannot succeed. They succeed very well in parts of the Maritimes, but I can tell you in other parts of the country they don't succeed.

What we have to do is address the mandate fundamentally, which is that we are called upon to create a national service. We are called upon to provide equivalent service throughout the country. I've talked at length about the black holes. If we were trying to restore supper hours, we would have to go back to places such as Saskatoon, which had to give up their local supper hour, and we've paid the price there. Calgary has never been properly funded. We have huge, huge problems.

I want to say that, having watched this over ten years, it is disheartening to see talented, brilliant people who could have huge success see their budgets eroded—they don't have the development budgets; they don't have travel budgets. No wonder the numbers go down.

So, sir, with respect, what we're looking at is, where can we concentrate our efforts? Where can we serve the whole of the Canadian public best? How can we go back to the core of our mandate, which is to reflect all parts of the country to the whole and to each other? And how can we do that in a financially responsible way over the next few years? That's really the point both the president and I have been speaking to.

With respect, there are going to be some losses, and those people who want local news will not be satisfied with what we're providing in terms of the pan-Canadian program. But I would say to you there must be equally people who are interested in pan-Canadian programming who will in fact come to watch this program. It will take some years to build, but we are confident that we in fact will build a new audience for this kind of programming.

For those people who are absolutely committed to local programming, it is regrettable, but we would not under this scenario be able to supply local programming.

The Chair: Mrs. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to ask precise questions. I'm going to ask them in order and leave them with you, and I'd appreciate it if you'd try to address just the questions I ask.

• 1050

On the question of whether or not CBC is in fact going to reduce commercial advertising, I believe Miss Bulte asked that, and perhaps I just didn't hear the answer. I would like to hear the answer to that.

On the board, you have explained that pieces of the plan got released to the public and that it gave you a dilemma. Is your board, as a whole, in favour of the vision that we saw here this morning?

When we talk dollars, I'm listening very carefully, because, Mr. Rabinovitch, sometimes in the paper I read that you don't need dollars, that this isn't a question of dollars. This morning, I'm hearing that you do need dollars. Am I clear on it when I understand that we're talking about two sets of dollars, the dollars it will take to facilitate the vision we saw here, out of which box sits regional programming? So you're saying you don't need dollars for this but if you're going to bring that back or not cut it, you need dollars. Can we have those two silos made clear to me?

My last question concerns how I think I'm confused about the definition of region. My understanding is that with the CRTC, an arm's-length body, your mandate is very clear: you must provide programming to the regions. Perhaps we have a different concept being expressed here about “region”. Is region what the nine regions are—I'm sorry, I may not be right on that number—as understood by the CRTC and mandated by the CRTC for you to meet, or have you redefined region to reflect time zones, so that again we're talking about two concepts of region?

I'd appreciate your answers to those questions. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I will be brief as well. As we mentioned and presented in the video, it is our desire to reduce commercials, over time. We do believe, though, that given the financial constraints, it will be very difficult to reduce commercials significantly in the early years of this program. Over time, perhaps we'll be able to reduce them more. There will always be commercials on the CBC. That's a categorical statement, but I'll make it.

Our belief is that the first area where we should be reducing commercials, if not eliminating them completely, is news programming. They've only been in news programming for the last two or three years and I can't say that the public has endorsed them with great love. In fact, as the commercials hit, you see significant drop-offs in numbers of people watching. Also, I think it changes fundamentally the face of what is a public broadcaster.

Secondly, with respect to the vision, I cannot speak for the board. We have discussed this at the board. We had a lengthy meeting. I believe that the board is concerned about certain aspects in particular of the cuts, although the board recognizes that they're cutting one way or another and they will have to live with that—we will have to live with it. The general consensus feeling that I had...and I say it's a feeling. I don't want to put words in the mouth of the board. The feeling was that the board thought that finally in regard to what they had requested—and they had requested this 15 to 18 months ago—management had come forward with a plan that was distinct and unique and would put the CBC on the map in English television in a way that they want it.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Does that mean they agree with the plan or that they don't agree with the plan?

The Chair: Ms. Carroll, in fairness, I think, let's let Mr. Rabinovitch finish the questions first.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: With respect to money, everybody would love to have more money. It saves a lot of problems, but the reality again is.... I think you were talking about two sets of dollars or not two sets of dollars. It is two problems that have come together at the same time. One problem is the long-term problem about the refocusing of the CBC and how it's going to look going forward, and the other problem is the financial constraints that we must meet this fiscal year.

We have no relief and have been given no relief by government, by Treasury Board, from those financial constraints. We must come in on budget. It's not as if—I used this analogy, I think, when I was here the last time—I can go to the bank and ask for a loan, a bridging loan, while we rebuild the corporation. That is not available to us.

• 1055

We have been told to live within the dollars we have. We have explained what the consequences will be—that there will be significant changes—and we have been told to do what we have to do to reposition the CBC. It is more important to reposition the CBC and to win back the favour of the public, and hence we'll get the money, but unfortunately we have not been offered a way out called “dollars” today.

With respect to regions, the definition of regions we're using is one that we believe to be consistent with the CRTC's. We believe that the entire program we are putting forward is very consistent with the CRTC and what they have asked of us, and we have basically defined it on a time-zone basis.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: On a time-zone basis...?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Yes, not a provincial basis. It's a regional basis, not a provincial basis—the program as we presented it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm glad we're having this discussion, because I believe there is a bit of confusion as to what is a local and what is a region, because if you have one time zone as a region, then you have an awful lot of people who believe that they're regions and you're treating them as local news service. That, I would argue, sir, is part of your problem.

Mr. President, I had a number of questions, but we're going to be short on time so I will ask one. In terms of the infrastructure that you claim is costing you 40% of your budget, does part of the plan you're putting forward call for the sale of regional infrastructure that will no longer be used, for the disposal of it in some way, so that you go to a rental situation as opposed to owning?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Monsieur Bélanger, it's too early for us to give you a precise answer. Our intention is to use our infrastructure in the most efficient way possible. It is quite conceivable that in some places the logic would dictate that we rent, that we get out of particular buildings. In other cases, the logic will dictate that we keep the building and rent out the excess space—but we have a lot of buildings in a lot of places where we do now have excess space.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would hope that you would consider the effect of disposing of assets on the capacity of a region or a locality to do more than news gathering, because currently, I would imagine, some of these assets are used for things other than the local supper-hour news hour.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Not in many cases, sir.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but how would you expect a region to be able to participate in this scheme, this plan, which involves the production of all different kinds of other shows, if they don't have physical assets to work with in the first place?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Do you want to try to help, Harold?

Most of the work of a production nature we do now, beyond the supper hours—and I'll ask Mr. Redekopp to elaborate a bit more—is done in concert with the private sector. In most of those cases they do not use CBC facilities, so there would be no limitation if we were to make a decision to get out of a particular building. As I say, we're a long way from that, but if we were to make a decision to get out of a particular building, it does not change by one iota our possibility of doing work with the local, independent producers. That's a fact.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. I'll take another tack here. You've been quoted, rightly or wrongly—maybe you'll correct it if it's wrong—as saying that even if you had more money you'd still proceed this way, with the plan you're putting forward. Is that accurate?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: What I said was that it is more important to me that we reposition the CBC and that we solve the English-language problem of identity and focus on the CBC, and if we had more money—a very big “if”—I would go to the board with suggestions and proposals. But I was candid in saying that my first objective is the enhancement of the quality of national programming and, in particular, the quality of our representation in the regions in order to have more regional representation on our national programs. It is not necessarily to own more assets.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Redekopp, can you tell me how many minutes in the supper-hour newscast are produced now in the English television network?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You have P.E.I. that has a newscast—

Mr. Harold Redekopp: We have fourteen locations.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How many minutes are produced in that one hour, broadcast simultaneously across the country?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Do you mean in the current programs?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

• 1100

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Of the fourteen, I believe ten or nine produce 60 minutes and 30 minutes. So they produce 90 minutes a day, five times a week, and the remaining three produce 60 minutes only each day for five days. So you can do the math for that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So we're looking at 500 or 600 minutes, roughly?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How many would you have in this proposal that's being put forward to the board?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Obviously there are going to be fewer minutes. What we're talking about here is a smaller CBC. It's going to have fewer production hours, no question. Part of the cost is having multiple locations producing. So there are definitely going to be fewer minutes produced, fewer hours produced. That's certainly part of the plan, and I don't think anyone's been hiding that. What we're saying is of the material that's going to be seen nationally, we're going to work very hard to get more regional content in those national programs.

The best way to look at it is this way. We have two lines of business, if you like. We actually have more, but let's take two lines of business. One is the local business and one is the national business. We're going to, in a sense, give up the local business if this proposal is accepted and concentrate on the national business. In the national business we're going to increase the amount of regional content in the national business. I think that's the proposal we've been trying to outline here. There's a loss of local programming.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would argue that in Ottawa, for instance, you have 10% of the market share of 750,000 people, so you're looking at 75,000 people here. Is that what I'm hearing? You're prepared to give up on that news hour. That belies the mandate of the CBC, which is also to reflect regions and regions to each other.

Mr. Harold Redekopp: First of all, the 10% share comes down to 39,000, because you have to understand what a share is. A share is a share of those people watching television at 6 p.m. It's not the total population. And that's considered a rate. So this is the share, and it's about 39,000. Given what they've had to deal with in terms of budget reduction and so on, I think that's a fairly good number.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that, and we've been hearing a lot, but you have perhaps a group here that would be quite interested in looking at whether or not more money should be going to CBC. We're hearing contradictory statements coming from CBC. I've heard contradictory statements coming from CBC.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: With respect, sir, there is no contradiction in our statements. We have said explicitly that our primary objective is to reposition the CBC and that any funds that come forward will be looked at within that context, together with our board.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Enhancing The National, as a priority...?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'm telling you what my priority is. My board's priority might be very different, but to say there are contradictory signals is not correct.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Earlier, Mr. Rabinovitch, you specified that there would be no cuts to the French Television Network because the cuts have already been made. These cuts were made without there being a debate like the one we are having today. I must say that the regions suffered from this and that they are still suffering today. I must stress among other things that the Expo games are no longer broadcast. I hope that you are not going to announce in your proposal that the Blue Jays games will no longer be broadcast either.

You are yourself an Anglo-Montrealer. It seems to me that the local news show, at least in Quebec, has a certain interest for Anglo-Quebeckers.

Indeed, a local news program is important, especially if it is produced by the CBC, because it establishes a certain level of quality and ensures a certain diversity as far as news sources are concerned. The elimination of local news shows will create two problems: first of all, the CBC will no longer set the level of quality for the local market, and, secondly, it will be one less source of information for the consumer, who is nevertheless entitled to it.

When you came to see us on February 17, you stated:

I would like to make one thing clear at the outset. We are not for the time being asking for additional funding [...] I am firmly convinced that the first measure to be taken is to do our utmost so that the CBC becomes as efficient as possible as a public broadcaster.

Mr. Rabinovitch, efficiency does not mean cutting off a limb to use up less energy. Efficiency means using the resources we have the best way we can or else using fewer resources to at least do the same thing as well. But that is not what you are announcing here today. You stated earlier that you are amputating, that you are cutting off a limb. This is inadmissible.

• 1105

My understanding, and this to me is quite tragic, is that the support of the CBC for the establishment of a national identity is to be done to the detriment of the feeling of regional belonging of each and every Canadian and Quebecker. Am I right in saying this, Mr. Rabinovitch?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I am not sure I understood the end of your question, but I will try to answer. If you are not satisfied, perhaps you could explain your view to me once again.

I agree fully with you that one of the purposes of the public broadcasting service is to define and to try to establish a certain level of quality. Public broadcasting is also an important source of information. This is precisely why we want to increase the number of people in the field, even in Quebec, in all areas, so as to try to increase the quality of the information given on the air. A local program with a 5% share of an audience of 25,000 people and which is in third place—because there is a new Global service on the same market—is not absolutely necessary to establish the principles that you have mentioned and explained.

As far as the Expos are concerned, I must say that we tried several times to broadcast their games. As you know, I am working with this company, but the prices were unbelievable.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Rabinovitch, allow me to interrupt you very briefly. You say that the audience is small and that there is competition. Since when does a private company leave the market because a competitor is trying to gain a share of it? If that were the way of the world, McDonald's would stop selling hamburgers. As for you, you simply leave. Why don't you improve your product? It seems to me that that is your mission: quality and improvement.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It is exactly the opposite, Sir. Quite often a company does market analysis to determine where it can make money and where it could not survive. Every day companies decide that the competition is too strong and that it is better for them to leave the market.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In other words, you are no longer up to the task.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Excuse me?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You are no longer up to the task.

[English]

You're not up to it any more.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Competition?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes. You are no longer up to being competitive.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: On the contrary. I will not compete in certain areas. I will not have enough money to compete against the private sector in the area of local news shows. I have money, the position and the quality of staff required for the local sector, but not to continue offering our service in the other professional sectors...

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It is therefore a question of money. You do not have the money you need.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It is not just a matter of money. It is a matter of a lot of money. Do not forget that we have been making cuts in the area of local news shows for ten years now. As Mr. Redekopp explained earlier, this is all part of a series of cuts. We are not even in the same market. We cannot....

[English]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Translation]

When you cut again and again, the result is obvious: you lose your competitiveness.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Like Ms. McDonough, I'm excited by what your plans are nationally, but as a New Brunswicker, I'm offended by how you're going to get there.

I'd be curious to know whether you think the Quebec legislature or the Ontario legislature would be considered local news. In the absence of the CBC in Fredericton, there'll be no New Brunswick legislature. Is that local news? Is that worthy of national attention? There is no private sector alternative covering our legislature. Before you give my ratings back to me, this has only been in effect for five years. I remember when the studio in Fredericton was opened. I was an MP then. So it hasn't been around that long.

• 1110

The fact is what's happening here is that the stories we would like to tell from our part of the country will not be able to be told. They will not be able to be told because the capacity in our part of the country, my province, and Wayne's in particular, will not exist to tell them. The private sector won't be able to use those facilities in the same way it was promoted they would be used when that studio was opened. We're just now beginning to develop the capacity to use them. That won't happen any more.

Consequently.... I mean, you've mentioned your private sector background many times, and congratulations on that, but this is not the private sector. This is a public institution that Canadians from coast to coast to coast identify with, and it is offensive that we would be the limb that you would remove in the interest of national CBC.

I support the national CBC. I've supported the national CBC my whole life, but not at the expense of the local coverage of what's happening that's important to people in New Brunswick that will not be covered any more if you get your way. So I urge the board to resist, to hear what we're saying today, and if this is about money, let us make the effort to get the money. You've heard everybody here say that.

The Chair: Is there a question, Mr. Scott, or is it commentary? What is the question, how much money do we need?

Mr. Andy Scott: This is the question: How do you defend the fact that from the time this takes effect, there will be no immediate coverage of a legislature in this country? How do you defend that?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Well, perhaps I can make a start.

First of all, it's inaccurate to say there will be no coverage. Will there by less coverage? Probably. But we are absolutely committed to continuing to cover legislatures across the system, including in New Brunswick. We will also have the capacity to cover elections, and we will continue with political free time.

Absolutely, there's going to be something lost. It's regrettable, and we obviously have to make our plans balance. But just to be absolutely correct, there will be provincial coverage and coverage of provincial legislatures—not to the extent that we've had it, but there will be coverage, absolutely.

Mr. Andy Scott: Okay. I'd just say that now what will happen in the regional broadcast is they'll cover four legislatures. Today we have them covering one. That's the difference.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

I'm just trying to be as fair as possible to every person, because there's a long list—as long as my arm. I just want to give a chance to the people who haven't spoken yet.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rabinovitch, you kept referring in your remarks to your private sector experience. To be honest with you, when I first came to this community twenty years ago and I worked in the Langevin Block, you were a public servant I looked up to at the time and thought was one of the real stars of building this nation. When the consideration of the possibility of you coming back to run the CBC was put before a number of people, I applauded the fact that you were coming back to be the president of the CBC, not because of your private sector experience, but because I remember you as someone who was a visionary and someone who wanted to continue building and rebuilding the nation.

When I look at the CBC or when I feel for the CBC, I don't look at it as a business. I see it as an instrument that reports to Parliament and is here to help all of us build the nation, especially in remote regions. The CBC is an instrument where remote regions have a possibility of being equal to my community in terms of participation on the national stage.

For the life of me, what I cannot figure out is why you don't bring before parliamentarians the contribution that CBC has made over the last ten years in terms of the motion picture industry, which is now almost a $3 billion industry in this country, where a majority of the participants who are manufacturing those motion pictures have had CBC experience or training somewhere in the country. There's absolutely no credit given to the corporation for that expanding sector of our economy. And that's a business thing, Mr. Rabinovitch. If you were running a business and you went to your banker, you would also bring that into the mix and say “Hey, I should be getting credit for that.”

• 1115

I also believe, Mr. Rabinovitch, that all those physical assets and presences of the national government through CBC in the regions could also be used to bring along, educate, or train more of our younger people in this expanding communications and information technology realm. I think that every building of CBC, rather than being rented or closed off, should have an affiliation with a local university.

So I'm wondering if it would be possible for you to come back—picking up on Mr. Shepherd's plan—and present to this committee all the enhanced possibilities, the numbers beside them, and then let us debate among ourselves and see if we can't get some consensus to not just restore, but also enhance.

You've mentioned several times today that you're in a fiscal straitjacket. You've mentioned several times that you're dealing with an impossible situation. We're here to serve you. We're here to build a country, to assist you in building a country. But unless you put the numbers beside the dream in front of us, it's pretty tough for us to go out and lobby those we report to in Parliament.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, in other words, I think he's asking how much money do you need?

Mr. Dennis Mills: And you know what, Mr. Rabinovitch, we're not talking half measures here.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Firstly, if I may, I thank you for the compliment of my time in public service, which I enjoyed immensely. But I would also like to tell you that I did learn something in the private sector, and I did learn something about trying to make companies operate and operate efficiently and have a public objective in mind. I also chose to come back because of my love of public service and because of my fundamental belief in public broadcasting. It is a very different life and one I find extremely exciting. But the bottom line was my strong belief in the CBC and in public service broadcasting.

I have to be frank and tell you that I was never promised any money when I came into this job. I undertook the job—and I said this when I came here in February—knowing there were financial constraints. I undertook the job knowing we had to fundamentally refocus English-language television. And I think I said in February—and I've said it in other places—we will have to do the same in many ways, I believe, with the French television service in the long run. But we have time there. We have an excellent service. But it is a field that is changing dramatically.

It is impossible for me to give you a price for what I would like to have. That's one of the reasons, by the way, that we give you this BBC alternative—so you know what can be done and what type of money can be requested for a public service broadcaster. They provide a superb service and they also have a guaranteed flow of funds, so they can do long-term budgeting, they can undertake programs in development for several years until they're ready to go on the air.

In other words, they can run it, with all due respect, as a business. You know what your bottom line is, you know what the cashflow is, and you know what you have to do in order to create the programming you want to have on the air. But I'm not asking for $7.5 billion, because I know it's impossible.

It was made very clear to me that there would not be funds available until such time as we had cleaned up our own operation, and cleaning up an operation means several things. It means having, most importantly, a long-term focus. What is it you're trying to do? Why do you exist? Why are you a public service? And that is what I hope we have answered today with the video and with the presentation that Harold made. To me, that was the first thing. At least we know where we want to get to.

Let me be perfectly clear. Even if we had a green light today and all the money in the world, it would still take us time to get there. What you see here is a two- or three-year plan of implementation on how to get to a particular location.

• 1120

The worst thing for the CBC is one-time funding, because it then delays the ultimate restructuring we must do. It is a pyrrhic victory. It results in the crisis we're in today. The CBC as an organization was extremely loath to cut services, was extremely loath to get out of areas over the last ten years that perhaps they should have gotten out of.

Perhaps this whole discussion should have occurred three or four years ago, when the government cut $400 million from the CBC. Perhaps the CBC should have said “This is the answer to what you have just done. Fine, it's your decision, and we respect the decision. This is the result of what you have done.”

Mr. Manera tried to do that. He tried to do that in a firm way and in the firmest way he knew how, which was to put his job on the line. Because of a hope and a desire to continue to serve the public in all its aspects, the CBC has not cut services, but the result has been that we have thinned them out. And we are thinning them and thinning them to the point where the service of the CBC is highly questionable.

As a result of that, what we have tried to do today is refocus back to basics. If we get the basics right, I am confident with this type of debate and discussion.... And as I said before, I want this debate and discussion. It's critical for public service broadcasting. But it's up to us as well to make it work with what we have.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, Mr. Rabinovitch, I will defer to others, but I just want you to know that I feel “cutting a limb”—and those were your words—is a pretty serious statement that you've made here today. I will oppose that with everything I have in me, because I just don't think it's right when you're nation-building.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one short question.

I'm glad to hear you invite a public debate on this topic. When you first came to the committee I made the challenge that you and members of your board visit and tour the country and get a real feeling of what the public would like. You have the best vehicle for a public debate, so I make the same challenge. Will you make this a public debate on CBC, about the role the CBC plays in this country?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I think we are in the midst of that right now, sir.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Inky Mark: I mean a town hall meeting.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Using some of those new interactive techniques.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I also said at the time that it was now the time for action.

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The reason for that is I do not want to be involved with the continuing—I'll give you another phrase—dumbing down of the CBC. That is what we are going to have to do if we don't make major surgery. I'm not embarrassed for the use of the term “cutting off a limb”, because cutting off a limb can save a body. What I'm trying to do is save a body.

What we're trying to do is enhance the quality of the service of the CBC. We may have to do radical surgery to do that. Everyone wants change until change occurs. We must undertake significant change if we are to survive as a corporation.

Mr. Inky Mark: So will we have this debate before or after you make changes?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Before.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I think we're having the debate now. I believe at the end of the day, sir, the important thing is that we're having this discussion, we've had several other discussions with other groups of people, and we will bring this to our board. It's our board at the end of the day who are responsible to make the decision.

The Chair: Ms. McDonough, briefly.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know much has been made of your comments, Mr. Rabinovitch. I'm going to quote directly to make sure I'm not misrepresenting. You said: “I did not have a promise, nor did I ask for a promise, from the government that they would give me more money”.

You referred to that again today, yet you've come before this committee and used terms like “dire financial straits”, “we're in a financial straitjacket”, and “if we were in the private sector, we'd be declaring bankruptcy”. This really gives rise to the question in my mind, and I want to put it to you very simply.

While it may be true that you didn't have a promise, nor did you ask for a promise from the government that they would give you more money, I guess my question plainly and simply is did you make a promise that you wouldn't ask for more money?

• 1125

What I hear people saying all over this country is that more money is needed to carry out your mandate. We've had savage cuts. We've had short-sighted cuts. We have cuts that leave us feeling very un-Canadian. A lot of the time when we're consuming the news in this country, it's a very un-Canadian thing happening in different parts of the country, in fact in some of the black hole parts of the country that relate to the CBC's presence.

My question, plainly, is did you make a promise that you wouldn't ask for more money? And if that's not the case, will you today assure Canadians and their representation by parliamentarians around this table that you will go to your board and urge your board to make the request to the Prime Minister and the federal government for the money that is necessary to carry out the mandate of the CBC?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I won't say that my discussion with the Prime Minister was privileged. I will say it occurred at 3 a.m. and I have no idea what I said. I was in Hawaii at the time.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Did he ask you to promise that you wouldn't ask for more money?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: It has been made very clear to me on several occasions that the CBC is not a financial priority of this government. If others are willing to change that, we are willing to accept, obviously, and work with the government.

It has been made clear to us that we are expected to live within the budget we have. It is very clear as well—and I have made it very clear to government—that the mandate as it has been...not so much defined in the Broadcasting Act, because quite frankly I think this program we've shown you is very consistent with the Broadcasting Act, and our legal advisers tell us that it is. The mandate, as it is expanded to include local news coverage etc., cannot be fulfilled under the existing budgetary circumstance.

I've said this to unions and people before. I can tell you everything is going to be fine. The fact is, it will not. When we undertake a union settlement that is above a certain number, we know there will be cuts, because we are told by the government it is not going to endorse that settlement. We have made that very clear when we have talked to different groups.

There is a political and financial reality within which I live. I have talked to my board. My board, in turn, has talked to various people. They are reasonably well connected. I think it's clearly understood in government what in fact is happening. We have made it very clear. We have not pulled punches. We have made it very clear what the impact is of the continuing reduction in real terms of our financial situation. This is the consequence. What I would not do, and could not do in all fairness to myself in taking the job, is preside over the continuing demise of the corporation.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The last time I checked, all of the members on this side were government members—and Aileen, of course. And I know that most of us take exception to the fact that Mr. Rabinovitch has just said that he's been given direction from government that the CBC is not an economic priority. I just want the record to stand that I don't know of any member of Parliament on the government side who holds that view.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that's not accurate.

The Chair: Excuse me. I am not going to accept any points of order at this time. Mr. Rabinovitch is here to give testimony the way he sees it, and then it's for us to decide how we see it. If we start points of order, we'll never end.

I'm sorry, Ms. Carroll, we'll just proceed.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, no, Mr. Chair. I'm on the list, Mr. Chair, so I've no complaints.

The Chair: Yes, you're on the list.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Easter and Mrs. Bulte.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I again want to come back to my original question, which was how did you determine what you think Canadian priorities are in terms of this programming you're outlining to us? In the discussion here, you've talked about thinning out. You've talked about cutting advertising that I've said in my area they certainly don't want cut. You've talked about adding new areas. I really have to question some of them, as to whether that's what Canadians want or not, because my people are telling me that what they want is supper-hour news programming in the local areas. That's what they're saying.

I want to know how you've made this determination to go the way you're going. With all due respect, Mr. Rabinovitch, I hope I haven't got this quote wrong—maybe Maclean's had—but you were quoted in that magazine as saying that you and your son thought supper-hour shows were very poor. If that's true or not, I don't know—you'll have to tell me. But is it your desire to close supper-hour programs, or have you come to some determination that Canadians don't want them? I want to know how you got to this priority list.

• 1130

I think you can see here today that we're saying to you that we want supper-hour programs maintained. If you can't maintain them under your current budget, then tell us how much it is going to cost to maintain them.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: To clarify a couple of things, sir, what I said in Maclean's was that my son, who happens to be 22 years old, is a masters student at the London School of Economics, is a rather bright young person, is the type of classic person we should be going after as our audience. Even we can't win him over, because the CITY Pulse newscast is an excellent newscast and because our people have suffered such horrendous cuts in their funding that they cannot maintain and meet what they were saying. If we can't capture a person of that intelligence, then we have a problem, because that is our audience. That is what I said.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay, that's good to know.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I want to clarify one other matter. An organization that receives $760 million from the government plus another $130 million for capital equipment—close to $900 million—is a priority. And that is what we get. The question is, are we a priority for additional funding as compared with other desires in the cultural field? And the answer to date is no. So that much I can say.

The supper-hour programming is not something I want to cut out. With all feeling, there are people who want to watch the supper hours. I do not watch it, but that's irrelevant. The supper hours are a very major cost driver in our system, and except for one or two cities—yours is one of them—it is a cost driver that does not deliver audience, because it doesn't deliver anything that is unique to a public service broadcaster. It's not public service.... It's not a knock on what is on the air; it's a unique instrument that the private sector does extremely well and has invested in.

There's a letter in today's Maclean's that takes issue with what I said but makes the point in the same breath. It asks, how are we with two trucks going to match somebody with twenty trucks?

The point is, to maintain supper hours of quality as a priority is a very expensive venture, because there are 14 of them, and with all due respect to the rest of the country, we can't rationalize not extending the supper hour. If the supper hour were to be a priority, then we have to fund it correctly, put the necessary money in, and we'd have to expand it across the country. Well, that is a huge number. And that doesn't even start on updating and creating the programming that we want to show on the national network.

I don't deny it as a priority if that's what somebody wants, but it is an extremely expensive priority that would dominate and basically take us out of absolutely everything else.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Do you not think it's part of the mandate, though, to service those areas that don't have those private sector alternatives? I know several areas that don't.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: There is only one area that I know of that is currently serviced by a CBC supper hour that would not have a private sector alternative, and that is yours. In all other areas there are private sector alternatives. The broadcasting system has to be seen as a system. It's basically made up of both public and private broadcasters, and there is a finite limit on what we can do, given the funds we have and given the funds we can anticipate having.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to touch on the cost of cutting the local supper hours. In the Maclean's article, I understand one of the things that was said was that the reason you were cutting the supper hours was to reduce a $40 million plus deficit. Some other information I have is that after advertising, how much is lost on these programs is about $45 million. I wonder if you could speak to that.

What are you going to do with the money you'll save? I guess I had wrongly thought you were going to use it to implement this vision that we just saw here, but then you also said the plan was two to three years away from implementation. Perhaps I didn't understand correctly. Could you elaborate?

• 1135

Mr. Harold Redekopp: First of all, if I may, we have a structural deficit, and any money that we redirect or find we obviously have to put against solving our financial problem. The remaining money that we redirect through this plan goes to make the improvements we talked about. Any kind of schedule redesign along the lines we've talked about here today is going to take some time. It takes creative time. Those new programs have to be developed. We have to actually unleash our creative forces.

I mean, one of the things we need to do is to get a green light from the board. If the green light comes, then we begin to unleash these creative forces—producers, directors, researchers, etc.—to start working on those programs. So the implementation takes a couple of years. Depending on when we get a decision, we would hope that certainly before the end of this fiscal year we could make the launch. But that will depend upon when we get the green light.

Let me just recap. The first call of any new money goes to solve our structural problem—we are in deficit as we speak—and the second part goes directly to the improvements we talked about today.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So how much is deficit and how much is it going to cost to implement this vision that you're showing us here, this wonderful vision?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Here's what our plan shows, and we tabled this with the board. We're saying that in order to do all of it—remember, we are saying this is all of a piece—it's going to require between $80 million and $120 million. The range depends upon to what extent we will reduce commercial inventory. So that's the figure we're looking at, $80 million to $120 million, but a minimum of $80 million to solve our problems and to build in some of the improvements we've talked about. And that has to be ongoing, as the president said. This is not something we can have one time and then come back here and put our programs in jeopardy.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm still looking for that deficit figure that you're short this year.

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Rather than give you.... The reason I'm reluctant to give any figures is because they will be glommed on and it will be said “Aha, we've solved it this year.”

We have looked at a three-year time horizon and have said that in order to balance the books and solve all of our problems—we have a structural problem that we have to solve—I would say it's part of that $80 million. I don't know if it's very useful right now to give you the figure for fear—and I've lived through this myself—that that's the number that comes forward, and, lo and behold, there are no improvements. Quite frankly, I've been here too long to say that we're going to just solve our immediate problem and not solve the long-term problem.

The fundamental problem we have in English television is that there isn't the loyalty and support for the service. We have to build it, and we can't build it if we don't get the resources for it. So, with respect.... I'm sorry, my voice goes up only because I believe in what I'm saying.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So do we. And we want to help you build that vision. That's why, when we're realistically looking at those numbers.... As you were quoted in Maclean's, Mr. Rabinovitch, is there a $40 million plus deficit that we're looking at right now?

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's $120 million a year for five years.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The funds we need in order to implement this program, including the deficit reduction, are $80 million to $120 million.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Each year.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Each year, continuing. And I must add—and I'm sorry to say this—it doesn't solve the supper-hour problem.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I wanted to revisit one item very, very briefly that you mentioned, and that is all of the effort that CBC/Radio-Canada is now deploying for the new media. And as CBC/Radio-Canada basically developed radio in the country and developed television in the country in the twenties and thirties, I would hope that CBC would assume the responsibility of doing the same thing for new media. In that instance, I would argue that it would be irresponsible not to ask for money, to take it from something else to put into that.

I would encourage you, despite whatever commitments you made to yourself or to anyone else not to seek money—or if you haven't, so be it—to do so, because there's an importance in developing the new-media angle and Canadian content that CBC has an ability to do that it should not neglect. That is number one.

• 1140

Number two, I'm hearing about public versus private television here. I believe there's an absolute need in our country for public television, because it adds a diversity of voices that we are losing. This is something this committee hasn't even started looking at yet. The government is thinking of addressing that issue in some way, a concentration of media. Take this town here. We have three dailies, two of which are owned by the same outfit.

I believe it can be said there is a definite shift to the right in the country in terms of certainly the print media, but private television also belongs to some of the same corporations. I think it's extremely important that we have a public voice that isn't driven by the need to put commercials on the television. So I was a little surprised when you said there will always be commercials on CBC. I, for one, would support government money to get rid of commercials on CBC and Radio-Canada.

I hope the categorical statement you made a while ago that you would be willing to revisit this at some point comes to pass, because the best way of distinguishing CBC/Radio-Canada from the rest might be for it not to carry commercials. It seems to have worked for radio.

Thank you.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Mr. Bélanger, I would be the happiest person in the world from the point of view of the job if I had the funds to get out of commercials completely—i.e., about $400 million, plus the money to do other programming.

I believe the structure of certain programming genres such as sports, professional sports—and we should be carrying and do carry professional sports—is designed in such a way that commercials normally fit into the product. I believe there will be some commercials because I don't see a cheque for $400 million, plus everything else, coming down the pipe. Believe me, I don't want to be in commercials just to be in commercials.

As Harold said earlier in his presentation, the important thing is what is it that is distinctive when you hit that CBC button. We did it in radio, and I think we did it fabulously in radio. And we went through the same arguments about getting out of commercials.

Second, with respect to public or private, diversity of voices, I think you're absolutely right. We are the single largest collector of news in the country. We are the only ones who are investing in overseas news collection. We have enhanced our radio programming and our news collection ability in radio, and we will continue to enhance it as funds become available. It is an extremely important part of our job of explaining one region to another region, of allowing regions to present their information to each other. There is no denying that, and it was one of the focal points of our presentation.

I fully agree with you about the need to have both diversity and a quality news collecting and presentation organization from all parts of the country.

With respect to new media, new media is a critical aspect of the future of a public broadcaster. We cannot predict where and how programming will be delivered in the future. We know it will change. It is quite conceivable that you will get your programming from CBC in a combination of ways, that you will get it on the conventional channel but you will also be able to choose it as you see fit on the Internet.

I'm not supposed to quote from my private sector experience, but there are some companies now that are experimenting—it's beyond experimentation, in fact they exist right here in this city—with very wide band width, with significant delivery capability into the home. This will radically change the way in which programming is presented. It will reinforce the need for a quality CBC, a distinctive Canadian window and producer of programming about Canadian situations. So we are absolutely committed to being involved in the new media and working with it. The difference, perhaps, from what has been done in the past—one of the changes that I made—is to have new media integrated into the existing radio and television system.

• 1145

I want our television producers, when they are thinking of doing a program for conventional, to also be thinking at that time and not as an afterthought about how this might play on new media. A program such as Drop the Beat—I never remember the name—which is designed for a unique audience, is a unique program as well in how it merges several aspects of the media. I believe that's the future. People will watch television in different ways. People will get their programming in different ways.

The CBC is a programming operation. It is one of the reasons I want to get the albatross of all of this fixed capital lowered and make it perhaps into a cashflow for us, because right now it is a constraint rather than an enhancement for programming.

The Chair: I'll remind members Mr. Rabinovitch has kindly been with us since 9 o'clock. He's due to break at 12 o'clock, and I'm sure he'll find that a relief.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We have a whole host of requests, but we can't carry on forever. We have other witnesses coming at 12 o'clock, and I'm sure people will want some kind of break.

We have Mr. Muise, Mrs. Carroll, Mr. Limoges, Mr. Shepherd, and Mrs. Lill. If you all cooperate with one another, maybe we can get through all the questions.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions, and they will be very brief. First, Mr. Rabinovitch—and please wait until I get to the second one to answer the first—I understand that because of budgetary constraints, we are only looking at English CBC. I don't understand why we're not looking at the broader spectrum. I'd like clarification. I just don't understand that.

The other thing I'd like to touch on is prior to last year's CRTC hearings CBC chair Guylaine Saucier made this comment:

As you know, our plans contain a formal commitment to strengthen our regional presence throughout Canada, and on English television, to reduce professional sports programming. We are aware of the comments made, and in both cases, we will strengthen our commitments.

We also know Pierre Juneau's mandate review committee called on the CBC to maintain its local and regional programming, and we've just heard what Madame Saucier said. We know the CRTC endorsed the commitment and in fact made it a condition of the licence for CBC. Would it be fair to say you've decided to rewrite that commitment to Canadians?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: No, sir.

Let me go back to the first question, since you asked me to answer the first question first.

We are concentrating on English television at the present time because that is where we have an immediate problem, and that is the financial straitjacket English television is in. French television and French radio have undertaken significant changes over the last years, as has English television, but they do not face an immediate crisis. Unfortunately perhaps that's one of the problems of being in a place for only six months: I am crisis-driven.

Secondly, on a more positive note, under Mr. Redekopp's leadership and at the request of the board, we have invested a lot of time and energy in refocusing English television, and as they say, c'était le moment propice. It was logical to bring the two together and move forward at this time. As a new president, perhaps I would have liked to have more time, but it did make sense, and it is a coherent package.

With respect to CRTC commitments, we will honour and are honouring our commitments. We will enhance our regional presence. It will take a different form, but we will have more regional hubs and collection agencies. We will have more regional news. We will refocus the 10 o'clock news. We are using Newsworld to benefit. We will continuously respect our regional obligations.

I hasten to say I make a differentiation, as does the act—the act never uses the word “local”—I make a big separation between the word “regional” and the word “local”. It may be artificial, but the fact is in local news delivery there is a different market and a different approach that the private sector has done, and done very well. In some ways that gives us the flexibility to do our regional job in a different way.

• 1150

The Chair: Mrs. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if it's because I'm sitting on the opposition side, but I feel wildly free to—

A voice: You've had your eyes opened.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Aileen Carroll: —agree with Mr. Rabinovitch when he says this government's priorities have been reflected in the cuts they have made, we have made, to the CBC. I grant you, Mr. Chair, I agree very much with Mr. Mills that Mr. Rabinovitch should see in this room a very active, dedicated group of backbenchers who are very, very concerned—we've spent the morning expressing that concern—and very, very supportive of the CBC.

You took the words out of my mouth, Mr. Rabinovitch, when you said you don't want to see dumbing down. We don't want to see dumbing down. Many, many other members share our views but just couldn't get seats at the table.

However, I would conclude by saying there's an adage that our values are reflected by the fiscal choices we make. That's as true within the CBC as it is within the government, of which I am a member. I think what a lot of us want you to hear today is that we value highly regional programming. I'm listening to the dance—and I think it's a bit of a dance—between the definition of “local”, the definition of “regional”, the definition of “regional” as reflected within the CRTC, and the definition of “regional” as it reflects this wonderful country's five or six time zones.

But I do ask that you leave us cognizant of our concerns, and I thank you for the opportunity to bring closure.

The Chair: Well said, as a new Tory.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Joe, I'm here!

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back for a minute on the issue of the additional revenue that will be required. I understand, and I mentioned earlier, that you'll be giving up about $120 million in advertising revenue at the local level. It was my impression that the total advertising revenue CBC enjoys is somewhat in excess of half a billion dollars.

Do you agree with that, first of all, or am I missing the figure somewhere? Is it true then that you would have to give up that approximately $120 million in local advertising revenue when you abandon local newscasts, and also then have to make that up, in addition to the additional savings, to come up with your $80 million to $120 million to run your new program vision for the future? In other words, are you trying to make up somewhere in excess of $200 million by cutting local programming in order to carry out your vision?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I can't give you a full answer, but I can tell you the total advertising revenue for English television is $200 million, and that's from all sources. The number you quote on local is significantly lower than that.

Depending on what the program mix is and how it's orchestrated and all that, I'm not sure how much of that we will automatically lose. We definitely will lose some. We'll also be able to save money in terms of sales. But suffice it to say the advertising numbers are way, way below what you've just quoted, sir.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay. Thank you.

With regard to the program, I don't think anybody around this table would not agree with you that CBC local programming has suffered from the death of a thousand cuts, but the programming has been so watered down. We're basically getting local news with half of it being repeats of The National and so on.

But quite frankly, when a dog gets hit by a car on Main Street, Toronto, we don't want to hear about it. It might be interesting in Toronto, but it just is not in Windsor and in other locales. If that's your idea of regional input, it's really not going to meet with any audience at all.

The difficulty we have—and I'm a big supporter of the—

The Chair: Mr. Limoges, we only have a few minutes.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay.

• 1155

I'm a big supporter of the private sector broadcasters. They do a great job. But we also run into the problem, particularly with the written press, of them putting forth a political agenda that we hope the CBC can help to save us from. Is there anything else you can say with regard to the programming, with regard to what it's going to take to keep that local show on the air?

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Money. If you're asking about a money question, probably it's better that the president speak to that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

A voice: It's from the private sector.

Mr. Harold Redekopp: Let me say at the outset that I think there's a fair bit of misinformation floating around, that everything that is negative about this program is determined by what happens in the streets of Toronto. That's not the purpose of this program.

In fact, just to put that bugbear aside finally, we're looking at—“looking”—if we can afford it, because it's always more costly, anchoring the program I talked about at 6 p.m. from outside of Toronto. It's more expensive and we'll have to find the money to do that. There is no intention of having this all filtered through Toronto eyes. I have to say that at the outset. I don't know what to say beyond that.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: We have also made it very clear that the lineup on those programs would be determined regionally, not out of central, wherever that is.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Regional means the time zone. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: That's correct.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, would you be kind enough to allow two more quick questions, from Mr. Shepherd and Mrs. Lill?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: Sure.

The Chair: After all this, I'm sure that two more won't be too much.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I'm still waiting for the vote, Mr. Chair. That was going to be my break.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dennis Mills: We had the vote cancelled.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd, quickly.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Just getting back to what we touched on a few times in regard to the issue of the financial plan, I think you skirted your way around that a little. Is there a financial plan? If there is a financial plan, are you prepared to table that here, before parliamentarians?

Second, getting into your financial plan and the working of that financial plan, I hear you say that you have a structural deficit to deal with. You've told us about your vision of the future. I want to know the priority of executing your plan. Is the first priority of your plan to eliminate the structural deficit, so that therefore the vision you're talking about is two or three years down the line? Are the structural things you're doing today simply to deal with the structural deficit, not, in fact, to implement your new vision immediately?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: What we have presented to you today, and what we have presented to our board, is a comprehensive plan of changing the CBC, absorbing the structural deficit, and moving ahead in a fiscally prudent and safe way.

If this plan is adopted, and adopted in its totality, we are confident that we will have met the structural problem and we will have met our deficit. We have the money in this plan. We're not coming back tomorrow for more money. We have the money in this plan not only to commence but to completely fulfil what you've seen today, both in the House presentation and in the video.

Obviously the more funds we have in the long run, the more we can enrich that programming. One of the most important things in programming is called development. A program can be in development for a year or two before it hits the air. That costs money. We've had to cut corners left, right, and centre in terms of our program development budgets. We've cut money all over the place, to the point where, in effect, it does show on the air even though we have such quality people working—if it weren't for them, it would be much worse.

But I can assure you, sir, that there is a financial plan. It has been presented to our board. Once everything has come together, I believe, I can present it to others, but until such time as we know where we're going in totality, the financial plan remains in flux. The plan is coherent, consistent, and based upon fiscal probity and fulfilling this change in structure for English television.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill, you've been very patient.

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

I'm not usually the person to talk about such things, but instead of talking about the programming and that, which is what I'm interested in, I would like to talk about the transmission of the programming.

Nobody has asked about hardware today. We haven't talked about how it is that you're going to be transmitting this new programming. I want to know how this is all going to work technically. What is going to happen now in terms of the new CBC? What's going to happen to the channel allocations? Are you going to be letting your program decisions be driven by satellite delivery considerations?

• 1200

I'd like to know if you can maintain local news in Atlantic Canada or in places like Winnipeg and still proceed with selling off transmission and distribution systems? If you sell off the local distribution networks, can you have local programming such as we are all talking about so passionately around this table? Is it in fact a technology decision that you're making here? Are your programming decisions being driven by delivery systems decisions?

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: The answer is no: technology will follow the decision, not the other way around. There is nothing we are doing in terms of transmission that will impact upon our ability to do whatever is ultimately decided. At the same time, it is fair to say that under certain models we get more flexibility than we do under other models.

But even if nothing were done, if we were to continue the existing system, I would still be pursuing the logic of this: does it make sense for the CBC to be owning its transmission towers or is there a more efficient way of doing it?

This has gone on throughout the world. The BBC has sold all its transmission towers. You don't have to own the tower to deliver the signal.

Given the location of our towers and their utility in the new non-wired world, there may be other ways of (a) getting a cashflow from those towers that we've developed over the years, and (b) continuing to deliver all of the services. The two are completely separate. The blurring of the two, as has been done by some people, shows a lack of understanding of what we're really about—

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay. I'm curious—

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: —because we are first and foremost a programming operation.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —about what the market is for over-the-air transmitters. I just don't know. I mean, who out there wants them? You can answer that for me.

I know it has been done. I know that the BBC has sold off their transmitters and now they're.... Do we not then find that in privatization of our transmission systems we become...? Do we want our public broadcaster totally dependant on a private transmission system? Do you see any problems in that?

Furthermore, you talk about our assets. They are property and they are hardware, and you're making a pretty big decision right here and now, in May 2000, which in fact can have an impact forever in terms of what our possibilities are. Really, I would venture to say that you're possibly wiping out any possible change we might want in direction by the kind of transmission system you are moving towards.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: I would love to have this discussion with you and with our technical people but, quite frankly, we basically do not agree.

We have had at least six expressions of interest. In the United States, there is one company that now owns 17 towers. These towers are unique instruments in today's world because you can hang all types of transmission facilities on them. They need not just be used for transmitting television.

As it is right now, we do have a business group that sells space on our towers and generates a couple of million dollars a year. We believe we might be able to do it more efficiently. What we will not do—and I can give you an undertaking—is jeopardize, by any decision we make, our ability to use those towers for transmission purposes. We will always have our guaranteed space on those towers.

We have another problem that nobody has talked about, that is, we're about to go digital. The FCC has decreed that the whole of the United States must be digital by the year 2007. Well, who's going to write the $800-million cheque it's going to take to convert our transmission facilities to digital? There are private people who may be willing to partner with us, and I've indicated that they would be willing to partner with us. Part of the deal would be that they will pay the costs of going digital.

I'd love to talk to you about it more.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: You're just getting me going.

The Chair: Mr. Rabinovitch, I must say that after listening to you this morning I'm sure many of the members must wonder why you said yes to the Prime Minister. That showed a lot of courage.

You've been extremely frank. You've been very open with us, both you and Mr. Redekopp, and at least we know what the situation is much more clearly than we did before. I think we realize what challenges are faced and what our side of the equation is. You have heard very clearly from members where they come from and their very, very deep commitment to regional broadcasting as they see it. So the coast is very well defined both ways, you might say.

• 1205

We really appreciate your taking three hours of your time to come here today. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabinovitch and Mr. Redekopp. It's been very good for all of us. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Rabinovitch: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate how much I appreciate this opportunity. I really do believe the future of public broadcasting will be determined by the people in this room and what they hear from Canadians. A debate on public broadcasting is long overdue and is very important, and if we contributed to that debate in some way, then it was more than worthwhile to be here.

I can also assure members we will reflect their concerns to the board. The board is faced, we are faced, with decisions none of us wish to make, but we cannot continue with our heads in the sand and—I'll use that phrase again—watch the dumbing down of a network we cherish, and in some ways watch the abuse of our staff. Our staff has gone through a horrendous period for the last ten or fifteen years, and we owe it to them to tell them what their future is and to try to enhance the future, because we all believe so strongly in public service broadcasting.

So I thank you for this opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We have another session starting on Bill C-27. We have witnesses here. We should have a break before, but Mr. Mills has his motion.

Order.

Mr. Dennis Mills: With all the discussion, I think we can take a quick vote on this motion.

The Chair: Excuse me. Order, please.

What is the wish of the members? Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott: Mr. Chair, I would very much urge you to proceed with the vote on the motion put by Mr. Mills this morning.

The Chair: Do you want me to ask the question now?

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like for us to strike the last paragraph.

The Chair: You're proposing an amendment, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It follows up on the discussion we've just heard, but also, this committee at this point does not have the time or the resources to undertake that work. I would hope—

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I have no problem with that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a friendly amendment.

The Chair: There's an amendment proposed by Mr. Bélanger that the last sentence be struck. If there is agreement, we'll just vote on the amended motion, which is the motion without the last paragraph.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. I call the vote on the amended motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.