Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of November 5, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, November 5, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to study CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am pleased to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. My name is Maria Chaput. I am a senator from the province of Manitoba and I chair the committee.
[Translation]
Before introducing today's witness, I would like the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon. I am Andrée Champagne, from Sainte-Hyacinthe, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier, from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, in New Brunswick.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, from Quebec City.
Senator McIntyre: Good afternoon. I am Senator Paul McIntyre, from Charlo, New Brunswick.
Senator De Bané: Hello. Pierre De Bané, from Quebec. As luck would have it, I was a student at Université Laval at the same time as Mr. Sauvageau, in the early 1960s, at the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Catherine Callbeck, from Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Senator Claudette Tardif, of Alberta.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study of CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act. We have with us today Florian Sauvageau, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Information and Communication at Université Laval, and Chair of the Centre d'études sur les médias.
Mr. Sauvageau recently co-authored a publication entitled La télévision de Radio-Canada et la conscience politique au Québec. Mr. Sauvageau, on behalf of the committee members, I thank you for taking the time to join us today to share your perspective as it relates to our study and to answer our questions. You may now take the floor. Once you have finished, the senators will ask you questions.
Florian Sauvageau, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Information and Communication at Université Laval, and Chair of the Centre d'études sur les médias, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me. Hello everyone, and a special hello to my former Université Laval classmate from the 1960s, Senator De Bané, whose recent work I read with great interest.
I was told that I had five or six minutes to give my presentation, after which I would answer questions. With your permission, I will share a few specific points that are important to me and that may help inform the discussion afterwards. It is up to you.
I will begin with a quote. You mentioned the book we published in September. It is a collective work on Radio- Canada, clearly with a focus on Radio-Canada's role in Quebec, during the Quiet Revolution, in particular. The book also recalls the fact that, in playing such a pivotal role in the transformation of Quebec society at the time, Radio- Canada's overly Quebec-centric approach very likely served as a foil to francophones in other provinces.
I wanted to begin by citing a paragraph from the presentation. The study Senator De Bané published a few weeks ago indicates that 40 per cent of the news coverage on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal program is devoted to Quebec. That is a tremendous improvement over the past decade. In my document, I refer to another study, published in 2000, that provides a content analysis.
Obviously, it would be necessary to compare the methods used. Were they the same? Are they comparable? According to the 2000 study, authored by Denis Fortier, Quebec accounted for 60 per cent of Radio-Canada's televised news coverage. Today's figure is 40 per cent, which reflects an improvement, all the better. The authors of the study attribute Radio-Canada's high percentage of Quebec-centric coverage to stiff competitor TVA, which devotes 80 per cent of its coverage to Quebec. That is an argument everyone is familiar with.
I am going to read a brief quote of mine.
This data confirms what often strikes me as the parochial nature of Quebec television. They also illustrate the fact that francophones outside Quebec often feel like outcasts on Radio-Canada's airwaves. One thing, however, is undeniable: more than 90 per cent of the French-language TV audience lives in Quebec. How does an organization serve its majority audience, while reaching French speakers outside Quebec who do not see themselves reflected in overwhelmingly Quebec-focused institutions? Nevertheless, that is Radio-Canada's dilemma and the mandate imposed on it. To liken it to a mission impossible is not that far-fetched.
Radio-Canada has to remain relevant to Quebec. I made that clear in the quote. There is no doubt that Quebec media are much too narrow-minded. I believe they do not focus enough on what happens in English-speaking Canada or around the world. But the French-language radio and TV broadcasting networks must be viewed against the backdrop of Quebec media as a whole.
If the rest of Canada is given more coverage, similar to the focus CBC places on the entire country, Radio-Canada's audience will no doubt dwindle, chipping away at its relevance to Quebec. Conversely, given the parochial mindset of all Quebec media, Radio-Canada is still, despite its flaws, the main window on the world and the rest of Canada.
Without Radio-Canada, international news coverage would be in a sorry state, as is often the case. There are exceptions. For instance, La Presse has been making a considerable effort in recent years. However, with its foreign correspondents and Canadian reporters, Radio-Canada still provides us with a window on the world. Only Radio- Canada is equipped to maintain a network of correspondents outside Quebec, as it does now.
That is my first point. I am saying it is a mission impossible for Radio-Canada to serve francophones outside Quebec and Quebecers simultaneously. I have previously compared the task to squaring a circle.
The complaints of francophones outside Quebec are perfectly valid. That is not the problem; the problem is finding solutions. Personally, I think technology can deliver solutions that work for both sides. In addition, you discussed the mandate of the committee dealing with the Montreal-centric approach to production, saying it was often appalling.
In something else I wrote, I explained just how surreal that was, in my view. A few years ago, I was on holiday on the Pacific coast. I was on my way from Seattle to Vancouver, and I was listening to the Radio-Canada radio broadcast from Vancouver, but with programs produced in Montreal. It can be ridiculous to hear Montreal programming when you are nowhere near Montreal. The regions in Quebec have that problem as well.
The Montreal-centric approach does, however, have its advantages. If we look back to Radio-Canada's role in Quebec's political awakening, it is attributable to the drama programming transmitted to the regions, live shows and concerts only put on in Montreal; those in the regions were able to access these programs created in Montreal.
The TV world struggles with this problem all over. Twenty-five years ago, I co-chaired the broadcasting policy group that led to the 1991 act. When commenting on the report after it was published, I made a lot of enemies by saying drama television series were as likely to be shot in Chicoutimi or Maniwaki as they were in Regina or Whitehorse. That is impossible. You have to be realistic.
In France, they do not film major dramas for the national television network in Dijon or Brest. The same goes for the United States. Critical masses emerge in big cities, where the creators are and where artists can earn a living, be film or stage actors, do commercials and so forth. Large-scale productions are possible only in those big cities.
So the production focus on Montreal does have merit, even though it also has serious drawbacks. I would also say that Radio-Canada is making an effort, an effort that gets on my nerves given the need to balance national, regional and local coverage. This year, for example, a decision on hourly news broadcasts was made. All news programming, besides the 8 o'clock, noon and five o'clock broadcasts, would be done in the regions. The result is disappointing: exclusively local coverage.
We do not have access to the national or international news, or provincial news in the case of Quebec. The coverage has to focus on what is happening on the street in Quebec City or Sept-Îles, and I find that unfortunate. A balance between national and local news is necessary.
I have two more comments, and then I will wrap it up. I think it is a mistake to compare the English and French networks. In fact, section 3(1)(c) of the 1991 Broadcasting Act reads as follows:
English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.
That section makes it clear that the 10 o'clock nightly newscasts cannot be identical in French and in English. Not only would it be impossible, but it would also be completely ridiculous. At that rate, the French-language newscast would be just as surreal in Quebec as what I heard on the Pacific coast a number of years back, in the example I mentioned earlier.
That said, it is true that Radio-Canada does not provide enough coverage of top news items from English Canada. One such example is the lack of coverage surrounding China's takeover of the Nexen oil company in Alberta, a story that should be receiving a lot more attention in Quebec. The whole debate over the western pipeline towards the Pacific coast is very important. Those are national news stories that the French-language network should be covering a lot more. There is still a ways to go, but it is all a matter of balance, as with everything in life.
In addition, I believe there are other tools we can use to serve francophones outside Quebec. One of the things I am proudest of, in terms of the work I did alongside Gerry Caplan in the mid-1980s, is that the report led to the creation of community radio stations, at the behest of young French Canadians. Our report expressed support for that proposal. Community radio became a tool recognized under the Broadcasting Act, in the same ways as the public and private sectors.
Since then, community radio has provided a very important service to minority communities and francophone communities outside Quebec. Radio-Canada is not the be-all and end-all. It is also possible to develop tools that are often better suited to the needs of francophone communities outside Quebec, as opposed to the services of a giant organization like Radio-Canada.
I have always held that the small radio stations operating out west before Radio-Canada came along, such as CKSB in Manitoba, were much more useful to their respective communities than Radio-Canada was afterwards. To some extent, community radio marks a return to those small radio stations that were deeply rooted in their communities and tailored to their needs.
One last thing: it seems high time to review CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and to incorporate a new media component. I know you recently put out a report on new media. It is safe to say we are moving into the future. And, in some respects, the Broadcasting Act no longer makes sense. Asking CBC/Radio-Canada to contribute to a shared national consciousness no longer makes sense for 5, 6 or 7 per cent of the audience.
Back when section 3 of the Broadcasting Act was designed, we were light years behind the high-tech era of today. There is no doubt that the time has come to review the Broadcasting Act and CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate. I may have exaggerated slightly in the short notes I sent this morning when I said it was time to ignore section 3 altogether. I know it has tremendous symbolic significance, but we must stop viewing it as a general rule. We cannot deny that it needs changing if we want it to do a better job of reflecting the times we live in.
Thank you for listening, and it would now be my pleasure to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, sir. Senator Fortin-Duplessis will put the first question, followed by Senator Champagne.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I too attended Université Laval, though a little after you did. I am glad to have you with us today. My colleague, Senator Champagne, and I were both members of the House of Commons when you were appointed Co-chair of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, the Caplan-Sauvageau task force. In your brief, you quoted from that report, which led to a comprehensive review of the Broadcasting Act.
My question is this. Can you compare what was happening at CBC/Radio-Canada across the country between 1986 and the time you published your report? Furthermore, where do things stand now in terms of the French services that francophone communities across the country are supposed to receive?
Mr. Sauvageau: I can go back even further if you like, prior to the Caplan-Sauvageau task force. In the late 1960s, I was a reporter at Radio-Canada, and then in the 1970s. In the early 1980s, I still worked there on contract. I was never an employee of Radio-Canada, but I did do a lot of programs under yearly contracts.
Those were politically charged times. I can remember being told that my programs did not feature the Rockies enough. The fact that Radio-Canada is said to focus on Quebec has always been an issue. What we said in the Caplan- Sauvageau report was that if the report was fully implemented, it certainly would not have pleased French-speaking communities outside Quebec.
We suggested having news stations all over but consolidating all other types of production. There is more than just news programming; there are also dramas and variety shows. Everything is done in Montreal, and that has its advantages. But the report called for a greater focus on four hubs: Montreal, Quebec City, Moncton and Ottawa. I am not saying that nothing is done outside those hubs, on the contrary.
I recently met a woman from the Conseil de la langue française who was awarded the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique. She single-handedly carries on all kinds of French-language activities in Whitehorse, in the Yukon. The contribution that francophones outside Quebec make is quite something, but you cannot film a 13-week television series in Whitehorse.
Frankly, I think Radio-Canada is trying to make improvements. Usually, I do more criticizing than praising when it comes to Radio-Canada. For instance, every day around lunch time, I am in my car listening to Michel Auger's news program between 11:30 a.m. and noon. He always deals with a topic from some corner of the country or another, a topic that unfortunately holds no interest for some listeners.
At its regional stations, Radio-Canada must also endeavour to cover local news at the national level. It is not the same as covering a local news item in a community. That type of coverage is a true reflection of what is happening locally, but if your aim is to interest a national audience, you have to rethink your news item; you have to put it in a context that people understand. Otherwise, it does not work.
As I see it, the impact on me, as a listener in Quebec City, is a negative one because I am not interested. It might, however, interest me if it were covered in a different way.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Like you, I think it is important for us to hear about what is going on in other French- speaking communities around the country. Perhaps, as you say, the information should be covered in a better way to make it more relevant to people, because I, personally, would like to know more.
Mr. Sauvageau, I will tell you that I have come to think of CBC/Radio-Canada as more of a divisive force than one that unifies the country as intended. You said it had to have stable funding. In light of everything going on elsewhere in the world, it is safe to say that Radio-Canada has stable funding. But certain things are unacceptable.
We need only look to the travel and hospitality expenses that the organization's vice-president racked up while at the Vancouver Olympics. We have never been able to access the expenses and see the figures. That does not include the slew of reporters that were sent to cover the earthquake in Haiti and other incidents of that sort. I think CBC/Radio- Canada should really focus on its shortcomings and make an effort to provide us with detailed coverage of what is happening in other provinces.
The Chair: Do you have a question, senator?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: No, I was just making a comment.
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon, Professor Sauvageau. I understand that you feel a bit isolated in Quebec City and that you are not receiving regional, national or international coverage. I can tell you that we, here in the national capital region, are quite spoiled by comparison. You mentioned the small local radio stations that really deliver the local news.
Last year, I was in Saskatchewan. The Government of Canada was matching the donations made by individual Canadians to the Haiti earthquake relief effort. It did the same for the East African famine relief fund. I remembered that Gravelbourg had a radio station, because back in the day, young reporters would often come to Montreal after doing a stint in Gravelbourg. They put out the welcome mat for me, but it had become a community station; Radio- Canada had opened a French station in Regina.
What troubles me most is the fact that, when Radio-Canada lost 10 per cent of its funding, and since belt tightening was happening all over, the corporation cut 80 per cent of its RCI funding for shortwave services. That was one way to tell the world what was happening in our neck of the woods. You are going to tell me that we have the Internet, but there are more than a few countries that block their citizens from accessing the Internet.
The only way people could find out what was happening in our neck of the woods was through shortwave broadcasts. The decision to do away with shortwave services is disappointing. There is even talk of removing the antenna system in Sackville, New Brunswick, within the next few years. CBC/Radio-Canada will no longer offer any shortwave services for the entire world.
While people can complain about the fact that those on the outside have no access to anything but Montreal news, without shortwave services, people around the world will have no access to any news at all, be it from Montreal, Ottawa or anywhere else. What do you say to that decision?
Mr. Sauvageau: Although Radio Canada International is just as important as the regional stations, at some point, you have to make the tough decisions. Like you, I was sorry to see the axe fall so hard on Radio Canada International. But people have been less reliant on shortwave services for quite some time.
For instance, Radio Canada International was using FM technology in various countries and had agreements with local FM stations around the world to broadcast its programming.
It may be safe to say that people outside the country with an appetite for international news will increasingly turn to the Internet in the years ahead, and that shortwave broadcasting will continue to disappear, surrendering its place to the Internet.
Senator Champagne: There are so many countries where even the Internet is not available, where governments block access. Roughly 20 per cent of people in Africa have Internet access. What is more, we, here in Canada, have fewer hours than Germany, China, Japan, Italy, France and even some eastern European countries, all of which use shortwave transmissions to let the world know what is happening within their borders. And yet Canada and CBC/ Radio-Canada no longer offer the world any shortwave programming.
Mr. Sauvageau: That is why I said it is time to review CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, as well as the Broadcasting Act. We have to make choices. We cannot keep scaling back its resources on the one hand, and ask CBC/Radio- Canada to keep doing what it always has, on the other. We cannot require it to maintain an international presence, solid national networks on radio and TV, as well as all-news TV stations, both in French and English, all the while having to continuously grow its Web presence to make sure it has a place in the future.
Consider the fact that television is no longer as relevant as it used to be. In the little book that we just put out, I note that Radio-Canada lost its place in the evolution of Quebec society as early as the 1980s with the proliferation of channels.
Radio-Canada fulfilled a vital role when it was the only player, between 1952 and 1961. Either you tuned in to Radio-Canada or you went to bed; there were no alternatives. Beginning in 1961, Radio-Canada's influence started diminishing. Télé-Métropole became a more influential player, while Radio-Canada lost even more of its hold with the proliferation of channels in the 1980s.
It might be time to admit that TV no longer has the same role that it used to and that the Web's influence has risen dramatically. Younger generations no longer turn to the TV; they turn to the Internet.
CBC/Radio-Canada's audience is quite old. Young people do not listen to CBC/Radio-Canada radio stations, and they watch less and less TV. So if the public broadcaster wants to ensure it has a place in the future, the Internet is the way forward. Perhaps solutions can also be found to help francophone communities outside Quebec communicate with one another.
To pick up on what Senator Fortin-Duplessis said, it is important to distinguish between two things. Doing a newscast of the day's top stories is not the same as providing information about French-speaking communities outside Quebec. The fact that Gravelbourg has a problem is most definitely a concern for francophones in Saskatchewan. But you have to decide between talking about that issue and reporting on the agreement on the pipeline, which will span from Alberta to British Columbia, the political conflicts and the impact of those conflicts between Alberta and British Columbia, or even the $435,000 contribution the owner of the Edmonton Oilers made to the Conservative Party in Alberta. It is important to have that information because it puts the front men emerging from the Charbonneau commission in Quebec in perspective. In the case of the contribution, there were front men as well; that $435,000 was divvied up into tidy chunks of $30,000. That is news; Radio-Canada should expand its coverage of those types of stories.
I mentioned the Charbonneau commission. Clearly, the English network will not give as much weight to the Charbonneau commission as the French network will. It is only natural that Radio-Canada would consider the Charbonneau commission a top story for its French network. It is not as newsworthy to English-speaking Canada as it is to Quebec.
Nothing is simple, and I know a lot of people who work at Radio-Canada, and I can sincerely say they are making an effort. Efforts, however, do not always meet with success, and when something falls through, you have to get back up and try something else.
Senator Champagne: As they say in France, when it comes to journalism at every level, the print media report on dogs that have been run over. But I think the people of Gravelbourg are just as interested in hearing when their dogs have been run over as Montreal's.
Mr. Sauvageau: Of course. I could not agree more.
Senator Poirier: Good evening and thank you for joining us. I want to stay on the topic of community radio, where small community stations are really the ones reporting on local news.
One of CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations is to ensure regional representation. In your letter to the CRTC, why did you not comment on the public broadcaster's role concerning francophone and Acadian communities?
Do you think Radio-Canada's role in the coming years will be to provide more national coverage? If so, perhaps our local radio stations will have a larger role than they do now. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Sauvageau: I think that would be a favourable option, as you described. If Radio-Canada continues to lose funding in the next few years, it will have to make some tough decisions that will not be popular with some people.
Your suggestion is an option worth considering. In the years ahead, should Radio-Canada's networks serve more as vehicles for national and international news? Should the broadcaster not consider providing more resources for community radio stations? Keep in mind those stations are, to some extent, public stations since they are funded through government programs.
Earlier, I said I was proud of the fact that, in 1986, we supported the pressing demands of young French Canadians. We felt their demands were perfectly reasonable, and this seems to be one of the best ways to ensure people see themselves and their communities reflected in the media.
Bear in mind that Radio-Canada is a national network with an international component, and national coverage includes a provincial focus as well. In small communities, I think it would cost Radio-Canada a lot less to cover local news if community radio stations were properly funded. And the importance of the Internet should not be overlooked either.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau, for your extremely insightful remarks.
I want to pick up on something you said. I thought I heard you say it was impossible for Radio-Canada to serve both Quebecers and francophones outside Quebec. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Sauvageau: What I said was slightly different. The sentence in my presentation was ``To liken it to a mission impossible is not that far-fetched.'' I did not say it was impossible, just that it was not a stretch to call it that.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for clearing that up.
Mr. Sauvageau: My pleasure.
Senator Tardif: Even though Radio-Canada does not meet all the needs of French speakers outside Quebec, do you still consider it an important vehicle in the development of francophone minority communities?
Mr. Sauvageau: I do, yes. I think we have no other option but to say that CBC/Radio-Canada's French-language network will always focus on Quebec. The unfortunate part is that — and this is a bit of a political comment — over the past 20 years or so, consideration for francophones outside Quebec just stopped, it was necessary to disregard them completely. Politically, numerous people have said as much in recent times. To my mind, those kinds of comments are unfortunate.
The other day, I made a comment that, in some decades, the cultural invasion from the U.S. is said to be so powerful that it will put an end to the French language beyond Quebec's borders. But people continue to speak French in Acadia. I cited the example of Whitehorse earlier. I was highly impressed by a recent discovery regarding the French activities going on in the Yukon. It is not true that we have to turn our backs on francophone communities. I think Quebec has a role to play, through not only its television programming, but also much of its political activity. I think they should make more of an effort in terms of working with francophones outside Quebec. And by ``they,'' I mean Quebec society.
Senator Tardif: I am very glad to hear you say that. I do believe that the criticism is founded and that French- language programming is lacking in terms of reflecting French speakers in other parts of the country and their voices. However, when we come down on Radio-Canada, we often forget that it is still an important vehicle in the development of francophone minority communities.
In that respect, then, we need to identify approaches and find solutions. And I would like to hear what solutions you might offer.
Mr. Sauvageau: I will give you two small examples that tie into what I said earlier about things improving. I will cite two programs. One is a show that airs in the summer called La petite séduction. I am not sure if you know it, but a community or village plays host to an artist for a weekend, and residents try to seduce the artist by showcasing all the wonderful things their community has to offer. I noticed that the show is now making an effort to visit areas outside Quebec and travel to communities outside the province, not often mind you. I do not know if Radio-Canada planned that or not.
In addition, there is a new program this fall on Radio-Canada called Un air de famille where families are invited to sing on television for the first time. I have seen some francophone families from Ontario invited. I do not think something like that would have happened a few years ago. But in this case as well, it is a matter of balance, especially when it comes to information. If this evening — there is no Charbonneau commission this week — so let us say last week; if instead of the first five minutes of the program Le Téléjournal being dedicated to the Charbonneau commission, five minutes had been dedicated on the French network to the resignation of Premier McGuinty in Ontario, while TVA was dedicating 10 minutes to the Charbonneau commission, most Quebecers would have changed channels to TVA. When I say we should be careful, that is sort of what I mean. The resignation of the Premier of Ontario is important, but it should be given the appropriate amount of coverage in the news. CBC News with Peter Mansbridge will certainly focus more on the Premier of Ontario or the election of Ms. Redford in Alberta than Le Téléjournal will. But that is how all media outlets from around the world choose information. That approach can be criticized; I am not saying I agree with it. I am a fan of international information. Yet international information is last on the priority list of all global media — barring a crisis. The media choose — and increasingly so over the past 10 years — news stories that focus on events happening nearby. Unfortunately, everyone is opting to cover what is happening in their own yard, then in their province, their country and, lastly, abroad. That is not specific to Quebec.
If you read the Calgary Herald, you will see that it covers Alberta more than the rest of Canada. That is normal. That is how journalism works. It focuses first and foremost on what is happening at home. That will not change. And if CBC/Radio-Canada is the only network to start changing that, its actions will appear very strange in the media landscape, so much so that the whole thing will quickly be forgotten. I personally do not want CBC's French network to end up with 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the Quebec viewership. That is a key tool for improving the vitality of the French fact in Quebec. The vitality of the French fact in Quebec extends beyond the province's borders.
As you said earlier, francophones outside Quebec need Quebec, and we, Quebecers, should be more aware of that.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Sauvageau, I fully agree with some of your statements. You said that this is a matter of balance, of moderation, and that the CRTC should not grant Radio-Canada's request to run advertisements on Espace Musique. What you said about French communities in anglophone provinces reminded me of the words of the great Lionel Groulx, who said that Quebec has never understood that French communities in other provinces are the first line of defence of French Quebec. The great Lionel Groulx said that.
As you mentioned, this is a matter of moderation and balance. As you know, it is a truism that one must be at least somewhat familiar with a country in order to love it.
In order for people to love the European Union — which has 27 member countries, some of which have daily newspapers with a global reputation in England, Italy, Germany, France and Spain — the Euronews network had to be established. That was done because, as you said, people are interested in what is closest to them, and every country is interested in what is happening at home. However, they do have a network that covers all 27 countries.
It is fortunate that network exists, as there would be very little coverage otherwise. Following a study by one of your students — who has the utmost respect for the Centre for Media Studies and your faculty — we have noted that all the other Canadian provinces, combined, take up barely 5 per cent of the Téléjournal coverage. When the Téléjournal talks about the Canadian government, the coverage is provided from the point of view of the Government of Quebec, and not from a national perspective. Radio-Canada reports on everything that happens in Ottawa, but through the eyes of the Government of Quebec, and not through the eyes of the country. The balance you talked about, to which I am very sensitive, is lacking.
CBC/Radio-Canada's annual reports also make me uncomfortable. I will read to you a few excerpts I see as misleading.
In the 2008-2009 report, the following is stated:
CBC/Radio-Canada, a unifying force that reaffirms our shared values and identity.
I see you smiling.
CBC/Radio-Canada helps new Canadians by helping them better to understand and to integrate into their adopted country.
More quotes from the 2008-2009 annual report:
National public broadcaster that helps bring together an increasingly diverse nation.
CBC/Radio-Canada takes on the unique role of reflecting the diversity of voices.
Our engaging programming — in 2009-2010 — that shapes the Canadian experience, tells Canadian stories.
In 2010-2011:
Canadian content that reflects and draws together all Canadians.
When I read this sentence to my friends, they all laugh.
It would be so much simpler, similarly to the Caplan-Sauvageau report, to have two chapters in the annual report. One chapter would cover what Radio-Canada has done that year, and the other one would cover what CBC has done that year. However, they have only one chapter where the two names are mixed with things that do not reflect the reality at all.
The fact that you are nodding your head means you agree with my modest suggestion.
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes. All you have read also made me laugh, like your friends. I will now say something that is not politically correct. Those are all public relations documents, which state what you want to hear, what senators and members want to hear. So I was going to say that we should not waste our time on reading this, but I did not say it. Your suggestion to have two separate reports is indeed excellent.
I thought about including the issue I will discuss in the few notes I sent to Madam Clerk. I did not include it, thinking that I was exaggerating, but I will perhaps say it now. I would not want to be part of the CBC/Radio-Canada management, as it is unable to manage much. The internal structure of the organization is extremely cumbersome. There are too many cooks in the kitchen providing advice to CBC/Radio-Canada, and their numbers are increasing. There is the CRTC, your committee — which I respect — parliamentary committees and the Commissioner of Official Languages. In addition, there are pressures from regional groups — and not only from regions outside Quebec.
Imagine the reaction of Mayor Labeaume, for instance, and of all other Quebec elites if Radio-Canada decided to shorten the 6 p.m. news from 60 minutes to 30 minutes in Quebec City. Regional demands have to be taken into consideration, and local elites want to see themselves on the national stage, as well. That is also part of the problem.
I think that Radio-Canada has tried to satisfy everyone's demands over the years, and it has often spread itself too thin. Twenty years ago or maybe more — I do not remember — all stations in eastern Quebec were closed. You were an MP back then. Radio-Canada's role in eastern Quebec was taken away. Over the past two or three years, the opposite has been taking place. Radio-Canada's presence in eastern Quebec — Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières — was announced with great fanfare. Two contradictory decisions are made 20 years apart due to pressure and those in charge. Which decision was the right one? Restricting the presence in the region or increasing it, as was done later on? That is another example to show that Radio-Canada is nearly impossible to manage.
Senator De Bané: Of course, all that was funded by the LPIF.
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes, the Local Programming Improvement Fund.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Sauvageau, as not only a legal expert but also someone who is familiar with the Broadcasting Act, explain to me something I do not understand. I understand very well that CBC/Radio-Canada is a public service run by a board of directors and senior management, so it is truly very far removed from any influence or political interference, as it should be, since no one wants to tune in to a propaganda network. Recently, I sent Radio-Canada a series of thoughts, demands and suggestions, and the organization's response was very simple. It reads something like this:
Many of Senator De Bané's questions concern our journalistic decisions and our programming. As you know, those areas are protected by the law, so we will not answer all your questions.
The kinds of questions I asked were along these lines: When Radio-Canada broadcast an amazing program with the great reporter Lépine on China emerging as a global power, only this new giant's impact on Quebec was covered, but not a word was said about the rest of Canada; why do you not also talk about how that affects the whole industry across all provinces? I did not receive an answer to that question. They said I was meddling in their journalistic decisions. I will just wrap up with another question.
I asked them why not disperse their best journalists across the country. They could have one in Vancouver, as the national correspondent for the environment; one in Calgary, as the correspondent for oil and energy; one in Toronto, as the correspondent for finance; one in Montreal, as the correspondent for culture; one in Halifax, as the correspondent for fishing; another one in Saskatchewan, as the correspondent for wheat. And the list goes on. I was told that I was out of my jurisdiction and that they would not comment on my ideas.
They are basically saying they do not want to know what I think, as they make the decisions. What kind of an answer is that? I did not mean to give them orders; I was just giving them ideas. Their reply was that they would not comment, and that they have made their decisions. What kind of an approach is that?
Mr. Sauvageau: That is a bit childish. It is true that journalistic freedom is guaranteed, but you have the right to criticize Radio-Canada or give them suggestions. That is not political interference. I read your documents. I thought the idea to cover Asia from Vancouver was original, since I have had the opportunity — as part of a project with colleagues from the University of British Columbia — to visit Vancouver several times over the past seven or eight years. I realized how much the Vancouver Sun, for instance, focused on Asia compared with our media here.
I read that you suggested covering Asia from Vancouver. That is an original idea. So instead of telling you that it is not your business, they could think about your suggestion. They do not have to accept it. If they think it is a bad idea, all they have to do is reject it, but good ideas can come from anywhere. It is also a characteristic of journalists to think only they can have good ideas. That should not surprise you. I repeat that I find this to be childish, but I am not surprised by it.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Sauvageau. Last week, we were visited by Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages. According to him, CBC/Radio-Canada is claiming that it is accountable only to the CRTC, and that the Commissioner of Official Languages has no jurisdiction over its decision. Also according to Mr. Fraser, as a crown corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada has certain obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and sooner or later, courts will have to make a decision when it comes to that.
What do you have to say about Commissioner Fraser's statement?
Mr. Sauvageau: If I have understood Graham Fraser's interpretation properly, under the Official Languages Act, CBC/Radio-Canada should contribute to the development of official language minority communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.
I am a former journalist, so I also have some faults. I do not like the idea of asking media to contribute to the development or the promotion of anything. That is no longer journalism. The most important quality of a good journalist is a critical eye. So courts will make a decision on this, but I wish CBC/Radio-Canada did not have to be accountable to anyone but the CRTC.
If the Commissioner of Official Languages wants CBC/Radio-Canada to stop playing its role, that should be dealt with through the CRTC. In my opinion, CBC/Radio-Canada comes under the CRTC's jurisdiction. In other words, I pretty much agree with the crown corporation in this matter.
Senator McIntyre: Next November 19, the CRTC will hold public hearings on the renewal of broadcasting licences. You have also submitted an intervention to the CRTC.
Mr. Sauvageau: It is very short — only two pages.
Senator McIntyre: One thing is certain; the hearings will help establish a set of licensing conditions. Do you have any expectations regarding that, and if so, what are they?
Mr. Sauvageau: I do not have many issues with Radio-Canada's radio component. I think that, most often, this is a true public radio station, but I have many issues with Radio-Canada's television component, which is more similar — and CBC/Radio-Canada people have already said so in the past — to a commercial television station subsidized by the state.
Too often, I find Radio-Canada and the private network TVA to be the same. When you tune in to your radio station, you recognize Radio-Canada right away, as it is completely different from private radio stations. When you turn on the television, it takes a little while to figure out whether you are watching Radio-Canada or TVA, as the programs are often hosted by the same people, and the guests are also increasingly likely to be the same. The growing number of independent producers contributes to that, since independent producers work for both private and public television networks.
With the increased number of independent producers, public television has lost its spirit, and I would even say its soul. There has to be a public television spirit. Otherwise, there is no point in paying a billion dollars for a television or radio station that is similar to a private radio or television station. They may as well be funded by a business. One of the major problems with CBC/Radio-Canada's television is too much importance being placed on advertising revenues, as that influences the programming.
In the last few years of his life, Pierre Juneau repeated this countless times. He said that constantly increasing funding through advertisement was becoming a serious problem for public television.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Thank you, professor, for your presentation. I am not a permanent member of this committee, but there are a couple of areas that I want to ask about. One is Canadian content. The document from the Library of Parliament says that in 1986, when you co-chaired the task force, it maintained that Canadian content should be guaranteed a strong presence. It seems to me that on the CBC, which is what I am familiar with, there is less Canadian content. I would like you to comment on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: That has been a problem in Canadian radio and television since the 1920s. Whenever legislation was being amended, committees like ours were created. So the Aird Commission was created in the 1920s. The major issue that commission was dealing with, in the 1920s, was that, if content was not being created in Canada — at that time, we had a public radio station based on the BBC model — and we only kept the commercial stations that had started coming onto the scene, we would end up with a system similar to the American one, and we would all become Americans in our minds.
Since CBC/Radio-Canada was created, 75 years ago, the main reason for its existence has been to create Canadian content that would provide Canadians with options.
American content has never been banned. It has actually been very popular in English Canada, but perhaps less so now with the emergence of the very successful specialized channels. Quebec has never had the same problem as English Canada because of the language barrier. That was one of the main reasons I said earlier that we could not consider the development of French networks and English networks in the same light.
English Canada needs Canadian content to fend off American content, but American content is not broadcast or is unpopular in Quebec. People have always watched content created in Montreal because of the language barrier.
Montreal has always been an extremely important television production centre. A sort of a symbiotic relationship between the art world and the public has always existed there. That is actually how Radio-Canada managed to contribute so much to the evolution of Quebec culture in the 1950s and 1960s, while American content was prevalent across English Canada during that same period. Our group has had many discussions with Gerry Caplan and others about that, about the difference between the two systems. They are completely different. I do not know whether this answers your question.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Yes. There must be studies done on this. What percentage of programming now on CBC is Canadian content?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I do not know what the exact percentage is, but it is significant. It is higher in French. But at CBC, as well, the percentage is significant; much more significant than on CTV and Global. Without CBC, there would be even less Canadian content. So CBC is a very important tool in English Canada as well.
Another problem has been around for about 20 years — copies of American models. Some 30 or 40 years ago, American programs were being broadcast in Canada. The problem is that we are now living in a world where program models have become international models. Products are often made in Canada and are supposedly Canadian, but they are based on American or European models.
Formats circulate, are sold and copied in various countries. We have the same situation in French, as well. The most popular program on Radio-Canada's French network airs on Sunday nights and is called Tout le monde en parle. The program's format is French. The format was bought from France and copied. Obviously, the content is Canadian, or rather Quebecer, but the model is French. That is a French idea with guests from Quebec.
[English]
I hope I am clear.
Senator Callbeck: Yes. That is fine. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will have a second round, but I ask that you keep your questions brief.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Professor Sauvageau, if you could, what changes would you make to the Broadcasting Act?
Mr. Sauvageau: When we were asked that question in 1985, it took us a year and half to answer it.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I know, but what are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Sauvageau: I would not hesitate to make a significant amendment to section 3. I would suggest harmonizing technological and demographic issues by observing what young people are doing when they use media and thinking of something for the future.
Pierre De Bané and I belong to the same generation. Other members may be a bit younger than us, but Radio- Canada should not be considered with us in mind. Radio-Canada should be considered with the generations that will live with Radio-Canada in mind. That is another problem.
Most often, those who are examining Radio-Canada are of your or my age, and our thoughts are somewhat tinged with nostalgia. We remember the golden years of television, the things we liked on television. But that is not how Radio-Canada's future should be thought about. That was the past. The broadcaster should be considered with an eye to the future. I have a few nephews and nieces, and I see how they use media. They are totally removed from my own world. It is a completely different world, to which Radio-Canada must adjust and manage to provide — in that world — a public service that meets future generations' expectations.
This question cannot be answered in five minutes. Earlier, I said there had always been groups who thought about the future before the Broadcasting Act was reviewed. I think the same thing should be done now. The Broadcasting Act dates back to 1991. It is 21 years old, and the world has changed a great deal in 21 years. So a focus group should be created and given the time to make suggestions for a new piece of legislation to be debated in Parliament.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, as you managed to make some very important statements regarding the future of Radio-Canada in a short period of time. Thank you so much.
Senator Champagne: Allow me a quick comment before I ask a question. I agree with Commissioner Fraser in saying that the Radio-Canada network is subject to the Official Languages Act; it is a crown corporation.
You were saying that journalistic choices need to be made. I was watching the program Le Téléjournal a few days ago. They waited until the last feature to mention that that morning or the previous night, an earthquake shook British Columbia.
I heard about that on CTV much earlier in the day. You also say there is less American content. You should talk to my former colleagues from the Union des artistes. They would tell you that some people manage to make a very good living by dubbing American programs, and others would ask you why movies are being produced in the United States, and then dubbed in France to be brought to us in Canada. Try to watch a movie about baseball translated and dubbed in France. They are on first base, on second base with the bat. Try to understand anything in the movie.
Radio-Canada must help new arrivals adapt to their new country. Earlier, you talked about Pierre Juneau. You have surely heard on Radio-Canada — like me, as we are in the same age group — people such as Miville Couture, Jean-Marie Laurence, and later on, Henri Bergeron.
In the past, we would know it right away if we were watching Radio-Canada, as correct French was being spoken. Today, we hear what my former professor — Jean-Louis Audet — called dangerous liaisons. We hear incorrect pronunciations, such as ``quatre-z-autres'' competitors and ``vingt-z-années'' of service. Even the person who was interpreting Prince Charles' speech said that the prince was here for the celebration of ``60-z-années'' of Queen Elizabeth's reign. Needless to say, my ears were ringing a bit.
What can we do to get Radio-Canada to ask its employees to be careful when it comes to the quality of our language? I would like to preserve that language, which is being broadcast across the country to our francophones and which we want our new arrivals to learn.
Mr. Sauvageau: I mostly agree with you regarding the language issue. I understand that, in dramas, a different level of language may be used, but in information programs or programs like Tout le monde en parle, the French should be impeccable. The small book that was just published includes an essay by linguist Jean-Claude Corbeil, who was very familiar with Jean-Marie Laurence's time and who explains the evolution of French at Radio-Canada.
We see how important Radio-Canada's role is. Radio-Canada published reports that were used everywhere — not only in Quebec, but across the francophonie. That was a reference to a time when that whole thing was practically dismantled because of cuts. You are entirely correct when you say that the concern for the language is no longer the same.
However, I would disagree with you when it comes to the roles of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the CRTC. That is a legal issue that will be decided on, but the legislation also says the following:
It is [. . .] declared [. . .] that the objectives of the [Canadian] broadcasting policy [. . .] can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority.
The CRTC is that single independent public authority. Radio-Canada will probably cite that section of the act and say that it is accountable to the CRTC, end of discussion. The legislation will have to be interpreted. We will see.
Senator Champagne: If Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act, why would Radio-Canada suddenly not be subject to it?
Mr. Sauvageau: I do not want to follow the example of the Radio-Canada people and answer like they answered Senator De Bané. It is because, if a broadcaster is accountable to a single organization, the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the press may be taken into account by that single organization, and also because I personally think there should not be too many cooks in the kitchen. However, I may be wrong. And if Graham Fraser ends up winning, so much the better for him and too bad for me.
Senator Champagne: And so much the better for French. Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.
The Chair: Senator De Bané, followed by Senator McIntyre.
Mr. Sauvageau: I was told we would lose communication at 6:30 p.m. That is what I was told.
Senator De Bané: My question will be very quick. Mr. Sauvageau, something happened recently on that program we bought from France, Tout le monde en parle, that made me uncomfortable. The guest was the star witness of the Charbonneau commission, where he was supposed to spend a week talking about how he was corrupting all kinds of people.
Of course, when he came into the studio, the whole audience applauded. We obviously know they applaud because a floor management prompts them to do so when the cameras start rolling. I am wondering whether it is a good thing for a public television station funded by Canadians to invite someone with such a long track record.
He was a very interesting guest because he managed to hold people's attention for a week. The floor manager gave the signal for applause to begin. That affected me. I may be old or silly.
Mr. Sauvageau: Many observers have said that was ridiculous. I do not know how to interpret it because I also thought it was more than ridiculous. Is it customary to do that, or did the program organizers simply forget that applause would not be very appropriate in this case?
The program people may also have regretted doing that. Perhaps they simply did not think about it. I do not know. It was certainly an error in judgment.
Senator De Bané: Regarding the quality of French, I remember there was a time when Radio-Canada had an official — a certain Mr. Chouinard — who watched the programs religiously. The next day, he would approach those who had made mistakes and correct them. I think it is unfortunate that no one does Mr. Chouinard's job today.
Mr. Sauvageau: Someone still does that, but we are no longer talking about the same type of service. That is true.
Senator De Bané: Thank you so much, professor.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you, senator.
Senator McIntyre: Professor Sauvageau, as you mentioned earlier, you submitted a small intervention as part of the renewal of public broadcasting licences, on November 19.
I find it interesting that, in one of your recommendations, you ask the CRTC to reject the public broadcaster's request to air advertisements on its Espace Musique channel. I agree with you. Did you make that recommendation following complaints from the public?
Mr. Sauvageau: No, I simply do not want the radio to become what television has become. I do not want Radio- Canada to be a commercial radio station subsidized by the state. If that starts with Espace Musique, in five years, someone will say the same should be done with the main station.
I think the CRTC will have to think about the existing legislation and Radio-Canada's current mandate. However, perhaps the first thing the CRTC should think about is advertisement on Radio-Canada. One of the CRTC's best decisions was to eliminate advertisement on the radio in 1974.
I do not think advertisement can be completely eliminated on television, as television is very expensive but, in my opinion, a ceiling should be set for advertisement. Should it account for 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent of all revenues? I do not know; that needs to be given some thought, but the more advertisement there is, the more program content changes because of competition.
Senator McIntyre: I agree with you.
Senator Champagne: I raised the same point in a brief I dared to use, and the idea was to at least not go beyond prestigious advertisements — something similar to what PBS airs, for instance. If you watch a program such as the one hosted by Charlie Rose, in the evening, advertisement takes up a total of 10 seconds in the hour. If Radio-Canada ended up with a similar scheme, I could be okay with it, but I am not okay with 3 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes. That makes no sense. A prestigious advertisement for a prestigious program, I can see. I could not let this go without adding my two cents.
The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, on behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank you for your very useful testimony and your very complete answers to the many questions asked by the senators. You have seen the interest shown around this table in the topic currently under study. On their behalf, I sincerely thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you for the invitation, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, before you leave, I would like to give you some information about the committee's next meetings. The committee will continue its public hearings as part of its study of CBC/Radio-Canada's language obligations and, over the next few weeks, we will hear from provincial organizations that are involved in minority francophone communities. As soon as we return, after the week off, we will hear from the representatives of the Association de la francophonie de l'Ontario, who have confirmed their attendance.
[English]
Honourable senators, I thank you for your participation at this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)