Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 15 - Evidence - October 23, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 23, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:48 a.m. to examine the current state of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the media's role, rights, and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, to the witnesses, members of the public and television viewers. This Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications meeting is being held to continue our examination of the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure the Canadian news media remain healthy, independent and diverse in light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years, notably globalization, technological change, convergence and increased concentration of ownership.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome our witnesses from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am sure their comments will be of great interest to senators. Today, we will be proceeding in a slightly different fashion. Our witnesses have been divided into two separate panels.
[English]
From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, we shall hear from Carole Taylor, who is Chair of the Board of Directors and Robert Rabinovitch, who is the president and CEO. They will give introductory remarks and we will have opportunity for questions. At this stage, we will be introducing the larger corporate issues such as funding, accountability and the role of the public broadcaster in Canada.
[Translation]
At about 11:15, we will begin our second panel, which will address specific news and information-related issues in various areas of the CBC's operations. We will also be hearing from senior managers representing Radio-Canada.
[English]
We begin with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Rabinovitch.
Ms. Carole Taylor, Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Honourable senators, I want to just say how much Radio-Canada appreciates having the opportunity to appear before you at this committee.
[Translation]
It is our pleasure to speak before you on such an important subject, one that touches our lives both at a professional and personal level.
[English]
You have heard and you have seen for yourselves that Canada's media industries have been going through a very rapid transformation in technology, ownership and in convergence. Private broadcasters say they need to pursue convergence in order to remain strong. The Canadian industry comprises more than just the privates. If we want a strong industry, it is the entire industry that needs to be strong, both private and public.
Why is this important? A healthy media depends on multiple voices, different opinions. It is one thing people in this country have always been proud of about their media. When Canadians have access to the widest range of stories and issues covered from different points of views, they can then judge for themselves what is important. They can decide what they think about the issues that affect their lives. Without a balance of multiple viewpoints from both public and private institutions, Canadians lose confidence in what they are told. They lose faith in their institutions.
As a former journalist, I am very proud of the consistently high quality of journalism CBC/Radio-Canada provides to Canadians. I am reminded almost every day just how important that journalism is.
Just think about the past year: wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, SARS, the summer's massive power failure, mad cow disease, forest fires in B.C, floods, and the West Nile virus. More than ever before Canadians need the best sources of news they can get. That means healthy and diverse news sources that include both private and public broadcasters.
We do not always do the same stories, nor do we do them the same way. That is how it should be. It is that balance between private and public broadcasters and the choices that we offer that has made the Canadian media industry — particularly the news industry — one of the most respected in the world. I am afraid all of us have probably been taking that balance a little bit for granted.
Almost 15 years of cuts to public broadcasting have taken their toll, especially in the regions. The cuts have not stopped. This spring $15 million over two years was cut from the Canadian television fund, just one week before we finalized our final budget. It was only a couple of days before the board met. This past September, another $10 million cut to CBC/Radio-Canada was confirmed. This ``death by a thousand cuts'' cannot continue — not if we are to do the job that Canadians want us to do.
Let me tell you what is at stake. In CBC/Radio-Canada, Canadians have a news and information source that is accountable to them — through Parliament, through the board of directors and through two independent Ombudsmen, as well as through a rigorous set of journalistic standards and practises. Canadians have a news source that is unfettered by commercial and ownership pressures and is arm's-length from government. This means that Canadians know they can trust CBC/Radio-Canada to cover the events that are important to them in a way that meets the highest standards of excellence and integrity.
[Translation]
CBC/Radio-Canada is not only Canada's largest news organization; it is also the only one with a presence throughout the entire country in both official languages, and eight Aboriginal languages as well. The maps we've distributed will help give you an idea of our presence. CBC English Radio has reporters in 48 communities, including six bureaus in the North. French Radio has reporters in 33 communities. English Television and French Television have reporters in 33 and 40 communities respectively, across the country.
[English]
No other Canadian broadcaster has that many news bureaus and journalists that are situated outside our major cities in places such as Kelowna, B.C., where we have just seen those forest fires; in Saguenay, Quebec where one of Canada's leader employers, Alcan, is making a major investment; in Brandon, Manitoba where that continuing drought is threatening the livelihood of so many people; and in Goose Bay where CBC Radio-Canada brought national awareness to the plight of the native communities there.
This is what Canadians tell us is important to them: It is their community; it is their region. I am proud to tell you that fully half of our Canadian programming across all of CBC/Radio-Canada services has a regional connection. Roughly 40 per cent of our total operating budget is spent in the regions or in support of regional activities. In the case of radio, we are spending more than 60 per cent in the regions in both official languages. That is 2,000 hours of programming per week.
It is also important that we bring the world to Canada through Canadian eyes. This one is really important to me. CBC/Radio-Canada foreign correspondents operate out of New York, Washington and Rio de Janeiro covering the Americas; in London, Paris, and Moscow, covering Europe; in Dakar, covering Africa; and in Jerusalem, Cairo, Amman, Bangkok and Beijing, covering the far and Middle East.
We have 12 foreign bureaus. No other Canadian broadcaster dedicates as many resources or has as many journalists on the ground as CBC/Radio-Canada. I cannot over-emphasize how important this is. I believe we simply cannot rely on another country's news report that Canada and Canadians demand, whether that news is happening in Iraq or New York. When CBC trained journalists are covering important international events, Canadians know they are going to get a Canadian perspective and a standard that they can trust.
The CBC commits these important journalistic resources because that is our job: to be an independent source for news and information; to provide a place for discussion and analysis; and a place to share ideas, even though it may not result in huge ratings. It is our job.
The only place that can provide these opportunities has to be public broadcasting. It has to be independent. It has to be free of political, financial and personal agendas.
We can give news and current affairs, pride of place on our schedules. Our national television news services showcase news and information programs in prime time, including both the National and Le Téléjournal offered at 10:00 p.m. each day. That is in large part thanks to Canadian taxpayers. Access to parliamentary appropriations means our television schedules are not driven by American programming. Radio One and la Première chaîne are solely supported by taxpayers, and therefore have the freedom to concentrate on news and information services. Public funding helps to shelter us from some of the pressures facing other news media.
When important national events occur CBC/Radio-Canada can pre-empt regular programming schedules to offer live, uninterrupted coverage to all of Canadians. We did that for the July 2002 visit of the Pope John Paul II on World Youth Day. We did it for the visit of the Queen and so many other opportunities when there are crises around the world. That focus on news and information means that Canadians turn to CBC for coverage and analysis of major Canadian events.
Today, more than four in five Canadians believe that news on CBC/Radio-Canada's French and English television networks can be trusted and is comprehensive. When Canadians were asked which English television network provided the best Canadian perspective on the war in Iraq, twice as many named CBC/Radio-Canada over any other broadcaster.
Whatever happens to Canada's media industries, Canadians do know that they can tune into CBC/Radio-Canada for independent Canadian views and uniquely Canadian stories — many of which simply will not be covered or presented anywhere else. You will not see Canada: A People's History on any other private network. In a 500-channel universe, that is what makes public broadcasting, more important than ever.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Madam Chairman, members of this Committee have expressed concern about the increasing concentration of media ownership in Canada. We believe these recent changes to the Canadian media landscape are another compelling reason for maintaining a strong and vibrant national public broadcaster. High quality journalism costs money and does not often garner large enough audience and advertising revenues to make a compelling business case for profit-seeking, bottom line-oriented media organizations. That is the reality of the news industry.
For example, while Québécor Média's various holdings were covering at length the reality show Star Académie broadcast on its flagship television network TVA, CBC/Radio-Canada was busy covering the war in Iraq. TVA had one correspondent in Iraq. We placed approximately 40 people throughout the region — in Amman, Koweit City, Qatar, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, Northern Iraq, Turkey, Cairo, and of course, London, Paris, Washington and Baghdad.
The objective: to give a distinctive Canadian interpretation to events as they unfolded. We could not and should not, as a country rely for our information on U.S. networks, or even the BBC. We were as a country active non-participants in this war. Canadians merited a distinctive interpretation of events.
Let there be no misunderstanding: I do not blame the private broadcasters in any way for this. Star Académie might just be Canada's first true success story in convergence, and they should be congratulated for succeeding where many others have failed.
But this unique series of events showed us how the private sector is confronted with conflicting interests. It also gave us a true sense of how tremendous the promotional force of such vast cross-media holdings can be. Every francophone in Quebec must have heard of Star Académie, which was watched by as many as half of the province's entire population.
[English]
One thing is clear, the sweeping changes to the media landscape are forcing us to re-examine CBC/Radio-Canada's role in the Canadian Broadcasting System and to look for ways to strengthen the services we provide.
For example, many of our foreign correspondents now file in English and French; others file for radio and television. This means that we can expand our coverage by applying more correspondents to more locations around the world. As I noted during the war in Iraq this year we were able to put approximately 40 people throughout the region to feed all of our services. This boosted our ability to offer Canadians a broader range of stories and context during the conflict. This is also a convergence success story.
The government has recognized our work by providing CBC/Radio-Canada with additional funds for each of the last three years. These additional resources went directly into programming and, together with our own internal savings, allowed us to improve the quality and quantity of our journalism, and to remove or reduce commercials from important sectors and sections of our programming. Given the success of these initiatives we had hoped that this year $60 million would be made part of our permanent budget. It was not.
Some have suggested that the CBC/Radio-Canada funding model should be changed and it should adopt the PBS donor-funded model of public broadcasting. In fact, PBS gets considerable funding from U.S. federal, state, and local governments and it raises less than one-third of its budget from public solicitation. With about one-tenth of the population the United States, Canada does not have enough people to support a donor-funded model like the PBS. If it did, remember that PBS has only one program in one language. That is simply not good enough for Canada.
CBC/Radio-Canada needs now increased stable, multi-year funding. Without it, it is difficult to plan and develop distinct programming, reliable news and current programming. We believe a five-year funding cycle would ensure support for programs during several years it takes to go from idea to broadcast.
[Translation]
We have, as Ms. Taylor noted, reporters in almost every corner of Canada. Even with our permanently constrained resources, we have in the last two years opened more than 20 new news bureaus, and this year we are completing La Chaîne culturelle by adding 18 new frequencies.
However, we would like to do more for Canadians. Properly funded, we believe that CBC/Radio-Canada will continue to raise the bar on journalism in Canada, and help maintain a vibrant Canadian journalism industry. We would also like to improve the levels of our local and regional programming. We believe that reflecting the rich variety of our communities is an essential role for the public broadcaster. It is also what Canadians want us to do. This will require a reinvestment in public broadcasting.
[English]
In its recent report on Canadian broadcasting, the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recognized that CBC/Radio-Canada required increased funding for fulfilling its mandate and proposed that we provide Parliament with a strategic plan and the associated costs to enable us to undertake these responsibilities. We completely endorse the recommendation to provide a costed, strategic plan on how to enhance regional and local programming. As such, we would in effect create a new ``Contract with Canadians'' — one that will spell out precisely what Canadians can expect in regional and local programming from their public broadcaster and what it will cost to do it.
Private media is changing, so too is CBC/Radio-Canada. We believe that along with a healthy, competitive, private media, CBC/Radio-Canada ensures that Canadians have rich choices in news and information programming. Those choices cannot be taken for granted.
[Translation]
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you. We welcome your questions and comments.
[English]
Senator Graham: I had the privilege of being a guest of the CBC yesterday at the Canadian Club luncheon. I wanted to commend Carole Taylor for her excellent address. She talked about the CBC and looking into the crystal ball.
Perhaps this is something that you or someone else could provide us, but it has to do with the numbers. Approximately 72 per cent or 75 per cent of your budget comes from public funds and the rest comes through advertising revenues. Could you provide us with statistics that are more specific, if indeed there has been mention of the $10 million cut that you received shortly before you finalized your budget. I am wondering if you could be more specific. What are the total operating costs, the total revenues from government and other sources? Is there a shortfall? Have you ever had a surplus?
I endorse what the committee in the other place is talking about in terms of a five-year costed plan. Before getting into numbers, I note that reference has been made to Iraq. We had one witness here who said he thought the CBC coverage of Iraq war was very biased. He had watched CBC and BBC. I asked him if he had watched CNN, or ABC, NBC or CBS and he said he did not have time to do that.
I thought that of all of the coverage that was provided, the most balanced coverage, with your limited resources, was by the CBC. Perhaps you can get into the numbers game. Mr. Rabinovitch that is your responsibility?
Mr. Rabinovitch: I have not come prepared to go into detailed numbers but I am more than willing to supply to them to you. In general, for the English TV side, about 58 per cent of our funds come from our appropriation, from government; about 42 per cent comes from what we call ``entrepreneurial activity,'' which includes advertising, program sales, and rentals. Newsworld and RDI — Le réseau de l'information — are both subscription services, so they would generate revenue as well.
Out of a total budget of about $1.3 billion — which I hasten to compare to the BBC's budget with one language of about $7 billion Canadian — approximately $300 million comes from advertising, and another $200 million from other sources of revenue, and about $850 million comes from our government appropriation. I can give you the specifics but I am within a couple points.
Senator Graham: It would be useful to have those numbers. With whom do you negotiate in the government when you are talking about budgets?
Mr. Rabinovitch: It is the Minister of Heritage is the minister through which the CBC reports to Parliament. The minister inevitably has a very significant role to play, and was very instrumental in getting the additional $6 million we received. In other words, the minister is our spokesperson in cabinet.
At my level, I talk to the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and others who are involved in the budget-setting process. The chair will spend much more time lobbying ministers. It is a lobbying effort; it is an attempt to convince people of the importance of the public broadcaster and that programming cannot be done on the cheap.
Ms. Taylor: I am not sure how other chairs have done this, but I see government as a very important partner for CBC/Radio-Canada. However, it is difficult because we do have to have that journalistic separation.
I have made a point of spending time with our direct minister, the Minister of Heritage. We also deal with the Minister of Foreign Affairs because we do quite a bit internationally. There is a direct interest from the Foreign Affairs Department in our international service. We also talk to the Minister of Finance — and it has been two different people — who is ultimately setting the budget.
I have spent a lot of time with other members of the cabinet whenever possible and members of caucus when possible to talk about issues specific to them. I would say those are the three major cabinet ministers with whom I have spent time.
Senator Graham: The Senate and senators are responsible to all Canadians, Canada as a whole, we are products of the regions and we represent our regions. As you might expect, regional coverage is very important to us and we hear about it in our regions. We hear the pluses and negatives.
Yesterday, Ms. Taylor, in your address to the Canadian Club, you indicated that you would like to restore more regional coverage and put more emphasis on regional news and activities and to paraphrase Tip O'Neil, ``all this kind of thing is local.''
Have you plans to restore the CBC in a more fundamental way where we have better regional representation?
Ms. Taylor: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this regional question. I am passionate about this issue. I do not believe that CBC/Radio-Canada will survive if we do not get back to our roots, which is Canadians all across the country. They are our financial supporters and shareholders. They are our mandate to serve.
I was still working in the studio in CBC Vancouver when the cuts started about 15 years ago. I felt the effects very directly. Management and board at that time made the decision that because the cuts were so severe they had to go into survival mode. What survival mode meant at that time for them was to pull the dollars back into Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal. They were trying to say that we have to maintain the quality of our programming and the only way we can do it is to consolidate.
What that did across the country was devastating. It broke all of our relationships with our communities. As chair, it has been my decision to spend my time travelling to the smaller communities because I feel that has been overlooked in the past and that is something that I understand from my personal experience. Everywhere I go — both on the French and English sides — the stories I hear are exactly the same. When the budgets were cut so drastically in all of those regions, the communities asked, ``Where did you go? We lost CBC/Radio-Canada. You disappeared, you are no longer an influence in our lives and we have lost connection.''
This is a strategy at the board level. Mr. Rabinovitch can speak to the specifics of how we carried it out. At the board level, we said that we have to get back to the communities across the country. I am an activist; I would like to have everything happen immediately. Unfortunately, it is evolutionary and takes time.
In Vancouver, we now have a national news show that is produced out of Vancouver on television. We just announced that Sheila Rogers is moving to Vancouver — this will be the first time a national radio show airs out of Vancouver. Therefore, it is happening, bit by bit. Halifax is becoming one of our major production centres.
We are moving in that direction. I will let Mr. Rabinovitch elaborate. I want to ensure honourable senators that it is an imperative for CBC/Radio-Canada to find the dollars somehow to honour our commitment to Canadians across the country, particularly in the regions.
Mr. Rabinovitch: Senator, this is one of the most important reason why we so fully endorse the recommendation of the Heritage Committee in the other place that we come forward with a strategic plan for expanding our services in the regions and in local programming.
Fortunately, they also asked us to cost it out because it is a very expensive venture. I remind honourable senators that we suffered a $400 million cut in 1995, before either of us was there. That is about 40 per cent at the time of our government appropriation. In real terms, our budget decreased by $319 million between 1990 and 2003. Because about 85 per cent of our costs are people, the consequence is we have had to constrain or limit our growth and our programming. It has been very, very painful.
As dedicated public broadcasters, we believe our mandate is to tell those regional stories and to report in the regions. Where we have had discretionary funds in the last couple of years, we have done whatever we could to expand our regional coverage. As I mentioned before, we opened 20 new bureaus across the country in small communities. We call them ``pocket bureaus'' because they are really quite small and most of the people are trained to do both radio and TV. At least we have somebody in 20 areas that can cover stories that were not being covered before.
We have completed the development of la Chaîne culturelle, our second radio network in French, by opening 18 new stations.
As Madam Taylor mentioned, Canada Now deliberately comes not from Toronto but from Vancouver and is not just done once, it is done five times and it is repeated five times during the night. It has a distinctive attempt at being regionally sensitive with each program and with half of the program emanating from the region.
We have learned that we can do programming from regions that are of interest to all Canadians, and a program such as Sounds Like Canada will probably make much more sense being done out of Vancouver than it did being done out of Toronto. We hope it will work.
This is the beginning, not the end. We can develop a really good, comprehensive plan. We were once a powerhouse in the region; we are no longer. We are barely visible.
Senator Gustafson: There is a trend in the country that concerns me. Many feel that the CBC is anti-American and anti-Israel and that it is creating problems economically for Canadians. I am only telling you what I hear.
A group of members of Parliament and senators went to Israel. At the first meeting we had — which surprised me to no end — McDonald defended the view that he had put forth on situations that came from Canada. I am sure that you know all about that I am sure, because changes were made.
The defence came of course from the Israeli news media and it went on for three hours between the CBC and the Israeli media. I know in the west at least, a lot of people feel the CBC is very anti-American and very left wing.
That is what is out there. Since it is government-funded to the extent that it is, they feel that it would be natural to present the government's view, and that is what we are getting. I raise that.
I have one compliment. The Saskatchewan CBC Radio does a pretty good job of coverage, but some feel that it is very left wing.
Ms. Taylor: I am disappointed if you are hearing comments like that. I want you to know that, in terms of official policy at the board level, we are very sincere in trying to provide balance and to make sure that we are towing that line of fair journalism.
From the board's point of view, we have not only put in place a manual that specifically outlines the policies of the organization, we also have two Ombudsmen. I am very proud of that system. We were talking recently about whether there were any other public broadcasters in the world that have this Ombudsman. I know we were the first, and BBC now with their difficulties had phoned us to ask about our system.
Our system of Ombudsman is set up so that if there is someone who speaks to you, who has a specific complaint, we encourage these people to get in touch with our Ombudsman. These individuals — one on the English side and one on the French side — have the responsibility of taking seriously every single complaint that comes in and making sure there is a response to it.
Their yearly report is not only a public report for every one to see, it comes to the board so they do not have to report through management. It is absolutely straight to the board and straight to the public. Their analysis of all the complaints that have come through on the big idea of whether or not we are a biased organization, has been solidly in favour of CBC/Radio-Canada. That is not to say there are not instances where they say that a particular instance did not work and that we should do it better or apologize or whatever.
That is the only protection that I can have as a board member is to put in a process that I believe and know to be independent, and encourage Canadians, if they have a problem, to please, use that process.
Senator Gustafson: I accept your answer.
Senator LaPierre: I want to welcome you.
[Translation]
What I hear is exactly the opposite of what Senator Gustafson has been saying.
[English]
The CBC is too much this and too much that; it is too much right wing and so on. I have decided not to deal with that.
Madam Taylor, how much money do you really need? I have, along with Madam Copps and others, tried to prevent this legendary disaster of $60 million. We were not able to achieve that. Nor was the minister, for reasons that we do not need to go into —of course, we do not even know.
How much money do you need? I need a figure.
Mr. Rabinovitch: I will give you a couple of figures and a prayer. Given the internal efficiencies that we have been able to generate, I think we are a much more efficient corporation than we were in the past. We have generated a lot of funds from within.
We can meet the mandate except — and this is a big ``except'' — for regional and local expansion of any significance beyond what we have done for $100 million and continued access to a fully funded Canadian Television Fund.
If we had the $60 million permanently, plus another $40 million, we believe we can meet those Canadian stories and dramas and content that is necessary. It is not an outrageous number, as you can see. We are trying to be reasonable and not ask for the moon.
However, we also believe that it will take a significant amount of money — and that is up to government to decide — to expand our regional base significantly. That is, to develop local programming. That is where we have undertaken, if the government so wants us to, to develop a full strategy with a price tag.
The $100 million number is contingent upon the Canadian Television Fund staying at about $200 million with our assured access to that fund, because it is so important to our programming.
The Chairman: How much did you get from it?
Mr. Rabinovitch: We get approximately 35 per cent of the fund. That is what it works out to year in, year out. Sometimes it is 40 per cent; sometimes it is a bit less but really never less than 35 per cent. In other words, it is about $70 million to $75 million. That figure levers, on a three-to-one basis, about $200 million worth of programming. We use that money; plus we put in money of our own; and we are able to get the private sector to participate because the Canadian Television Fund is designed to be used by the private sector with us. Therefore, together that $70 million results in a three-to-one ratio in terms of it can generate programming that we can put on that air.
[Translation]
Senator LaPierre: Why do not you do that? If the House of Commons Committee has proposed that you develop a comprehensive blueprint that you call ``Contract With Canadians'' at the regional and local levels, why are you waiting for politicians to ask you to do this? You have a direct responsibility to Canadians.
You could prepare an action plan, in order to fulfill and improve on the mission of the network as a whole, which relies on local and regional sources. People live in the regions. I see that as an extremely important component of the contract you would like to develop with the people of Canada. Go for it! Do not wait until the politicians ask you to do it! I will be dead and buried by then, and you will be old.
Mr. Rabinovitch: I fully agree with you. We are now developing that idea at head office in cooperation with all of the different divisions. We expect to receive the government's answer by the end of November. I hope the government will ask the CBC to develop that strategic plan. I am ready to move ahead with that work with my team. But I would prefer to have an audience before making my request.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: I do not need to tell you that we live in interesting and uncertain times politically in our country. I have one last question.
[Translation]
You talk a great deal about values. I am quite familiar with the values of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, since I worked for the organization for years. But we are also talking about the fact that people determine the value of a program or an institution based on its ratings.
[English]
Ratings therefore become very important for the dispensers of funds, for the advertisers — for everything to happen. What is the relationship of the sanctity and sacredness of the values of the CBC to the need for people listening and knowing through ratings what this has done.
It seems that we are more interested in the ratings of people to determine how many are listening as opposed to the value of the program, if it has a small audience.
[Translation]
How do you reconcile all the demands constantly being made of CBC management?
[English]
Ms. Taylor: I have to say I am very wary of this rating slope. I do not want to sound as if I am saying it does not matter, because I understand people could question the value if we are producing programs that do not interest anyone. However, to just say it is the accumulation of numbers that gives something value is not an argument I will buy.
I will use the example of the Winnipeg ballet, which we produced last year. I do not have the exact figure, but between 200,00 and 300,000 people watched it. That is more than an entire year will see the ballet in person. You cannot say that it is not valuable because it does not draw the million viewers you get with hockey or however many viewers watch Star Académie.
It has a value to Canadians because no one else is doing it. It supports culture in this country and provides a venue for people who love cultural activities — whether it is ballet or opera to see it, who perhaps who cannot afford it or live in rural areas who do not have a ballet company. It has a value above and beyond the numbers that you will see on a rating slip.
I think public broadcasters constantly have to say, first and foremost it is our mandate, to do what others do not and cannot do, do not want to do or that we do better We must make sure we do it to the best of our ability.
It is nice when we do a Random Passage drama — which has matched the number that hockey gets on a couple nights. That is wonderful but that is not the value. That value was that it told a piece of Canadian history; it used Canadian producers and actors; it was seen across this country; and we did it in partnership with Ireland, which is a new way we are trying to leverage our dollars.
I do not want to play the ratings game and I will not play it with our six o'clock news. We are intentionally trying to do something different. We are not chasing ambulances; there are enough people doing that. We have to try and put the day's event into some kind of context and make it a forum for debate. I promise that will not get you huge ratings, but it is our responsibility.
Senator Merchant: I am a CBC listener, but I do want to follow on what Senator La Pierre was saying. I think you have a wonderful message but I think the pews are empty, and while the value may not be important to you, I think it is important to the ordinary Canadian.
I have in front of me the Broadcast Bureau of Measurement, BBM, figures from last spring. I do have copies if somebody else is interested in look at Saskatoon. It is the largest centre by population in Saskatchewan. I have the numbers for women listeners and for men listeners, of those who listened to radio, and television who get their news in this manner. The numbers for women are much better than the numbers for men. For women, your portion of the listening audience is at 3.5 per cent, and for men it is 1.4 per cent.
Mr. Rabinovitch: Are you talking about radio or TV?
Senator Merchant: It says full coverage here. Maybe you can help me. I do not know if these numbers are any different than the numbers you get in the larger centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax. I think that it is important to have Canadians listen to you and I think this is something that you have to tackle.
Mr. Rabinovitch: We would not want to leave you with the impression that we are trying to run an elitist series of networks that do not care if people listen or watch. It is extremely important; it is important to our pride. We are professionals and we want to turn out a quality product that people want to see.
We believe we have a mandate to do programming that nobody else will do and that will drive down the average number. If we ``give up'' Thursday nights, as we do, for what is called Opening Night, which is a high cultural program at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, an opera, we are catering to a group that otherwise would not watch anything on television. In other words, we want ``reach'' as much as we want winning on any one night or program. We believe we are trying to serve all Canadians and give them a unique, different type of programming. We do reasonably well, in our large programs, like Random Passage and so on, which are well financed. We are very proud of the ratings they get.
On our morning programs, we have dedicated the whole period to children's programming, to create a safe haven for kids. There is no advertising, so there is no demand to sell ads. The reality is, it is a much lower audience than if we were to buy Oprah Winfrey. If I want to serve a group of Canadians who would not otherwise get a service, like our kids, then you have to dedicate and recognize you will not get the audience share.
The numbers you are quoting are for radio only. In radio, we do extremely well across the country. Our radio services each year for the last four years have had the highest numbers they have ever had before and they have been going straight up. This has been driven by the local programs — particularly the morning and afternoon shows — which have a high popularity in both French and English. In many markets, we are number one or number two in terms of the number of people who listen to our shows.
We do a lot of shows on radio that are not designed for big audiences. Eleanor Wachtel's program on books and writers, Writers & Company, is not designed to attract a large audience but it is designed to serve a crowd that would not otherwise have an audience.
With respect to Saskatoon, I would like to look at the numbers and find out why. It may be there is a problem that the local show is not what is should be. Thank you for bringing it to our attention and for the whole issue of talking about numbers.
Senator Merchant: Senator Gustafson also is from Saskatchewan this is what we hear — that CBC is not relevant to the person on the street.
While you do your own polling and give us numbers, I read something in The Globe and Mail where you said nine out of ten people responded in support of CBC/Radio-Canada. I guess that depends on the kind of question you ask. My question is — not to be contrary but because I am interested — do you know what it costs per unit, per listener, per hour? What does it cost Canadians to have the CBC?
Ms. Taylor: For all the services that we do — French, English, eight Aboriginal languages, radio, television, internet, international service as well and our audio service — the cost is $29 per Canadian, per year. That is really important for Canadians to realize, because I think sometimes if you are talking about the budget as a whole, you are not thinking about what that means to one individual.
There are other ways of looking at this reach — Mr. Rabinovitch used a word that is really important. ``Reach'' means that we touch as many Canadians as possible. That does not mean for one minute they are going to like our whole schedule. However, I hope they can look to CBC/Radio-Canada somewhere and say, there is something that I get on CBC/Radio-Canada that I cannot possibly get anywhere else on either the American networks or the private Canadian networks, therefore, we are doing a service and providing that service from $29.
We are sensitive — especially in the regions — we know we have work to do. I agree with you absolutely. The only way we can do that work is to get back in the communities. In Saskatchewan, we have greatly increased our coverage. When I had the pleasure of visiting Regina, I kept hearing expressions of thanks that we now have journalists around the province; they are just sitting in Regina informing about everything about Saskatchewan. We can now have pocket bureaus around the province that every day can feed.
As a journalist, I used to sit in newsrooms as well. If you are in Regina and you see that there might be a story up in another part of the province, the editor would have to determine how long it would take to drive there, how fast we could get the pictures, how soon we could return and whether we could get the story on the air by six o'clock. When all that was factored, the editor would ask whether it was that important a story. Frequently the decision would be that it was probably not so we went with what we had.
We have turned all of that on its head now. We have journalists sitting right across the country, particularly in Saskatchewan where the stories are happening and they are feeding it immediately in to us.
Senator Merchant: You said that it costs $29 per year per Canadian. I asked a different question. Of your listeners, do you know what it costs for me? What are Canadians who are not listening, paying for me to have CBC?
Mr. Rabinovitch: I cannot bet that specific. The figure of $29 per Canadian is for the entire service called the CBC/ Radio-Canada and all of its services. I do not know what the cost is for per Canadian who listens to the radio as compared to watching the news or hockey. The costs by the kind of programming genre we do. Some program genres such as drama are very expensive. They have a good audience. However, to divide the cost of the program by the size of the audience, I do not think is a fair measure of the relevance and importance of the program to individuals.
I would add that the BBC has a licence fee so it is per television. Assume you only have one television in the house; the cost is 116 pounds per year as compared to our cost. If you have three or four televisions, the figure is multiplied by that. Therefore, it gives you an idea in the terms of the difference in how Canada is funding a public broadcaster.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: My cable subscription costs me more than 475 $ a year. I do not have access to all the channels that are available. I am prepared to pay a lot more than 29 $ a year for Radio-Canada's programming. The quality of its programming far exceeds what is available anywhere else.
I am from New Brunswick, in the Atlantic region. I would like to know more about your operations in that area. When I worked for Radio-Canada and CBC in Fredericton, I had frequent contact with Radio-Canada's office in Moncton. A common complaint was that it was the CBC in Halifax setting the budget for Radio-Canada's bureau in Moncton. Have things changed since then?
Mr. Rabinovitch: I will have to get that information and send it to you at a later date. Moncton is our hub in Eastern Canada for the French-language network. Halifax is the hub and regional centre for English-language services. French-language services are controlled to some extent by Moncton. English-language services are controlled to some extent by Halifax. They have regional budgets. I can tell you that the budget for English-language services, say in New Brunswick, is not being determined by Halifax. This is determined jointly with head office.
Senator Corbin: I would appreciate your sending me that information through the Committee Clerk. Ms. Taylor addressed my main question. The role of the ombudsman for both Radio-Canada and the CBC is to respond to public complaints.
In relative terms, how successful have you been overall in meeting the expectations of the public or responding to their complaints? Would you say your performance is outstanding in that respect? Are people still coming back to you to say they are dissatisfied, even after there has been an investigation? How does that work at the Corporation?
Ms. Taylor: It is very successful.
[English]
I know that our chief journalists on the French and English sides, Tony Burman, Alain Saulnier, and Claude Saint- Laurent, will be able to give you the specifics when the Chair decides they will come.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Is the ombudsman here?
Ms. Taylor: No.
Senator Corbin: Some witnesses have advocated creating an ombudsman for all media in Canada. This would be an organization the public could turn to to complain about information published in newspapers, or news stories on radio, television, or even the Internet. If that were to happen, would you get rid of your ombudsman at CBC/Radio- Canada?
Mr. Rabinovitch: I did not get what you said about our ombudsman. They are there to respond to complaints about CBC/Radio-Canada's services.
Senator Corbin: Do they receive complaints from the public or from unionized employees working for the Corporation?
Mr. Rabinovitch: They respond to public complaints. Sometimes those complaints are addressed to them by unionized workers acting as citizens.
Their role is to examine complaints if people believe that the information they have been given is biassed. They analyze the program and provide a very detailed report both to the complainant and to our Board of Directors.
Senator Corbin: Are you able to resolve these complaints to everyone's satisfaction?
Mr. Rabinovitch: After responding to a complaint, quite often I or the ombudsman will receive a letter.
[English]
``At least you heard me, thank you very much.'' There is very often satisfaction. Quite frankly, there are times when the Ombudsman will say a mistake was made and that we must correct that mistake. Sometimes it means a change in policy, in which case the senior journalists will work with management and come to the board with a policy change. Sometimes the board will say, as a result of an Ombudsman response that the management should look at a change in their policy.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: On average, how many complaints do you receive per year?
Mr. Rabinovitch: The figures are presented in the report. There is a difference between the English language and French language services. I will send you a copy of that report.
[English]
Senator Eyton: I am a great supporter, in particular of CBC radio. I share some of the sentiment expressed earlier, that I sometimes detect a left bias. I am a regular listener to Andy Barry in the morning and he strikes me often that way and I get upset, and then I say to myself, that is why he is there. He kind of wakes me up and I charge out. In a sense, I have now made my peace with all of that. I continue to be a supporter. Someone such as Stuart McLean is a priceless treasure that each and every one should value and embrace.
I understand how a business organization works and the role of chair and the board and management. In the case of broadcasting, there is the production community and then the listeners — your consumers whom you try to satisfy. In all of that, you are similar to your private sector counterparts.
The difference is that the private sector counterparts have values but they are tucked within a need to get a return on their investment. They are accountable to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. That works or kind of works, I suppose it is probably as in all things not perfect.
However, the CBC is very different because it has a different kind of return. It is not a return on investment although you may measure it in some ways and do have some private sector involvement and revenue. However, I am curious that you continue to be accountable to the CRTC: You explain your programming and get renewals from time to time. The CRTC is, after all, a government creation and creature. At the same time, you are dependent on your funding from the same federal government. Therefore, the ministers hand out money or tell you that you have so much in your budget, and then you have a government creature and the persona of the commission that sets out the terms and conditions for your licence renewal.
Can you comment on that? It seems to me there must be a tension there that is not entirely rational: that the government speaks to you, they should say, here is your job and the money. In one case, you have someone, here is your job, and someone kind of in the same organization says, here is your money.
Can you comment on that creative tension?
Ms. Taylor: I will certainly let Mr. Rabinovitch speak to this. He had a very specific example of what you are talking about. There is tension without question. About two years ago, we found ourselves in a situation whereby the CRTC, as a condition of licence, made a very detailed list that one would consider management or operations in terms of what the CBC should do. In this case, the government funding was being cut and there was no possibility in the world that we could meet those conditions.
Mr. Rabinovitch: It is a very interesting model. I do not think there is any other model like it in the world. Our broadcasting system is very unique. It really is a public/private partnership with a regulator whose job is to interpret the act. Yet we are both in the act and we have very explicit instructions in the act as to what we are expected to do.
There is very much an opportunity for conflict. In its report, the heritage committee highlighted these problems. There certainly have been times when the commission and the CBC have not gotten along very well at all, where the commission believed that the CBC should not be given different licences, et cetera. There have been some difficult times.
However, there is a mechanism within the act that allows for working out disagreements. That mechanism basically is referral to the minister of both sides, and as well, a referral when the CBC is not seen to be meeting the conditions of licence as determined by the commission.
I can remember only one occasion when it was used. It was referred up in 1976. However, generally speaking that has not been the case. The commission serves a very important purpose because it allows for hearings where the CBC is accountable to the public via the hearing process for what it is has been doing. The commission tries to balance what it hears from interveners with what the CBC would like to do. There is logic there.
About four years ago, shortly after I was appointed, I quite publicly expressed my personal feeling that the commission crossed the bounds and got into micromanagement. In particular, they focused on movies that we could show and type of programming by genre that they expected us to do. We said that we could not live with this. Their real objective was that we become more of a public broadcaster with a stronger focus on public broadcasting. We fully accepted that and asked for some time to do that. That is what has happened; we have moved in that direction. We went back to the commission about six months ago and asked for relief from a particular condition of licence. In their response they said, yes, you are really doing what we wanted you to do and we will get out of that field and they did.
One would hope that we are all trying to do the same thing, all trying to build a quality broadcasting system. We are trying to build a quality public broadcasting system, which is very sensitive to its use of funds. The commission is trying to regulate the entire broadcasting field. We just hope we can work things out and normally we do.
Senator Eyton: It seems to me that it odd that one body says, ``Here is your job,'' and then there is a second opinion, which is the first string. The first string is critical to doing your job. If I had to have a choice between someone saying, ``Here is your job,'' with a job description, and the first string, I would take the first string every time. That is compelling. There is not a whole lot of argument about that. I am not sure I understand how it works yet, but I will pass on that, because I have one other question.
You talked about Canadians talking to Canadians, and you did refer to some of the international broadcasting you are doing now where, in effect, Canadians hear voices from abroad. That is all very well. The world is changing very dramatically in many ways and our relationship with the U.S., in particular, is absolutely critical. In some ways, because of relationships, because of trade, because of investment, because of proximity, it is far and away our most important concern, and should be. To some important extent — and growing — Mexico is part of that because of NAFTA and because of increasing trade and all of the different connections and relationships that develop because of more investment, more trade and more travel.
What is the CBC doing to tell the rest of the world about Canada at a time when the world is getting smaller? It is important that the rest of the world hears something of us, in the same way that we are learning more about them.
Ms. Taylor: Mr. Rabinovitch will talk about some of the specific actions we have taken. I think this is crucial. I do think that Canada has the opportunity to play a role internationally. We are a country that has values and compassion. We are bilingual and multicultural; Canada is a very interesting county. We should be playing a part in the international debate. Our voice certainly should be heard.
Part of having our voice heard is having our Canadian reporters out there commenting on what is happening and feeding it back in. The other part is getting our stories out onto the international stage. I have pitched to various cabinet ministers and perhaps to future prime ministers the idea that the Canada agenda — which I think is starting to coalesce — involves a role for the CBC, as the public broadcaster, to be out there in a way with which we are all familiar. The BBC, for example, plays that kind of role for England.
We do not have a lot of dollars to throw at this to do this well, so we are trying to be imaginative and look to our natural partnerships. I think you will see more and more partnerships with other public broadcasters around the world, so that we start to share programming and so that our programming will start to get out a bit.
I am somewhat worried about our Newsworld International situation in the United States. As we all know, the company is changing hands there. I do not know if our contract is secure or not.
Mr. Rabinovitch and I have talked about other ways to get our voice into the United States. For instance, our Iraq war coverage was picked up by some surprising places, including some cable firms in the U.S., and the Home Shopping Network, which was looking for an alternate voice. I know it sounds strange, but that is the truth. We had responses about how refreshing it was to hear this other point of view. That is our argument before you today: We are just one of the choices, but we think we are an important voice to be heard in the whole spectrum of broadcasting.
The parliamentary committee has suggested we draw up a regional programming and cost it. In the same way, perhaps there will be an opportunity, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to draw up some sort of international idea on coverage. Perhaps there is a way that we can work closely to find some dollars for that as well.
Mr. Rabinovitch: The point is extremely important. We are talking about a two-way street: How do we understand what is going on in the world and how do we explain it to Canadians? We have talked about how we have services and journalists in various countries, but there is also the Canadian story to get out. In many ways, the Canadian story is the way we tell the international story. It has been quite exciting to find very significant American audiences tuning to Newsworld International and to the CBC, when CBC is on C-SPAN. During major crises, CBC has often been picked up.
We see the response in e-mails. Americans see what Canadians are about and they see that we are different. Canadians look at stories differently and our analysis is different. Just as our friends at BBC World did very well during the Iraq war — that is, the heavy part of the Iraq war; the war itself still continues. A lot of people in the United States turned to them and also to Newsworld International. We view it completely as another analysis — different from the Fox or CNN view. That is extremely important. Our values are told through our telling of the story.
Similarly, we have Radio-Canada International, or RCI, which broadcasts in seven languages. RCI is extremely underfunded. It has been close to dying several times. The government finally gave us the money in our budget this year. We find out once a year if we will get money to continue the service. It is terribly underfunded for the role that Madam Taylor was just describing — the role that we believe we should be playing in getting the Canadian message out.
We have had some conversations with the Department of Foreign Affairs — especially now with the possibility of extending NAFTA into other Latin America countries — about the possibility of broadcasting to Brazil in Portuguese, because of the importance of getting the Canadian message out.
The one I would not like to forget is TV5. TV5 is a partnership of French broadcasters from around the world with a potential audience of over 250 million. We play a very significant role on TV5. The Government of France has just announced a French CNN. We are in discussions with them about either developing a partnership or becoming a supplier of Canadian stories to them.
You are absolutely right. It is critical, from our point of view, but it is an area that is underfunded.
The Chairman: Senators, Mr. Rabinovitch and Ms. Taylor must leave us in 10 minutes and three of the most illustrious journalists in the country are waiting to testify. I am arbitrarily cutting off supplementaries on this round.
Senator Spivak: No one has mentioned the role that television plays in educating people. I read somewhere that children spend more time watching television than they do in school. I would set aside the numbers. They have never interested me very much because, in our fragmented television universe, you do not get the same numbers that you once used to. I think CBC is not doing too badly. I think there is intrinsic value in having a Canadian viewpoint, which, in my opinion, trumps many of the American networks, which are repetitious and based very much on ``dumbing down'' their audiences.
That is a gratuitous comment. PBS is wonderful.
I understand your strategic plan, and if the government funding can be accomplished, that would be wonderful.
How about the TVO experience in fundraising? PBS does the same. How much money do they get? Is that a credible way of raising funds? CBC has not done that, I understand.
Mr. Rabinovitch: First, I believe you are absolutely right that television is unbelievably important as an educator. That is one of the reasons, as a public broadcaster, we have increased our children's programming dramatically.
Senator Spivak: The Canada: A People's History series, for example, had a wide audience.
Mr. Rabinovitch: That series not only had a wonderful audience, it is in approximately 90 per cent of Canadian schools. You are absolutely right; it made Canadian history exciting and we do have an exciting history.
With respect to alternative fundraising approaches, TVOntario barely breaks even on its fundraising attempts. I have looked to people at PBS. Believe me, I have looked at other ways of funding because we need it. At PBS, I am told, they spend 48 cents per dollar raised, to buy rights and to buy special programming to attract the audience. They give out gifts and all that. It is a very expensive way of raising money.
I believe that TVOntario has used this technique more to build a lobby in favour of TVOntario than to have a real source of funds.
There is a problem in educational broadcasting. The amount of money available to TVOntario is about $48 million a year, which is almost nothing. It is the same thinking with Télé-Québec: The amount of money dedicated to educational television is paltry.
Senator Day: I appreciate your coming here and enlightening us. I have two questions. One deals with the impact of journalism and broadcasting; the second one is in relation to convergence — primarily in respect of radio and television — and where we might be going in that regard. Perhaps you could comment on those two points.
You talked about participating in the 500-channel digital world — the cable world. We have also been watching broadcasting and reports — particularly news reports — from foreign journalists using cell phone and satellite to report. Where is that going? Is that improving journalism or not? Is it putting more pressure on the broadcasting side to become more like a CNN-type of fluff as opposed to getting behind the story and telling us the real story? Are you still able to do this with the new pressures on you that the viewing audience wants much, much quicker reporting?
In respect of convergence, you also talked about your reporters covering stories for both radio and television. We have lost an option. In the past, we could have listened to the radio and then gone to the television to hear another reporter with another point of view, in French and in English. I could have gone to a French channel, CBC, or Radio- Canada, and get another interpretation of an event. Now, however, you do not have that choice. Presumably, you are moving the same reporter to the Internet. Soon you will be selling to the print media, if you are not already. Where are we going in terms of this convergence with one person?
Mr. Rabinovitch: That is a very important question. The environment will change with time. Significant technological changes occurring in the entire television world. Things such as personal video recorders are changing the way in which people watch and choose. Basically, it is empowering the viewer to decide what he will watch and when, to a greater extent than ever existed before.
We have to look at changes in the technology as both a challenge and a possible threat. The threat is the demand to be with actuality — that is, to have that story out and have it out fast. Sometimes there is a real danger of falling into the trap of not checking thoroughly the sources in the interest of being first. There is no question in my mind that there is a tremendous pressure in the battle between CNN and Fox to be first. You always have the rest of the day to correct. They will tell you that that is their approach.
We do not believe in that. At the same time, our colleagues in the newsrooms are faced with pictures and actualities and they do not have the full story. You always have to make a judgment. We want that judgment made on the basis of being accurate, not necessarily being first. Cell phones and satellites give you a lot more flexibility in getting those stories out quickly and finding out what is going on.
Convergence, however, also presents a real opportunity. The opportunity is to have more people — or the same number of people that you have — working for different parts of the organization so that they can cover more stories. They can be the first on the ground. They are the ones who understand something about the locale. This is not what we call ``parachute journalism,'' which is what the Americans have turned to — that is, close down your facilities but fly people in fast when you need them. We do not believe in that. Have your people on site, and you may have only one person in Moscow, but if the story gets big, you fly in more. You want to avoid a situation of overtaxing your journalists and asking them to do too much.
However, in a normal day, when you have — as we do in Baghdad — someone such as Don Murray, giving stories about what is life like in Baghdad, it is perfectly legitimate for him to ensure that he has the time to develop the story and that he do it in both English and French. That way, we have the benefit of Don Murray for two services. It is a constant balance. It is a good question to ask chief journalists, namely, how do they do this and how do they protect our people from being burned out? We can make too much demand on them. We are always looking at that balance. The new technologies give us more flexibility, but they are also a threat. They can pervert values and you must be careful that it does not happen.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. It is frustrating to have to say that we are glad to have seen you because we could obviously keep you here for many, more hours. I know you must leave, but we also have the privilege of having with us the people who, as you say, actually make it work.
Can you please send us some budget numbers over time, with particular attention to the amount spent over time per service on news information, public affairs? I think everyone around this table understands that ratings are not the deity. Nonetheless, for the purpose of understanding things like Senator Merchant's question, could you please send us information about your various shows, ratings, reach, market share and so forth? We would be very grateful to receive that.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: We would also like to receive information about regional allocation of CBC/Radio-Canada budgets.
Senator LaPierre: Those figures are probably important, but unfortunately, they have to be interpreted as part of the global context.
[English]
The ratings of Radio-Canada are here and we never compare them with the ratings and the programs with which they are associated elsewhere. People say that only 8 per cent listen to Radio-Canada and 75 per cent listen on to something else, but we never see the programs involved. To see only the numbers and to come to the conclusion that 1.5 per cent of people in Saskatoon do this is quite useless information, with all due respect, unless I know what competition is there. Do you have such information?
The Chairman: To the extent that you can provide that, it would be helpful. Thank you both very much.
Ms. Taylor: Thank you for your generous allowance of time to us today. Is it all right if I stay here and listen to my colleagues?
The Chairman: Certainly. Senators, we will now hear from three of the most illustrious journalists in Canada who happen to be the people in charge of making the news and information side of the CBC and Radio-Canada work.
We are delighted to welcome Mr. Tony Burman, who is Editor in Chief of CBC News Current Affairs and Newsworld, CBC Radio, TV and cbc.ca.
[Translation]
I want to welcome Mr. Claude Saint-Laurent, Special Advisor to the President and Chair of the Journalistic Standards and Practices Committee, as well as Mr. Alain Saulnier, General Director of Information, French Radio.
We will hear your presentations and then move on to a second round of questioning from senators.
[English]
Tony Burman, Editor in Chief, CBC News, Current Affairs and Newsworld, CBC Radio, TV and cbc.ca, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Honourable senators, it is a privilege to discuss these important issues with this committee.
As Madam Chair has indicated, my role is Editor in Chief of CBC's English services and I oversee the news and current affairs programming on CBC Television, CBC Radio, Newsworld and CBC News Online.
For more than 50 years, CBC News services have been keeping Canadians informed about their community, their country and the world at large. During that time, the CBC has moved from being a radio-only service to a multi- platform service to Canadians and to others around the world.
The CBC/Radio-Canada coverage of the Iraq war, for example, as indicated in your earlier discussion, was seen and heard in every corner of this country — on radio and television, in French and English, as well as through cbc.ca. It was also distributed throughout the world to much acclaim. Via short-wave radio, it was heard in dozens of countries, in French, English and other languages, on Radio-Canada International. Téléjournal and other Radio-Canada television programs were seen throughout the French-speaking world on TV5 and all of the most important CBC Television programs and news specials — including The National — were seen every day and every evening on our international cable service, Newsworld International. This is available in more than 15 million homes in the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Our coverage of the Iraq war was a model of cooperation among our various news services of CBC/Radio-Canada, French and English. Viewers in both languages saw the award-winning reporting of Céline Galipeau, Michel Cormier, Don Murray and Patrick Brown.
French- and English-speaking listeners in Canada and abroad heard Akli Abdallah, Manon Globensky, Mike Hornbrook and Steve Puddicombe.
[Translation]
International information makes up an increasingly important part of programming throughout CBC/Radio- Canada's media lines. More than ever, we strongly believe that it is essential that Canadians be provided with a window on the world to be able to fully grasp new realities that keep unfolding. The events of September 11 sharply brought to life the urgent need to comprehend such new realities. Together with my colleagues in French Radio and French Television, we reacted to those events by offering relevant programming to explain the world to our audiences.
[English]
We are doing that for a reason: The entire media environment is undergoing profound change. The ground is moving beneath our feet, not only in Canada but also around the world.
In the early spring of this year, CBC News and CBC's Audience Research Department went into the field to talk to Canadians across the country. The question was crucial: What do Canadians want from the news media today, and from the CBC in particular?
Two respected outside research companies under CBC supervision conducted the research. It is the most extensive study of its kind in Canada and draws on the views of thousands of Canadians from all across the country, surveyed in a multitude of settings.
As this committee well knows, the changes in the next five years in the way that news is ``consumed'' and ``produced'' may exceed what we have seen in the past 50 years.
Allow me to give you some of the key observations from this cross-Canada survey of news consumers. We have only just received its preliminary findings. In the weeks ahead, we will submit a draft of the report to your committee.
This report — although very positive about the CBC overall — identifies several areas that will require work. This will be the challenge for CBC News over the next one to three years. Canadians seem to have a far greater interest in receiving more international news than is widely acknowledged. According to the report, the need for international news is almost universal, and the study argues that this is perhaps the biggest potential area of audience growth. According to the data, there is a desire among many Canadians for more diversity in CBC's news and current affairs story selection and treatment, and more openness in the way that we do our work. There seems to be a new and stronger sense of Canada's place in the world — a perception that ``we are the best place in the world to live,'' with a far more important role abroad than currently acknowledged. This is coupled with the notion that ``Canadians should get better at self-promotion'' about the country, with CBC leading the way. Finally, there seems to be a genuine interest in Canadian political affairs, more than widely acknowledged, but a deep skepticism about ``the way the whole subject is being handled'' by the news media, including the CBC.
It is important for us not to forget what this report emphasizes: that in this exciting ``new world,'' the CBC is incredibly well positioned and highly respected. We are blessed with a gifted and dedicated staff and a rich and unique history. What we learned confirms the current direction we have set in CBC television, radio and on the Internet.
More than ever, cbc.ca is ensuring that Canadians — wherever they are — can log on for the most up-to-date news about Canada and the world. In radio, a significant initiative in program development is creating more diversity in its programming, while continuing to strengthen its connection to local communities. In television, efforts are underway to strengthen its service to local audiences with both daily and special high-impact regional programming. Throughout CBC News, a renewal process is transforming it into a more integrated, streamlined, and decentralized organization.
The study's effect was not to effect sudden or abrupt change. Instead, it will accomplish something that is far more profound. It will help us create a long-lasting CBC News ``blueprint'' for years to come that will enable us to answer that crucial question: Where do the best opportunities exist for us to enhance CBC's value with Canadians and win over new, untapped audiences?
From all of this research, it is clear that CBC's news and information division has everything it takes to become an even more attractive, vital and potent force in Canadian society today. However, it will mean taking some deep breaths and more than a few risks, and that is a challenge we welcome.
Thank you, honourable senators, for your attention. I should like to introduce my colleague at Radio-Canada, Claude Saint-Laurent.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Saint-Laurent, Special Advisor to the President and Chair, Journalistic Standards and Practices, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Honourable senators, I am here to talk to you about French Television's Information Service, because I held the position of Director General of News for 12 years. I am now Special Advisor to the President, and Chair of CBC/Radio-Canada's Journalistic Standards and Practices Committee.
This committee provides a special forum where the heads of news for our English and French networks, Radio, Television and New Media can talk about our craft, our policies, specific cases which arise, and any adjustments to our policies that may be necessary. This is a very important committee for CBC/Radio-Canada.
Madam Chair, at the start of your work this past May, you asked two questions in particular: whether Canadians continue to receive news and information with the quality and diversity they deserve; and how to ensure Canadians have access to news and information told from a Canadian perspective, as seen by Canadians.
These questions were asked in regard to citizens across all of Canada, but they are even more acutely relevant in the case of this country's francophone populations. That is why, at French TV, not a day goes by that we do not ask these very questions of ourselves.
Diversity in news and information is our daily bread. Diversity, along with fairness and credibility, is one of the basic principles guiding our journalistic standards and practices.
French Television offers nearly 43 hours of news and public affairs programming every week. We produce four daily newscasts that keep Canadians informed of events from the Canadian perspective, from our broadcast centre in Montreal and the 40 affiliated stations and regional bureaus right across the country, with our network of fine correspondents bringing them the news of the world.
[English]
We produce in-house 11 public affairs programs, which cover a variety of subjects, including: Justice, that focuses on the justice system; L'Épicerie, with a focus on food; La Facture, on consumer's rights; Enjeux, which covers social issues; Découverte, which covers science and technology; La Semaine verte, on agriculture, and Second Regard, which covers spirituality. Zone Libre brings us documentaries and features from all over the world, and Culture-choc presents the perspectives of young videographers criss-crossing the country. Finally, two programs — 5 sur 5 and Place publique — are designed specifically to respond to viewers' questions and sustain a daily dialogue with them.
[Translation]
With our colleagues at CBC English Television, we have begun co-producing epic historical documentaries, such as Canada: A People's History — one of the finest projects it has ever been my pleasure to work on — and we are currently hard at work together on a 12-hour production, of which six will be in English and six in French, devoted to the 1995 Referendum on Quebec Sovereignty.
The plan is for mixed CBC/Radio-Canada crews to travel all across the country, and the working title is One Day that Shook. With six months of initial research completed, this promises to be an uplifting, thrilling story told by Canadians of all origins and all social milieux. This history of the referendum, by those who lived it, is due to premiere in 2005.
Only CBC/Radio-Canada, with our journalistic rigour, our professionalism and the passion of our content creators, can deliver productions of such high caliber. Since going on the air in 1995, RDI has become the most watched French- language specialty channel among Francophones in Canada. More than 63 hours of its programming originate in regions outside Montreal.
This does not include the special programs it regularly produces, like the one last Thursday devoted to the 25th anniversary of John Paul II's election to the papacy, aired out of Montreal with participants speaking live from Toronto, Moncton, Ottawa and Vancouver. On a personal note, it was while watching this program that I learned Toronto's Polish community is 200,000 strong.
[English]
Two years ago, French TV inaugurated the Centre de l'information, CDI. Our objective was two-fold: first, to unite all the main network news staff and all RDI personnel under one roof, thereby promoting versatility and eliminating redundancies; and second, to make the shift to a fully digital news-gathering environment. This evolution brought with it a major culture change at Radio-Canada.
The digital environment enabled us to air reports by Luc Chartrand, was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq. He edited his stories on his notebook computer and transmitted them daily via telephone satellite uplink at speeds and with picture quality that were undreamt of even five years ago. By contrast, 12 years ago during the first Persian Gulf conflicts, our correspondents required access to editing suites and conventional satellite transmission facilities to file reports. That was not the kind of technology one is likely to find in the middle of the desert.
[Translation]
And yet in spite of the progress afforded by these and other technological innovations, in 2003 there are still regions in Canada that do not have access to locally produced news programming. In that regard, I want to express my support for the demand made by Francophone groups across the country that Radio-Canada's regional station signals be made accessible via satellite. Mr. Georges Arès, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne said last week, as quoted in the Courrier de la Nouvelle-Écosse that:
For most minority Francophones, the local Radio-Canada station is the only one they can rely on to produce a French-language newscast with a regional focus, broadcast a community events calendar, and generally play a part in community life.
The same holds true in certain regions of Quebec, such as Trois-Rivières, Saguenay and Rouyn-Noranda, where up to 30 per cent of citizens are satellite subscribers, yet cannot pick up the signal of their local Radio- Canada newsroom.
Mr. Alain Saulnier, General Director of Information, Frech Radio, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Let me begin by emphasizing a couple of important points with respect to French radio.
First of all, we can rely on 20 production centres and stations, in addition to 13 news bureaus. These resources, combined with those of the wider CBC/Radio-Canada network, allow us to offer French-speaking listeners the finest news-gathering team working in their language in all of Canada.
Fundamentally, we believe it is our duty to allow our airwaves to become a platform for debate, and to encourage expression of the most diverse range of opinions possible. Part of CBC/Radio-Canada's richness lies in this promotion of diversity. Providing a public forum, through programs such as Maisonneuve en direct, to let all possible schools of thought be heard is healthy. It enriches the quality of democratic life.
The best defence against the concentration and increasing conformity of ideas and opinion is a public broadcaster that embraces this sort of diversity. Because of its strengths in those areas, French Radio's news programming has been particularly well received over the past few years.
In the most recent BBM surveys, Radio-Canada's Première Chaîne has scored unprecedently high numbers. These results stem in part from the decision by management more than three years ago to provide increasing coverage of international news as part of our programming.
In the wake of that decision, we have added two foreign correspondent bureaus and enriched our slate of international news and information programs. We are firmly committed to covering world news. Coverage of Canadian stories has also been enriched on our airwaves, thanks to a strategy whereby we encourage stronger ties between content produced in all the regions and that produced at the main production centre.
Furthermore, we provide quality coverage of regional news. Thirty-six per cent of the programs we broadcast are produced by the regional stations, and this is especially true of prime-time programming. As you probably know, audiences for radio are always highest in the morning.
We took that into account this fall when we added a regional morning show program in Trois-Rivières. That brings to 19 the total number of regional morning programs on Radio-Canada's Première Chaîne from coast to coast. This shows that we have an equally strong commitment to telling regional stories. And the goal remains, where our program schedule is concerned, to strike a balance between the needs of ``regional'' citizens and those of ``citizens of the world'' — for these two citizens are really one and the same.
That is why, in addition to providing content of regional interest, we offer quality national and international content that gives our listeners a window on the world, no matter what part of the country they may live in. These initiatives stem from French Radio's policy of fostering openness towards the rest of the world. Indeed, it is our view that in order to survive and flourish, francophones need to embrace the world more than ever.
With our colleagues in English Radio, we have produced several first-rate documentaries in places like Africa and Afghanistan, not to mention here at home. French Radio and Television work closely together to ensure delivery of quality programming.
Radio guarantees our listeners unfettered access to the diverse realities of this country. Those of francophones, anglophones, First Peoples, minorities, and every cultural community that calls Canada home. Diversity is built into our programming. Our mission is to ensure linguistic quality in all our programming. That is one of management's fundamental commitments.
I would like to say a few words about Radio Canada International or RCI. Since 1998, Radio Canada International has been producing and broadcasting to the world in seven languages: Canada's two official languages, as well as Russian, Ukrainian, Mandarin, Arabic and Spanish. In terms of programming, RCI produces daily and weekly programs in these seven languages, national and international newscasts, coverage of events all across Canada, as well as in-depth analyses, feature reports and interviews in the political, economic, social, cultural and scientific domains. RCI also produces content for distribution to partner broadcasters.
In terms of our Web-based services, these days, more and more people are joining the Internet community to stay connected to what's happening around the world. CBC/Radio-Canada.ca's Websites provide a further outlet for our traditional media content, while enriching it with specific content aimed at Canadian Web users.
Radio-Canada.ca is one of the most visited Websites among French-speaking Canadians. One quarter of Canada's four million francophone Web users visit the site at least once a month. CBC.ca and Radio-Canada.ca cover Canadian news region by region, providing regional informational windows on the Web. The 2002 SGI survey found 96 per cent of Radio-Canada.ca users were satisfied with the site's content. That quality has brought us international recognition: in September 2003, the digital archives site won a prestigious Prix Italia in the Cross Media Web category, while our Web coverage of the Iraq conflict was a finalist in the Digital Communication category.
The Radio-Canada International Website affords even greater dissemination of Canadian news around the world, enhancing RCI's already sterling reputation.
[English]
The Chairman: We are particularly looking forward to seeing the draft report to which you referred, Mr. Burman.
Senator Forrestall: Like Senator Eyton, I also have a reaction to certain things that the CBC does. However, once I have accommodated them, however, I am quite happy. I am pleased to have been a supporter for many, many years of CBC. I shared quarters with Don Messer at the Old College Street School in Halifax when he was the Canadian rage.
You are doing something now nationally that irritates me. On weekends and in the evenings, the news is introduced with something like, ``From the national broadcasting centre for all Canada and all Canadians, here is the evening news with Trevor Eyton...'' If you would stop telling the people of the world that Canada begins and ends in Toronto perhaps you might get more growing audiences.
Let me tell you, in respect of audiences, the more I have to put up with CNN, the more concentrated I become on CBC. CNN is your best source of growth. That was my one concern, except to say by and large you are doing fairly well, just for Pete's sake change that so I can go to sleep at night.
The Chairman: I have to tell you, that from Senator Forrestall, ``doing fairly well'' constitutes high praise.
Mr. Burman: In all seriousness, how we open programs is an ongoing issue for us. Essentially, what one hears at the beginning of The National before Peter Mansbridge is introduced is the identification of the building from which that newscast comes. However, I understand it as a metaphysical and a metaphorical kind of importance beyond that building and we will take it under advisement.
Senator Gustafson: My question goes to Mr. Burman and I credit you for talking about the international impact the media has on Canada and around the world and, more particularly, probably with the U.S.
In terms of screening the news, I know there must be a fine line there between freedom of press and what is played. I want to refer to two situations. First, the headlines today say we have a 77-cent dollar. The Globe and Mail says it is impacting Canada because $1 billion a day trades across the border. In a couple of statements, you have mentioned Iraq again and again — both presentations have. In the case of the concerns about mad cow disease, many would argue that if we had not had so much media coverage about someone calling the president of the United States a shrub or other names or the fact that we did not cooperate in Iraq, that the border would have been open long ago.
That trade is very, very important. What, if any, is the screening process? I am not saying that somebody said there were lots of statements made against the president of the United States right across Canada, but when something like that comes up, they play it again and again for weeks. A good news item would probably not hit that.
How do you deal with that? I am not only targeting the CBC, I am talking to the media as a whole.
Mr. Burman: I understand that, I respect your point, senator. We deal with it in a predictable way. We discuss and argue internally and debate a lot about it. I think there is a constant dialogue going on in our various newsrooms across the country, both CBC and Radio-Canada about the extent to which a story warrants the attention we give it, to what extent do we repeat it.
On issues such as the ones you mentioned, we are always conscious of the fact that certain stories assume a momentum that history will never grant them. However, in fairness to ourselves, when we go through these debates, we often then go back and review what we have done. Generally, and including in the instances you raised, our conclusion is that we were balanced and measured.
In this case, that story was not the CBC's momentum that produced it. It created a lot of comment among public officials, which we must report. It was in a context of a lot of attention on the Canada/U.S. relationship because of the Iraq situation. It is a delicate balancing act. The only thing I can do is assure you that your concern is felt very deeply among the people at CBC/Radio-Canada, and that is why we take it seriously and debate it seriously and we hope that, at the end of the day, we make the right decision.
Senator Day: Mr. Burman, in the material we have received, it is indicated here in February of 2000 you began the successful reorganization of CBC television information services into a single integrated CBC news division which now also includes CBC radio and the online service, CBC.ca.
That convergence has taken place between radio and television and the Internet at the management level. You were here earlier when we heard discussion about the convergence at the journalistic level. I would like you to discuss that convergence from the point of view of the Canadian viewing and listening audiences as to whether they are getting the choice that they previously had.
Mr. Burman: I would love to because I followed your earlier discussion with great interest. We have been integrating our news gathering efforts — in both radio and our Internet service — in a way that means that individual programs, while they will remain as distinct and separate as they are now, will have access to the vastness of the CBC bureau system across the country and around the world to supplement their own efforts. These are programs such as The World at Six, World Report on radio, The National, Canada Now, and others.
This will not affect the individual program decisions. In other words, the distinct treatment of stories that one expects in the morning when you turn on CBC radio or you expect from Peter Mansbridge on The National will not be homogenized. We are not dealing with that level.
Through this convergence, we are trying to avoid situations whereby a radio reporter makes a report on the morning news show without being aware that a colleague in television news down the hall had information about the story that could have helped the listener better understand it. We want to create an operation where we can easily share that information.
With all due respect, one of your questions in the earlier session led me to think that perhaps you have a misleading idea about what we are talking about. We are not talking about every reporter reporting the same report on television and radio. That will — and does — occur on occasion. It will certainly occur as we create new bureaus in smaller places such as Kelowna or other under-served places of Canada where there is not enough news pressure on them for them not to service both radio and television.
In most big bureaus, in Jerusalem, for example, we have two reporters — a radio and a television reporter. In London, we have separate networks of reporters because of the demands placed on them. We will be very careful about ensuring that when reporters are asked to service both radio and television that there is a reason for it. That will still be the exception, not the rule.
In the same way, my colleagues and I have worked very hard in respect of cooperation between the French and English foreign correspondents. As we try to make our operation — which is an integrated operation — act more collaboratively, we are very conscious ensuring there is not homogeneity in what you hear on the radio or see on television.
The Chairman: How many journalists do you have now compared with how many you had five or ten years ago? To what extent, in other words, is your multi-tasking being driven by budget cuts?
Mr. Burman: Well, I will answer those questions separately. I will speak to the English services and invite Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Saint-Laurent to speak to Radio Canada.
The department for which I am responsible, including not only reporters, but also producers and production staff — currently has about 1,900 staff across Canada and around the world. Ten years ago, we had approximately 2,500 staff. So there has been a reduction of about 500, and much of that has been in television — not radio — news and current affairs. We all lived through the 1990s and recall — as the chair mentioned in her remarks — that a lot of those were cuts that occurred throughout the regional system. In the last couple of years, we have been rebuilding that so the numbers is growing, but that is the disparity.
In respect of your second question, I can certainly assure you that integration — whether it was television two years ago, or the current integration relating to CBC radio news and CBC.ca — has nothing to do with downsizing. We have discovered that as we develop more platforms to transmit our news, that we were not organized in a way that we could actually handle it all. We realized there were certain areas where we truly were duplicating. For example, in the planning of stories, we were duplicating some of the research for stories. However, rarely did we feel that reporters' stories were duplicated.
In the future, I think we will look back and see that this integration has meant that we eliminated a lot of duplication that made no sense and took funding that should have been spent on more journalism. In keeping these separate infrastructures going, we would be re-directing funds that could be better spent.
There is a commitment, from the top down at CBC, that as we collaborate more and see areas where we can avoid duplication by freeing up a staff member or making a saving, then those resources will be directed into a program. There is a real separation between the program benefits that we know will come from working closer together and the experience of the past 10 or 15 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: With respect to radio, it is important to realize that changes in our reporting staff reflect what I would call a shift in emphasis on French Radio. We have decided to place more of a focus on news and information and the choices we have made are closely connected to that change in direction in recent years. There are some 216 journalists working for French Radio —
The Chairman: I assume that figure does not include technicians or producers — only reporters?
Mr. Saulnier: Yes, we are really talking about journalists here. Ninety-five of them work for the network, but not only in Montreal, because programs are produced in other locations than Montreal or broadcast over the network; we also have 121 people working in the regions. In the last ten years, we have added 20 or so reporter positions as a result of French Radio's new strategic thrust. That includes two new foreign correspondents, reporters working abroad, as well as in Fredericton and Bathurst; this is as a result of French Radio's new strategic thrust.
Mr. Saint-Laurent: I have been keeping a kind of ``log book'' for 12 years. In terms of our staff, not counting technical personnel, in 1990-91, we had a staff of 384, whereas now we are at 434, which is an increase of 13 per cent. On the management side, there used to be 39, as opposed to 27 today, which is a drop of about 31 per cent.
In terms of our program time — in other words, what we produce and put on the air — we used to produce 1,095 hours annually. We now produce 1,943 hours of programming, an increase of 77 per cent. That figure is for news production for French Television as a whole.
The Chairman: Mr. Saint-Laurent, if you could leave those figures with us, and if the other two witnesses could also provide us with equivalent figures, that would be extremely useful.
[English]
I am sorry, Senator Day. I could not resist leaning in.
Senator Day: I am glad you asked that question, because that saved me from asking that one. I do have one more question, if I may.
The Chairman: I did interrupt.
[Translation]
Senator Day: If I understood your presentation, Mr. Saint-Laurent, you said that during the war in Iraq, you had a journalist ``assigned'' to the Army there?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: The appropriate term is ``embedded.''
Senator Day: Is that true?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Day: As regards your Journalistic Standards and Practices Committee, you have explained the advantages, but have you also taken a close look at the disadvantages and such matters as a lack of independence?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: Yes. You obviously are not familiar with the way we operate. We work together on a ongoing basis; from day to day, we are in contact on an ongoing basis. We have discussed this, and our set-up depends on the kind of coverage we want to provide. Based on our current staff — there were bilingual people, people from Radio, Television and the other divisions — we agreed that there was room for one person, which is not much. We had an offer, but it depended on offers from the Americans. Not just anyone can decide to be embedded with a battalion. Names were drawn and that is how we were selected.
We had an interesting selection and we felt that with a force of about 40, we could afford to have two people — one reporter and a cameraman — embedded with the forces at the front. I did not hear of anything particularly negative. Of course, certain precautions have to be taken. The first time he filed a story, our reporter explained what he was doing there, the conditions under which he was working and that there were certain restrictions; however, the restrictions proved to be few and far in number. There were practically none to speak of, other than not mentioning the forces' geographical position.
It wasn't easy either, because they did not assign us — either Canadians or other foreigners — to the front line.
Initially, our reporter was stationed in Kuwait, with a bridge building unit. That obviously did not mean we would be seeing a lot of action at the front. So, we had to arrange for our reporter to be moved to another unit. They agreed to do that, and we finally crossed the border and got into Iraq. It was a very interesting experience.
It is important to remember that when we collect information, that is exactly what we do. At the other end of the pipe is what is called ``broadcasting.'' I've always been in favour of collecting as much information as possible while following the processes set out in our journalistic standards and policies, but with as much editing as possible at the other end of the pipe, which means explaining why we chose to broadcast or not to broadcast certain material. We decide what the public should receive in the way of information, so that the public knows what we are doing.
So, that is what we did. We were lucky to have an opportunity to do this, because in addition to our people, Tony and Alain also had people out there. I believe this gave us a chance to present some interesting angles. I do not intend to embed all my staff with American troops. Whether we like it or not, those people become part of the group. They feel the same fears and are subject to the same constraints. Thus it can be difficult to detach oneself from what is going on, although it obviously depends on what is being asked of the reporter. The other thing is you cannot just send anyone into that situation. The reporters I referred to are extremely independent, highly experienced and are familiar with these kinds of conditions.
Senator Day: Do you intend to repeat that experience in a future war?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: Yes.
Senator Corbin: What war?
Senator Day: The next one.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: I am very distressed by this. I am horrified and scandalized. I had great pride in the fact that we had no journalists embedded with the American forces. I now find there was one. Did that person broadcast in English as well?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: I do not think so. There may have been one report. Do you remember that?
Mr. Burman: I do not know. I cannot recall.
The Chairman: That should be easy to find out. Could you please let us know?
Mr. Burman: I will let you know.
Senator Merchant: I think I am a practical person. I would like to return to your having a really good message, but nobody is listening to it and you are not engaging Canadians. When I gave you the BBM numbers earlier I neglected to say that that was for women and men aged 18 to 34. I have been told since that you have a very small audience across the country in the younger demographics.
At the same time, I should have given some other comparative figures that show that a station in Saskatoon has 1.2 per cent of the female audience in FM radio, while another station has 22.9 per cent of the listening audience. Similarly, another station has 20.4 per cent. In the male population, that number jumps with the first station to 42.3 per cent of the listening audience.
You say that you do not have a great audience in the younger demographics. I will deal then with the audience who is over 34 years of age. I am a CBC listener and I watch CBC television news. I must tell you that the people I speak with detect an arrogance when it comes to the CBC. Perhaps you have every reason to be proud of the product that you put out.
I like to watch the news on television in the evening. Sometimes I feel as if you are daring me to watch you. I know that your news time is ten o'clock in the evening. I will not chase all over the map to find out when you are broadcasting news. I know that you are broadcasting news five times a day, which is great. However, I think that people in my age group are used to watching the news at a certain hour at night. I sit by my television set and I like to watch my news at the same time.
I think, perhaps, you are getting killed in terms of audience when other broadcasters have their news at eleven o'clock at night. I find now that I do not always get news at 10 p.m. on CBC. If there is a hockey game, that is not the case. I am not interested in hockey. Therefore, I have to wait and see when you might have a little news for me. On the weekends, you have no news at 10 p.m.
People feel passionately about these things. It does matter what things cost. I am sorry; you do not care if you have an audience. It appears you do not care what things cost — you told that CBC service costs $29 per person. What does it cost for me to watch the news? If I cannot get it, I get very upset about it.
Mr. Burman: As earlier indicated, we will get you the breakdown in terms of numbers.
With respect, I would like to challenge your premise. It is inaccurate to say that no one is listening or no one is watching. As was pointed out earlier — and there will be reports to indicate it — in many centres across this country, CBC radio programs, particularly in the morning, are the number one program or close to it. The numbers for The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti are as strong as they have ever been in that time slot. There is a pattern in CBC radio that the numbers are strong and growing.
In terms of television, it is unfair to suggest that we are indifferent to how many people are watching. We broadcast The National at ten o'clock for people who, like yourself, wanted it at 10 p.m. We also repeat it at 11 p.m. for those who choose to watch it at 11. It also airs on Newsworld at nine o'clock.
If you accumulate those numbers —a valid method — on many nights, more Canadians watch The National than any other national newscast. We are not shy or defensive at all about the number of people who watch our programs. Newsworld has an audience share twice that of its next Canadian competitor, CTV Newsnet. We are not shy or defensive about the number of people who rely on Newsworld.
Above and beyond ratings, we are also proud of the fact that many people who watch our program also value it, and that is indicated in public surveys.
I think it is important that we get back to you to clarify what I would argue are misunderstandings on your part about our ability to get listeners or viewers. We will also get back to you with more information on that money issue.
Senator LaPierre: My questions are to both Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Saint-Laurent. Mr. Burman and his people are being accused of being Toronto-centric, arrogant, anti-American, anti-Semitic or anti-Israel — which is the same thing — and left wing.
[Translation]
Mr. Saint-Laurent and Mr. Saulnier, what are you accused of?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: We are accused of quite a number of things. I have read thousands of letters over the years. For some time we were accused of being separatists.
Senator LaPierre: Yes, I thought you were too.
Mr. Saint-Laurent: The situation has changed somewhat, because in recent years, we have also been accused of being federalists. We have not reached the stage where we are being accused of being leftists. We also received a number of complaints regarding the Israeli-Palestinian question. The number of complaints has dropped, but there are still some. With the ombudsmen, we had to answer a lot of questions.
Mr. Saulnier: One thing that reflects the kind of complaints received about French Radio and Television is the annual report published by the ombudsman for the French network. That report states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of the subjects about which complaints were received. Generally speaking, we are accused of supporting one side in particular, and sometimes the other. Recently, I was accused of favouring economic neo- liberalism in my programming, but another day, there will be different complaints. There are times when current events can certainly harden the position taken by one side or the other, and that is when the complaints start to flow in. The best reflection of reality is the information found in the ombudsman's report. We will send you a copy.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: Madam Chair, I would like to have a report on multiculturalism, the use of visible minorities and the service to visible minorities across the country, arising out of Minister Copps' forum on visible minorities and Canadian cultural diversity.
I believe you are supposed to present a report every year on these matters, and it would be nice to have that, if I may, madam.
The Chairman: It would.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Could you give me an overview of your recruitment practices, and tell me how many journalists leave the Corporation in a given year, how many new reporters you hire, and the standards that you apply both for the French and English networks?
Mr. Saint-Laurent: That depends. There are times where we do not do much hiring. We have implemented a system that should have been in place previously, whereby we connect information about people's evaluation, induction, training and hiring subsequent to training. That plan is copied directly from the English system that provides for practicums or training courses. The training involves working with new media, as well as in radio and television. People are trained to know how to behave professionally. Following that training, mentors are assigned to work with new recruits, and if a position becomes available, a trainee can be appointed.
We have systematically done a lot of recruitment on university campuses. Indeed, we have appointed an individual to supervise university recruitment. That person maintains ongoing contact with the universities. We have established an internship program under which new recruits are given assignments, and are subject to supervision and evaluation. In many cases, we bring them in as surplus reporters, and they have an opportunity to get a job. That is a better process compared to the one we had previously.
Mr. Saulnier: In the next five years, 20 per cent of our radio reporters will reach retirement age. We are now planning for the time when we will be bringing in new journalists from every region of the country and every university, in order to have the resources we require to provide the same quality news and information in the coming years.
[English]
Mr. Burman: It is an exciting period for all of us at CBC/Radio-Canada. I joined the CBC in the 1970s, during a big hiring period. Many of the people hired back then are running various parts of the CBC right now. In reference to something Mr. Saulnier said, I think we are in a situation because, dare I say, people of my age will be leaving the work force in the next five to 10 years, that there will be a unique opportunity for us to hire.
Three or four years ago, when the burden of the budget cuts seemed to ease, I was head of Newsworld, and we put ads across the country for six positions. We got 5,000 applicants from literally every corner of this country. Since then, we have built up a computer base, and working within French and English and radio and television, we have a very intense scanning system on our part to bring the best and the brightest into CBC and Radio-Canada. I have little doubt that in five, ten or twenty years from now the leaders of the CBC will be the people who are in the process of being hired. We have had the opportunity to hire about 100 journalists in the past couple of years and I think the numbers over the next several years will be equally striking.
Senator Corbin: Would I be correct in assuming that you are looking for specialization in various fields?
Mr. Burman: Yes, we are looking for a whole range of individuals. Clearly, quality is the characteristic that Canadians associate with the CBC. Quality can include a variety of things, including education. However, what is quite remarkable — and I know you realize this as well — is the richness of people who are available and eager to work for a public broadcast system. Whether one credits it to a convergence or something else, the market within the private sector, as it relates to journalists and to news and information, is a demoralized and a depressing one. I believe in that sense the CBC and Radio-Canada are seen as an opportunity really to do quality work. In that sense, we are fortunate in being able to choose among a wide variety.
In respect of Senator LaPierre's comment, diversity is one of these incredibly important aspects. Again, ten or twenty years from now, people will be able to judge people like myself on how we delivered on this unique occasion when the CBC and Radio-Canada once again, like in the 1970s, were able to hire new people and renew and rebuild.
[Translation]
Mr. Saint-Laurent: There is a comprehensive study and a considerable amount of work currently underway at CBC/ Radio-Canada in the area of work force renewal. That initiative is quite an extensive one and is currently in phase III. It involves a history of labour market forecasts, demographics, and the locations of important positions. That is ongoing and is being done for the Corporation as a whole.
Senator Corbin: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: I have a short supplementary question on interpreting the news. One of the reporters reported that the unity issue was 99 per cent dead. Well, as one wanting to see the unity situation go ahead between the Alliance and the Conservatives — and I like Mike Duffy, he is one of my favourites — but I thought, man, you killed us. My question is: How do the news media — and that would be for all parties — handle interpreting the news?
Mr. Burman: You are aware that Mike Duffy is with CTV, I hope. That is an important distinction here.
Senator Gustafson: I just used him as an example.
Mr. Burman: There is an important distinction there and we are very much aware of it.
We have a journalistic policy book that is full of cautions about making a distinction between what is fact, what is interpretation and what is analysis. That is one of these things that we debate internally. We try to be — and I think we have been — incredibly self-disciplined and rigorous about not crossing that line.
Senator Gustafson: That is quite a challenge.
Senator Eyton: I wish to talk about money again. In some quarters CBC has a reputation, deserved or not, of being free-spending and extravagant in some of their work.
My question is two-fold; I wish to talk about revenue and costs. With respect to costs, is your costing effective opposite both existing and new programs? How do you monitor it? Is that vigorous? In general, in that category, do you measure against your private sector counterparts and are you competitive?
Mr. Burman: Perhaps the only positive benefit of having been through a decade of budget cuts is that it focuses the mind and creates a self-discipline within the organization. In terms of one's temperature level, there are few things that get to us more — and I am not referring to your reference — than suggestions that there is a kind of looseness or casualness about the way that we use our money or staff programs. That is a luxury that we have not been able to experience in many years. There is a rigorous and self-disciplined costing process. Due to the money pressures on us, there is a fierce requirement on the part of producers and on the part of managers like myself, to make the case in respect of those areas that are appropriately related to business.
In terms of hiring new people, we have had the benefit in recent years of bringing in some of the best and brightest financial people from other companies, including competitive media companies who have been not only quite struck at how disciplined we are, but also have been able to bring us lessons that we should learn.
The other issue relating to how we compare with the private sector can get difficult because there are aspects of our programs that do not relate to a business plan, but to the value of programs, to the perception and reliance on the part of Canadians as to how we do our job. Those are things that we try to quantify. We want to make everything measurable to the extent that we can, but we cannot necessarily quantify on the same kind shareholder-driven basis that a private sector network can.
My final point is that one of the other difficulties of comparison is that the commitment to news and current affairs by CBC and Radio-Canada is so much at the core of what CBC feels itself to be. For instance, our commitment to cover Iraq to the extent that Canadians expected us to cover it, and the confidence that we knew that we would have those resources is something that cannot be matched by a private news organization that feels Iraq is simply a story that interferes with their major mission.
Let us face it; in many cases, our commercial competitors' main mission is not news and information.
Senator Eyton: You talked about history and what you are doing now. What is it that you cannot do now because of the budget constraints that would you like to do? What is your top priority that is missing at the moment?
Mr. Burman: The two items that were referred to earlier is that the cuts in the past 10 years have seriously diminished our ability to cover the regional realities of this country to the extent that we want to and that Canadians expect of us. Equal to that — and our audience study reinforces this that you will see — there is an expectation on the part of Canadians that Canada should have a far greater role and presence abroad than we have. I have always felt that and I feel that is even more necessary now. I would argue that that requires an expansion to our international reporting, well beyond what have done to date.
To refer to Senator Graham's earlier comment about our coverage versus the American or British coverage, I know what it costs. The four major American networks — I cannot speak for Fox — had budgets of more than 10 times our budget, as did the BBC. All of those networks are seen in the same living rooms as the CBC, Radio-Canada, Newsworld and RDI. We are competing against them. If I can speak from a self-serving perspective of news and information, we feel that, as strong as we have done abroad, we could do much more.
In respect of partnerships and international networks, there is an expectation that CBC and Canada will have a far more prominent role abroad than we have. However, as pointed out by the chair, that costs money.
The Chairman: Could we get the numbers for the American networks in comparison to yours?
Mr. Burman: I will see what I can get. I am talking about people that I know giving me private numbers.
Senator Gustafson: I am talking about the numbers of Canadians listening.
The Chairman: We have asked for those figures.
Senator Eyton: Do you have multi-year funding for programs or do you take it one year at a time? If you do not have it, would it be helpful?
Mr. Burman: I want to reinforce what the Mr. Rabinovitch and Ms. Taylor said earlier. Stable multi-year funding is essential for us. If the corporation does not have it, therefore the individual program divisions — be they news and information or drama — do not have it either. We go into each fiscal year as a division within CBC dependent on what is going on in Ottawa for our budget.
What is becoming incredibly important to us is that, competitively, that places us at a disadvantage. If we had a sense — not only as a corporation, but also as a particular division — of what our budgets would be over a period of years, we could take far more advantage of the fluid competitive situation than we can. Right now, it is much like running a household, until you are certain it will come into your bank account, you will not spend it. We have to be very cautious like that, whereas others do not have to be.
The Chairman: I wanted to ask you about the degree to which it may be necessary to change what had been considered some of the verities of journalism. This relates particularly to Mr. Burman. The little taste you gave us of the results of your survey suggested to me that you — and you are not alone in this, goodness knows — have been substantially underestimating your audience. I do not mean in numbers; I mean in intellectual engagement and in their interest in the rest of the world.
I am chronically frustrated, for example, when I watch The National that maybe I have to wait 10 minutes before I get any hint of what is happening beyond Canada's borders. I know there must be stuff going on out there.
Just the other day I heard on the CBC Paul Wells, who is not a CBC journalist, but a very respected journalist, observing that, in Canada, journalists — and I would include myself in past incarnations in this — cover politics wonderfully. We do terrific coverage of politics, like hockey — who is winning, who is up, who is down, who is dead, who is resurrected and who is behind.
What we do not cover is government. We really do not cover what is actually being done by the =people we elect, once we elect them. Perhaps that is what your survey is getting at when you say Canadians want things such as politics, perhaps, covered in a different way. It has been an article of faith. There have been many articles of faith in journalism. With shifting audience patterns and globalization, are you doing sufficient rethinking of what you are giving the people, as well as how you are giving it to them?
Mr. Burman: In a word, the answer is yes. I am glad you mention that. When you receive our report, you will see that much of it deals with those two aspects. Canadians' expectations are changing in terms of what they need. People are self-serving; they want information that is related to their lives and instinctively they know that what happens around the world affects them, but they are not happy with how the news media relays that because often the news media conveys it as a very remote story.
In fairness to the CBC/Radio-Canada, I would also gently argue that we have been conscious of that for a long time and, through a multitude of programs, we try to deal with that. We have had resources issues that we all know about it. To the extent that the survey encourages us down that road, I think that is a great thing. I spent most of the early 1980s and 1990s abroad, in Africa, Middle East, in Latin America and most of the people who run CBC news and information now have had incredible experience abroad.
In respect of the issue of politics, I saw that interview with Paul Wells on the media program, and I think he made an interesting observation. In fairness to CBC/Radio-Canada, with shows such as the politics show with Don Newman and the many other shows we do, the fact is that we do spend a lot of time on politics.
The survey indicates that there is far greater interest in the political process on the part of a lot of people than they get from the totality of the media. To the extent we can reshape, refine, or expand our programs — particularly given the fact we are on the brink of an incredibly important and kind of new political era — I think we will take that.
My answer would be somewhat qualified: Yes, the study will be a catalyst to get us going, but we will be heading in the direction we have been heading for several years with the clear barrier being the limits to our budgets and resources.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I did not ask any question of our two Francophone representatives because the problem is less acute in Radio-Canada. I did not have the same feeling of frustration or the same concerns.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I understand the constraints that you are under. I am sympathetic; I am not trying to be contrary. However, I do know that people feel strongly about the CBC.
When you talk about the budget cuts then people say that everyone has had cuts in the last 10 years. That is what it was all about. We had a deficit. Canadians wanted us to get rid of the deficit.
I think the optics matter. I am not saying this is not the right thing to do. Sometimes when you go to a news conference, you will see many people from the CBC, because you have got all the different arms. The local television station might just have one person, sometimes he operates the camera and you have people there. You might have three or four from CBC television; you might have somebody from radio and from Radio-Canada. There is an optic. People that do not really analyze it only notice that there are many people there from the CBC and only one person from the other station. You suffer from that optical illusion.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
This has been a very interesting meeting. I want to express our sincere thanks to all the witnesses.
[English]
The committee adjourned.