Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of November 26, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, November 26, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to examine CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee. Before introducing the witnesses who are appearing today, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, Quebec City.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
Senator Comeau: Senator Gerald Comeau, Nova Scotia. Good afternoon.
Senator Tardif: Senator Claudette Tardif, Alberta.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Senator Marie Charette-Poulin, Ontario.
Senator De Bané: Senator Pierre De Bané from Quebec, and I have been very much inspired by this dynamic New Brunswick community. Bravo!
The Chair: Thank you. I would also like to inform you that two regular members of the committee, senators Mockler and Robichaud, both of whom are from New Brunswick, are not here today. They are attending meetings in the Atlantic provinces with the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and have asked me to say hello to the witnesses on their behalf and to thank them for appearing before the committee.
The committee is continuing its examination of CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
With us today are representatives of francophone organizations from New Brunswick. René Légère is President of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, and he is here with Amely Friollet O'Neil, Vice-President of the Société nationale de l'Acadie; Marie-Linda Lord, Research Chair in Acadian Studies at the University of Moncton; and Carmen Gibbs, Executive Director of the Association acadienne des artistes professionnel.le.s du Nouveau-Brunswick, who is accompanied by Jean-Pierre Caissie, Head of Communications at the Association acadienne des artistes professionnelles du Nouveau-Brunswick. And, by videoconference, we welcome Pascal Raiche-Nogue, President of the Association acadienne des journalistes, who is here with Patrick Lacelle, Treasurer, and Karine Godin, Advisor. Welcome.
On behalf of the members of the committee, thank you for taking the time to give us your perspective on our study and to answer our questions.
I now invite Mr. Légère and Ms. Lord to take the floor. They will be followed by Ms. Gibbs and Mr. Raiche-Nogue, and the senators will follow with questions.
René Légère, President, Société nationale de l'Acadie: Madam Chair, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us here today.
The Société nationale de l'Acadie, commonly called the SNA, is the organization that represents the Acadian people. Founded in 1881, today it is a federation of eight member associations, one preferred member and six associate members. As the official mouthpiece of the Acadian people, the Société nationale de l'Acadie advocates the rights and interests of the Acadian people in the Atlantic region and Acadian outreach in Canada and the world.
One of its priority advocacy issues is communications, and it is in that area that the SNA is presenting this brief to you today.
Radio-Canada is a central concern for the SNA. In the 13 years since Radio-Canada's licence was last renewed, the SNA has taken action to assist Radio-Canada on several occasions, more recently to support its application for renewal of the LPIF, but also to remind it of the requirements of its mandate.
Acadians, like all francophones in Canada, are very much aware of how important the public broadcaster is in their lives. They know that no private broadcaster would be prepared to make the necessary capital investment to serve remote regions in order to broadcast radio and television or to maintain a Web presence.
It is clear to Acadians that Radio-Canada's national mandate and public funding, to which Acadian citizens contribute in the same way as all Canadians, are the only guarantees that those services will be provided and that they must be preserved at all costs.
The Société nationale de l'Acadie wishes to emphasize at the outset how important this institution is in Canada but also to issue a number of warnings. At a time when the battle is raging between public and private broadcasters, it is appropriate to emphasize the importance of a public broadcaster in Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada is the only broadcaster capable of bringing together the various regions of the country, offering its citizens, wherever they live, varied and independent content, without regard to specific economic interests, to enable citizens to compare various visions and ideas so that they can form their own opinions, without which our democracy would not be worth much.
In this immense country of ours, truly national coverage on radio, television and now the Internet will never be economically profitable for private industry. As you will recall, CBC/Radio-Canada broadcasts in English, French and eight Aboriginal languages, from north to south and from east to west, and that the Crown corporation plays a fundamentally important role in our communities.
Radio-Canada Acadie has been an essential instrument of Acadian society for more than 25 years, as are the other stations and offices across the country providing francophones with information and outreach. If it had to broadcast only where advertising revenues and ratings warranted, there would not be a lot of radio signals, television airwaves or Web coverage outside the golden triangle of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto.
We repeat that, despite the criticism that will follow here, Radio-Canada must have the means to continue its work for all Canadians.
In Acadia, as in all of French-speaking Canada, people are extremely concerned about the CBC/Radio-Canada funding cuts, which, as recently announced, could reach $200 million over the next three years. Acadians, who are taxpayers like anyone else, rightly fear the impact of those cuts on the essential services currently provided to them. What video journalist position in the regions will be cut?
The Radio-Canada national journalist position in St. John's, Newfoundland, which has been vacant for months? The Chéticamp position, which is also vacant? What program will we have to trim? Le Réveil in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Will they try to combine them all in a single morning program, thus depriving citizens of news specific to their corner of Acadia?
The CRTC's decision not to renew the LPIF has merely exacerbated an already troubling situation. The LPIF represented $2 million in supplementary funding for Radio-Canada Acadie, enough to carry Le Téléjournal Acadie five to seven days a week, to produce a number of regional programs and to hire journalists in the regions, in Acadia.
All these initiatives are threatened, and Acadia and all the other regions of the country have been marginalized to the same degree because we suspect that the deepest cuts, if made, will not fall on the prime broadcasting regions.
Here is another example: at the national level, the LPIF made it possible for the national program Le Club des Ex to provide the services of political commentators from French Canada and Acadia. What will happen to that initiative?
Part of Radio-Canada's mandate, which concerns, in particular, Acadia and the francophone communities as a whole, is to: (a) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions, and (b) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity.
In that respect, the least we can say is that we are dissatisfied. Although the corporation meets the specific needs of the regions with stations such as Radio-Canada Acadie, provincial election coverage, journalists in the regions and so on, Canada and the regions have been excluded from Radio-Canada's national programming.
The SNA, like all our francophone institutions across the country, has constantly repeated this for years. In 2007 and 2009, the Société nationale de l'Acadie published studies on the presence of the regions on the national radio and television networks. They did not paint a rosy picture. They clearly showed that the news, stakeholders, experts, political commentators and topics treated rarely strayed beyond Quebec or even Montreal.
A more recent example illustrates that statement. On September 18, the national Téléjournal devoted the first 18 minutes of news to Quebec. Was nothing going on in Canada, the country from which Radio-Canada derives its name? What about the mandate to contribute to shared national consciousness and identity? Radio-Canada's current strategic plan is entitled Everyone, Every Way. Really? One wonders.
Although we are convinced that senior management wants to make that statement a reality, that view is not shared by the lower levels at Radio-Canada, by the hosts, researchers, directors and others who generally do not know enough about the country they are committed to serving to look beyond the professionals alongside them.
In fact, it appears that all these craftspeople view Radio-Canada much more as a regional station than the national network it is supposed to be. As a result, programs such as L'Épicerie, La Facture and others almost never venture outside Quebec, intellectually or physically, and national or international events are commented upon solely for Montreal by Quebec experts. There are no more Acadian or francophone artists on the network's cultural programs than there are francophone economists on its financial programs or Acadian political commentators on its public affairs programs.
This situation is harmful to Acadians, who feel they are second-class citizens whose opinions are not solicited. If Acadians and francophones see only Quebecers on the air, they will not feel valued or, as one Acadian viewer said, feel that they belong to a country when they watch the news.
Lastly, in the longer term, Quebec's memory, in all its diversity, is being preserved to the detriment of ours and that of the broader Canadian francophone community as a whole. In addition to the lack of knowledge of Canada at Radio-Canada's headquarters in Montreal, and of any interest or good will toward the country, there are structural and financial problems exacerbating the situation we are currently experiencing.
With resources in short supply, Radio-Canada is increasingly a mere broadcaster of programs produced by private companies, and those companies are of course Québécois. Every time we ask for a higher profile on the national network, we are told that Radio-Canada is not responsible for the content of the programs of Guy A. Lepage or Fabienne Larouche. The situation is so serious that, when we see on the network a series like Belle-Baie, which has been filmed in Acadia, or when La petite séduction comes to see us, Acadians feel they have hit the jackpot.
On the rest of the schedule, Canada, which, we repeat, is outside Quebec — incidentally, I am outside nothing; I live in Acadia — usually makes do with Jour du seigneur or the weather.
The Chair: Mr. Légère, would it be possible for you to summarize the rest of your presentation in one minute? Your time is nearly up.
Mr. Légère: Fine, I will move on to my conclusion.
Clearly, if Radio-Canada were not essential to the development of Acadia and the Canadian francophonie, the Société nationale de l'Acadie and other organizations would have given up the fight long ago. And yet we believe in the need for a public broadcaster and in Radio-Canada's potential both in the regions and nationally. We believe that its officers truly want the corporation to become the instrument of national cooperation that its mandate requires.
That is why, for more than 20 years, study after study, meeting after meeting and appearance after appearance, we have never stopped believing in the possibility that we may one day see Radio-Canada turn the corner, as we have hoped for and demanded, and become and assert itself as the broadcaster of the entire Canadian francophone community, a broadcaster that takes an interest in what we do, in what we experience and in what we think. And why not a broadcaster that enables us to dream, to see ourselves, hear ourselves and even show ourselves and be heard?
Imagine producers and even artists and craftspeople from Acadian or Franco-Manitoban television being nominated or winning awards at the Gémeaux, the grand celebration of French-language television. Would that not be an indication that a change has occurred?
At the last Gémeaux ceremony, more than 100 productions from Quebec were nominated, but none from Acadia. Should this major celebration of French-language television not be, in a way, Radio-Canada's year-end report card on the progress it has made? Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Ms. Lord now has the floor.
Marie-Linda Lord, former Research Chair in Acadian Studies, University of Moncton, as an individual: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, I want to tell you how pleased I am to be with you today. And I am here as a researcher at the University of Moncton, as I am no longer Research Chair in Acadian Studies, as I have since become vice-rector of the university. Consequently, I am appearing before you as a researcher.
Further to Mr. Légère's remarks, today I will be presenting you a brief overview of this Téléjournal study of which you are all aware, a study that I conducted three and a half years ago, but also of other studies that I have directed with students at the University of Moncton on Radio-Canada radio which, as you probably suspect, contain the same message. They all come to the same conclusion, that Montreal dominates the radio and television airwaves.
The national mandate to which Mr. Légère referred is very much disputed by Canadian francophones. They note that news and reporting have been centralized and focused on Quebec, more particularly Montreal, where the corporation's head office is located. The regions therefore often feel they have been abandoned in favour of Quebec and even Montreal.
However, some demographic background is required here. This is often the argument that Radio-Canada uses to defend itself. We heard it again last week when Louis Lalande, Vice-President for French Services, appeared before the CRTC, that 83 per cent of the francophone population of Canada lives in Quebec, including more than 34 per cent in Montreal, but it should nevertheless be emphasized that Quebec represents only 23 per cent of the population of Canada.
I would like to recall the remarks of Radio-Canada's former ombudsman, Julie Miville-Dechêne, when she was in that position in March 2008. She admitted that the national news broadcast was:
. . . a difficult issue for Radio-Canada, which is torn between the demographic reality — the vast majority of francophones, the target audience, are in Quebec — and its national mandate.
I would like to review the main points of the study I conducted, which was entitled Un pays, deux téléjournaux nationaux: le Québec en français — le Canada en Anglais, and asked the question: where are the regions on Radio- Canada's national network?
That comparative study provided a clear perspective on what a national mandate could be and the extent to which Radio-Canada was not carrying it out. If we look, for example, at the news from the Atlantic provinces, there was three times as much news on the CBC as on Radio-Canada during the same period in January and February 2009. The CBC allocated 4 per cent of its total coverage to the Atlantic provinces, whereas the figure was 1.4 per cent on Radio- Canada. During the four weeks under study, CBC journalists interviewed 41 people from the Atlantic provinces in their segments, Radio-Canada journalists only 5.
Now I would like to talk to you about the findings of another study, and we are looking at three studies on radio here. This gives you some statistics; we are going beyond perceptions. That is what we get from these studies, which were conducted by a student, David Richer, on the daily program Christiane Charette, a magazine broadcast on Radio- Canada radio five mornings a week. In the Maritimes, the program was broadcast between 10 a.m. and noon. Although it was broadcast across the country, it was entirely focused on the province of Quebec, indeed even Montreal.
Among other things, the student, David Richer, looked at the angle from which subjects were handled, as well as the provenance of the guests. Every week, there was a round table on topics in the news, and the commentators were none other than Nathalie Petrowski, a columnist for La Presse in Montreal, and Josée Legault, a columnist with The Gazette, both located in Montreal. The student spoke by telephone with the program's director, who explained to him that, every day at the production meeting, the five researchers and he, all of whom were from Quebec, raised news items that were of interest to the researchers and would capture the attention of the audience, which must be understood as being the Montreal and Quebec audience, whereas the program is Canadian.
According to the statistics on the weeks during which the study was conducted in the fall of 2009, almost all, that is to say 95 per cent, of those involved were Montrealers. I said Montrealers, not Quebecers. Out of 151 speakers, 144 were from Montreal, 7 from France and none from the rest of French Canada.
Another study conducted by student Julie Robichaud, again in fall 2009, looked at the program that followed that of Christiane Charette, Maisonneuve en direct, which was broadcast at noon in the Maritimes. The program was divided into various segments, the first of which featured correspondents from across the country. It has to be acknowledged that those responsible for the program wanted to make an effort to represent Canada on the program, which was highly criticized when it was announced that regional noon-time programs would be withdrawn and were to be replaced by a national program. However, 15 minutes of program time were devoted to the national segment and the correspondents had an average 2 minutes and 24 seconds to talk about their respective regions.
In the rest of the program, topics were discussed and then the telephone lines were opened, because there was a telephone phone-in section. On Maisonneuve en direct, many speakers were asked to talk about news items, and, regardless of the topic, the Canadian population always had an essentially Montreal take on the subjects discussed, which was obviously not consistent with Radio-Canada's mandate, which is to represent all of Canada. We did not have a chance to hear a variety of views during the program.
Lastly, I will talk to you about the program Vous m'en lirez tant, a literary magazine broadcast once a week on Sunday afternoons, hosted by Lorraine Pintal. This study was conducted by a student, Mélissa Boivin-Chouinard, in fall 2009, and, in this case, that was quite relevant because the fall is the start of the literary season. It is a very important and very busy time of year for the publishing companies. You should know that books had been launched in Ontario, Acadia and Quebec, in Quebec City and Montreal, but, if you listen to the program, it was not exactly the same literary landscape that appeared from week to week.
One point that should not be forgotten is that the program's host at the time, Lorraine Pintal, had been president of Montreal's Vitrine culturelle since 2003. Briefly, the main purpose of that organization is to promote Greater Montreal and its emphasis is to increase the profile of all the activity sectors that provide the culture on offer in Greater Montreal and to increase traffic at the cultural and artistic venues there. That person was the head of a national program.
``Montrealization'' was very much in evidence on the program, and it can even be said that there was a Montreal bubble on their radio airwaves. Once again, to give you some statistics, Quebec was the focus of 55 per cent of the program's interviews, features, stories, round tables and book news, but, within that figure, 43 per cent concerned Montreal. Consequently, 12 per cent was left for the province of Quebec, mainly Quebec City. Acadia represented 3 per cent, Ontario 1 per cent and Paris 23 per cent. That may be of interest to the Canadian francophone community, since Montreal is a francophone literary capital. We do not want to deny that, except that some Acadian authors have published books and, as you know, a francophone Acadian author recently won the Governor General's award because, this year, prizes were awarded for books launched during the fall, and there was no mention of Vous m'en lirez tant on the program.
Consequently, all this paints a very sad picture of the Canadian francophone community, which is conspicuous by its absence. Other studies were conducted as well, including that of Julien Chabot-Paquet, who analyzed the RSS news feeds during the H1N1 flu epidemic.
And there were not exactly the same number of news items concerning the H1N1 flu in the Montreal news feed and Acadian news feed, but there were no items in the national RRS feed about H1N1 in Acadia. There were only items about Montreal in the national feed. That is my conclusion.
Carmen Gibbs, Executive Director, Association acadienne des artistes professionnel.le.s du Nouveau-Brunswick: Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable senators. The Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau- Brunswick would like to thank the Senate committee for this opportunity to address you on behalf of Acadian artists.
The Association acadienne des artistes professionnels du Nouveau-Brunswick is an arts services organization representing more than 250 professional artists active mainly in New Brunswick, but also in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Its mission is to promote and defend artists' rights and interests and to gain recognition for their contributions to the development of society.
Artists play numerous roles as storytellers, shapers of reality, pathfinders and watchdogs in the service of French Canadian communities and of all Canadians.
Jean-Pierre Caissie, Head of Communications, Association acadienne des artistes professionnel.le.s du Nouveau- Brunswick: Radio-Canada is an essential player in the Canadian media landscape and must be granted adequate government funding to carry out all components of its complex mandate.
As the public broadcaster, the corporation fosters the emergence of a distinct Canadian cultural expression and assists in extending its outreach around the world. It also facilitates cultural dialogue across the country and better knowledge among Canadians and contributes to the development of Canadian unity.
Canada needs a public broadcaster. As a result of its mandate, only Radio-Canada can establish itself in all regions of the country in both official languages. CBC/Radio-Canada is the only truly national Canadian media concern capable of reflecting all the diverse components of the Canadian mosaic.
Ms. Gibbs: Radio-Canada is the first source of information, production, co-production and broadcast of audiovisual content in Acadia.
News, documentaries, dramatic, variety and children's programs, as well as events broadcast across all the public broadcaster's platforms constitute an essential mirror of our society and represent a window on other Canadian communities and provinces. This window displays our identity, our artists and the images we project to others and at the same time brings back images from elsewhere.
As provided by the Broadcasting Act, Radio-Canada's mandate is to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
In faultless compliance with its mandate, Radio-Canada has proposed to introduce multidirectional communication among Canadian communities, including the official language minority communities. Based on our observations, it still has not done so. The regions, including Acadia, are still not adequately represented on the national network.
Over the years, Acadia has extended its outreach and expressed itself through its artists. From the Acadian musical group 1755 to Angèle Arsenault or, more recently, France Daigle, Lisa LeBlanc and Radio Radio, many Acadian artists have received support from Radio-Canada at one stage or another in their professional careers. In spite of that, our artists, some of whom are nevertheless very successful elsewhere in the world, are still given little coverage on the national network on the pretext that, and I quote, ``Acadian artists are not well enough known in Quebec,'' the assumption being that Quebec audiences do not listen to or watch them. That is precisely the case of Soirée des Éloizes, which is produced by our association and broadcast by Radio-Canada only in the Atlantic provinces.
The galas produced in Quebec, whether those of ADISQ or the Gémeaux, are broadcast on the national network every year.
Mr. Caissie: The AAAPNB's view is that there is room for improvement to ensure that the concerns, artistic talents and cultural issues of the Acadian communities are given a higher profile and reflected on the Radio-Canada national network. Far too much specifically Montreal-based content is still broadcast on the various platforms that Radio- Canada operates.
It is very important that television viewers who choose to watch the news see themselves reflected to the same degree on the network as they are on the local stations. It is fundamentally important for the news to travel in both directions, from the network to the local stations and vice versa. The idea of reflecting all the communities in the network's programs is fundamentally important for the survival of French Canadian communities at the local and national levels. We have not yet achieved that level of representation, and Acadia and the broader French Canadian community do not yet enjoy the desired level of access to arts and culture on the national public broadcaster's airwaves.
Ms. Gibbs: We could also emphasize that the time difference does not always appear to be taken into consideration when we see, for example, that Le Téléjournal Acadie starts at 11 p.m. at home and ends at 12:30 a.m. An hour later in the Maritimes? Perhaps, but there are limits. Need we remind you that we also go to work the next morning?
Considerable progress remains to be made in reflecting all of Canada and considering regional diversity.
The Acadian, Franco-Manitoban and Saguenay communities have a great deal in common, more than they know. However, the desking and selection of television news on the national network is done by the Montreal station which decides whether or not to redirect news and programs.
Mr. Caissie: The public broadcaster should not be subject to the same rating constraints as the private sector. It should therefore make a more active attempt, for example, to reflect the situation and specific needs of the French Canadian and Acadian communities on the national network in prime time. That is why we are not in favour of Radio- Canada's current application to broadcast advertising on Espace Musique and Radio 2.
Radio-Canada should not be in a situation in which advertising has an even greater influence in dictating its choice of programs and stakeholders to the detriment, of course, of the regions and official language minority communities.
Ms. Gibbs: The Radio-Canada Acadie station is an essential partner in the artistic life of the Acadian community in the Atlantic provinces. That goes without saying. However, Acadia's place within the national network raises concerns for us, concerns that we are raising here.
Radio-Canada's administration appears to view the network more as a central pillar that broadcasts to the regions. However, based on the example of the Internet, we can now view the network in a different way. The interconnection among poles, regions, transmitters and stations and the information and content produced should flow more among the regions without having to pass through a centre that determines the importance of the information and switches content. We firmly believe that to improve the way our artists and culture are reflected on the national network, there must be greater decision-making authority in the regions. Canada extends beyond the boundaries of Montreal. When you watch or listen to Radio-Canada, it is clear that the public broadcaster should contribute to a sharing of national consciousness and identity.
Mr. Caissie: Of course, to be able to broadcast regional content on the national network, you have to have access to regional content. In a short period of time, the Local Programming Improvement Fund succeeded in breathing new life into local production of programs, documentaries, dramatic series and news that reflected who we are. Unfortunately, we are convinced that the gradual elimination of that fund, while the corporation absorbs a 10 per cent budget cut, would reduce the outreach of our regions, particularly of the official language minority communities on our public broadcaster's airwaves.
The LPIF must be replaced, under either that name or another. That fund, which represented only $2 million a year for the Radio-Canada Acadie station, had such a quick and significant impact on production in Acadia. Its elimination will undermine local production in the region.
Ms. Gibbs: Ultimately, we believe that the public broadcaster is an essential player on the Canadian media scene, particularly for Acadia. We believe that Radio-Canada contributes to the development and outreach of francophone arts and culture and could do it better in future. We hope that Radio-Canada has sufficient resources in future to serve as a true cultural beacon for all Canadians across the country.
In closing, we demand that Radio-Canada further decentralize decision-making and control over national network air time.
We also hope that the spirit of the Official Languages Act and of the Broadcasting Act will be respected in order to foster the development of the arts, culture, the Canadian and Acadian Francophonie and the vitality of our communities across Canada. We also recommend that the government set aside at least one seat on the corporation's board of directors for a representative of the Canadian francophone community.
Radio-Canada is an essential institution for the Acadian artistic and cultural community. It makes it possible to broadcast high-quality information to the public, to every citizen; it stimulates thought and discussion and contributes to the expansion of francophone communities by making the broader community aware of the importance of the arts in Acadia and elsewhere in the country.
Radio-Canada is an agent of the collective identity. It acts as a genuine cultural transmitter and fuels the sense of living together that characterizes Canadian society.
We would like the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to provide its support in helping Radio- Canada carry out its mandate toward the official language minority communities. Thank you for your attention.
Pascal Raiche-Nogue, Acting President, Association acadienne des journalistes (by videoconference): Madam Chair, honourable senators, thank you for having us here today. I am here in my capacity as Acting President of the Association acadienne des journalistes, also known as the AAJ.
Before turning to the matter at hand, I would briefly like to introduce the organization I represent. The Association acadienne des journalistes is a professional association of journalists working in the francophone media in the Atlantic provinces.
AAJ has agreed to testify today because Radio-Canada plays a front-line role in French-language news in the Atlantic provinces.
The public broadcaster is the only source of regional television news in French in many regions of eastern Canada. In some regions, it is also the only source of radio news in French.
We repeat, quality French-language news in the Atlantic provinces depends to a very large degree on Radio- Canada's contribution.
As we want to take maximum advantage of the time you are allotting us today, we will simply give you our opinion on the issues that concern us most. The organization representatives sitting beside us in Ottawa here today are concerned about identity and cultural issues. We will be talking about the issue that concerns us, news quality.
Canada's Broadcasting Act provides that CBC/Radio-Canada shall, and I quote:
. . . reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
However, in our view, the public broadcaster does not entirely meet that obligation.
We could discuss the work done by journalists at the regional Radio-Canada station in the Atlantic provinces, Radio-Canada Acadie, but we believe it is more urgently necessary to focus on the news that is presented on radio and television news broadcasts and national programs.
Our comments will therefore focus on the news broadcasts, public affairs programs and general-interest and specialty programs that are broadcast on Première chaîne, Radio-Canada television and RDI, the Réseau de l'information.
Some very specific studies have clearly shown, as Marie-Linda Lord explained to you, that marginal attention is given to the rest of the country outside Quebec in late evening television news broadcasts. However, we believe the problem is much bigger than that.
The position given to Quebec on news broadcasts and programs is overwhelming. Quebec news is unfailingly presented at the start of the broadcast and analyzed in depth on public affairs programs. This leaves little room for news from elsewhere in the country.
When the attention turns to what is going on in the Atlantic provinces, it is often done so on the fly or to add a somewhat exotic or picturesque note to the broadcast. For example, when the news of the day from the Atlantic region on the Réseau de l'information is the discovery of a stranded turtle, one may well wonder whether there was anything more newsworthy outside Quebec that day.
The absence of news from elsewhere in the country, from Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia or the territories, is also felt in the Atlantic provinces.
High-quality information is ultimately diversified information. That is one of the criteria of information quality. This imbalance does no service to Quebecers either because, if Radio-Canada does not give Quebecers news from outside their province, one wonders how they can understand Canada as a whole.
The treatment of national news on Radio-Canada's national network is also a problem. For example, when figures are published by an organization such as Statistics Canada, Montreal-based hosts and journalists frame the news to interest a Quebec audience. National news is often presented to that audience in a way that explains its specific characteristics, issues and consequences for Quebec.
In so doing, they manage to take interesting national news and make it uninteresting to the listeners and viewers of the 12 other provinces and territories outside Quebec. As a result, many francophones turn to other media. This is troubling because the alternative, more often than not, is anglophone, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
As other speakers have said, these are not recent criticisms. We have been repeating them for years and the studies confirm them. Measures must be taken to rectify the situation. Good intentions are not enough.
In our opinion, Radio-Canada could do a better job of meeting its obligations by decentralizing news production. No French-language national news or public affairs program is produced by Radio-Canada Acadie for either radio or television.
Gaining a clear understanding of a community's reality is not a complicated proposition. You have to go there; you have to be there and live there. It would be unrealistic to ask Montreal journalists, researchers and directors to understand what news affects people in Acadia. That is why Radio-Canada must create more national positions in the Atlantic provinces and decentralize production of those programs.
We also believe that Radio-Canada Acadie, the network's regional station in Acadia, should be more prominent in the Atlantic provinces. It broadcasts no programs nationally and produces very few locally. Consequently, Radio- Canada would be complying with its mandate to a greater degree if it reduced the number of hours of national production in favour of regional content.
We can dream up all kinds of ways to improve the quality of information provided by Radio-Canada, but ultimately those ideas will not go far without adequate public funding. Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster, needs stable, adequate funding to meet its obligations under the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act.
We can assure you that the cutbacks in recent years are being felt in Acadia, and they are unacceptable. This trend must be reversed so that Radio-Canada can provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us today.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, I want to tell you that I listened carefully to the briefs you presented, and this is really very moving. And it is not because I come from Quebec that I do not realize it. I am not completely blind; I realize how Radio-Canada acts toward all francophone minority communities across the country. Sometimes we realize that the English network has covered a very important event that never made it onto the French network.
I am going to ask you a question that I also put to the organizations we had representing Ontario's francophone communities here last week. I would like to get your reactions on this topic as well.
Can you tell us about the mechanisms that Radio-Canada is currently using to consult the francophone minority communities and about their rate of participation in those mechanisms?
Mr. Légère: Perhaps I can start with a brief answer. We at the Société nationale de l'Acadie have periodic meetings with general management. Wishes have been expressed that these meetings be regular, but finding the appropriate time for that is a challenge. I believe those meetings have become necessary and even essential in the present circumstances.
The intention is to enable the station manager to listen to the topics for discussion that the community makes public. Those topics are also being raised within our organization. So I will be speaking more for the Société nationale de l'Acadie, which manages the communications files for Acadia.
At board meetings, people from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick discuss how services are provided. We hear criticisms from everywhere. We are trying to prepare a report on that and we will present it to the station manager in the hope that he can get something done.
There was also an Acadian, Clarence LeBreton, on the Radio-Canada board at the time. He is no longer there; he was replaced by no one. He was also a vehicle through whom we funnelled information telling them that the situation no longer made any sense and that something had to be done on the board of directors.
And the answers we got were always along the lines of, ``Yes, Mr. LeBreton, we will make every effort to ensure that the regions are better represented in national programming,'' but the situation remained the same; it never changed. It was very hard to bring it down a notch or two.
And that is because, at some point, it becomes virtually impossible because of the weight of numbers. You should talk to all the researchers, producers, hosts and directors. This becomes a virtually impossible exercise, unless there is a well-established strategy so that it can be done.
Amely Friollet O'Neil, Vice-President, Société nationale de l'Acadie: I would like to add to my colleague's remarks and say that, yes, the Société nationale de l'Acadie organizes an annual meeting with Radio-Canada officers.
However, this question is divided into two parts. Yes, sometimes there are consultations, but they are not always adequately receptive to the complaints expressed by the Acadian community. I believe it is important to understand the issue as a whole, and from both standpoints.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Ultimately, you do not get the impression you are being listened to when you ask for something. Is that correct?
Ms. Lord: I attended that first meeting, which was called following the publication of my exhaustive study on the two national news broadcasts, in English and in French. In the course of the discussion, we realized how essential it was for us to tell the three Radio-Canada directors who had travelled to Moncton that we in Acadia — as is the case in Ontario and Alberta — are francophones just like francophones from Quebec.
I can tell you as sure as I am sitting here that there were question marks on their faces. I really believe the word ``minority'' creates a perception that we are less francophone, whereas that is false. Yes, we are francophones.
Senator De Bané: You are more so.
Ms. Lord: I agree with you, Senator De Bané, because we are on the front line every day. Sometimes I say that to Quebecers as well. The day when our front in Acadia falls, Quebecers will become the front. And the same will be true in Ontario and Alberta.
Ms. Gibbs: I have been in my position for 13 years, and every time there is a change in management, we are summoned to meetings in Moncton so they can announce the good news to us. And for 13 years, they have been announcing the good news to us about Radio-Canada's intention to provide good service to Acadia. We always respond with requests that we consider reasonable. They are there. It is not as though they do not hear us. I believe they listen to us, but there is a real lack of understanding of the contribution that Acadians can also make to Quebec.
It is as though they think they are doing us a favour, whereas we try to tell them that we are contributing to the state and to a dynamic effort. Quebecers need to hear that as well. Something is not happening in the Montreal tower.
Ms. Lord: In addition, national coverage is inconsistent with Quebec's projet de société, its vision for society. Radio- Canada has been a major player in this entire building of Quebec society as we know it. That is what we have seen over the past 60 years, and everything is taken up by that vision at Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada is no longer the vision for Canadian society. Radio-Canada is the vision for Quebec society.
We have obviously spoken a little about the financial situation. And for virtually 20 years, we have seen Radio- Canada's budgets cut. This is where market logic has entered the picture at Radio-Canada. We have really forgotten the basic spirit of a public service. You also have to understand the Montreal dynamic. In television, Radio-Canada feels it is competing directly with its main rival, TVA. They monitor each other's ratings. They have allowed themselves to be caught up in that whirlwind, but also to use ratings to justify the idea that public funding is worth it. And they cannot manage.
Ms. Gibbs: The participation rate is very high. Why? Because we still have hope. We hope to be able to exercise an influence. So we get involved; we do not miss opportunities when we are called upon. So the participation rate is high.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Ms. Lord, I believe you put your finger on the problem. I am a Quebecer; I am a federalist, but I am also a nationalist. We get the impression that Radio-Canada is making every effort to trigger Quebec's separation by not unifying the country.
The situation is not fun for us in Quebec either. We never get any news from francophones in the other provinces or about anything that is going on. It is hard when we want to remain Canadian and we see how they are working to undo all that.
Ms. Lord: But they have nevertheless contributed to Quebec's identity, which is a good thing. They have helped build it as we know it, because we know that Quebec's identity at the time was French Canadian. It became Québécois. Radio-Canada was one of the main players that contributed to that state of affairs.
I believe this even goes beyond the political vision of part of the Quebec population. Even with respect to Quebec's identity, federalists are proud of their provincial identity.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Yes.
Ms. Lord: I would say that Radio-Canada helps promote that Quebec identity as well as the entire star system in Quebec, which has no equivalent in English Canada.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Pardon me, but I have to leave since I am appearing somewhere. I will be very interested in reading the record of today's meeting. Thank you very much, and I wish you good luck for your presentation before the CRTC.
The Chair: Mr. Caissie, you wanted to add something?
Mr. Caissie: The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has entered into an agreement with several federal cultural agencies, including Radio-Canada.
Under that Agreement for the Development of Francophone Arts and Culture in Canada, we meet with Radio- Canada senior officials every two years; so feedback is a bit difficult to provide when it is spread over that period.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I want to thank you for your excellent presentations. I am from Alberta, a province that does not carry considerable demographic weight and that must constantly struggle to ensure that francophones in the region are well represented and are heard. So I am very moved by the comments and remarks you have made today, and I thank you for them.
I entirely agree with you that Radio-Canada focuses too much on Quebec, and mainly on Montreal, and I also agree that Radio-Canada does not reflect the diverse nature of our regions or Canada as a whole, through its hosts, news broadcasts, the programs it produces or the way our artists are represented.
To what extent do you believe the current situation as described will be exacerbated by the budget cuts imposed on Radio-Canada? We are talking about budget cuts in the order of $200 million over the next three years. Is there a risk that the situation you describe will be exacerbated by those budget cuts?
Mr. Légère: I believe so. Based on what has happened in the past, we will obviously become quite an easy target. There are various ways of making budget cuts, but centralization is usually a recurring theme. They centralize more to avoid having a lot of administrations across the country. I see a significant danger in this. And when it comes to selecting productions, they are more inclined to target the most promising ones. And since our production volume is not like Quebec's, we will still be subject to budget cutbacks. The risk is enormous. There can be no doubt about that. We must not be naïve.
Ms. Gibbs: I believe the current cutbacks are in addition to those made 20 years ago. In my opinion, beyond the comments and concerns stated earlier about the place of Acadia or the regions in Montreal, if you want the Crown corporation to play its role, you clearly have to stop bleeding it, because they are in fact removing what little fat there is on the bone. They are taking away the Crown corporation's ability to play its role effectively. If there is still hope that it can play its role, they must not continue in this direction because soon there will be nothing left to enable Radio- Canada to play that role.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: A number of people have said today that the news, the choice of stakeholders and the place where programs are produced are very much influenced by ratings. And that is because Radio-Canada tries to please a Quebec audience. Cutting the subsidies to Radio-Canada will only amplify the problem. Radio-Canada will be increasingly dependent on advertising revenue, and that does not augur well for us because the more advertising revenue they take in, the more they will go after the audience, and that audience is mostly in Quebec. Consequently, that cannot be good for us. The less grant money there is, the less room we will have on the national network. That is certain.
Senator Tardif: If I understand correctly, you are saying that the francophone communities are highly vulnerable to budget cuts and that we could well lose essential services for our communities. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Lord: Yes, and, more specifically, when that fund was introduced a few years ago, we noted, for example, that journalists were added, particularly in Nova Scotia and in other regions as well, along with more regional programs. For example, in Acadia, like everywhere else, we have Le Téléjournal, which is essential. We have it seven days a week, but we know that is not the case in all Canadian regions. This is a gain, but will it last?
The budget cuts could well reduce us to this daily Téléjournal at 6 p.m., and that is all we will have, whereas we currently have La Revue Acadienne, which is a comedy program; we have a talk-show called Luc et Luc. So we have a diverse range of cultural offerings as well, whereas all we will wind up with is this absolutely essential news broadcast. That is the choice that has to be made if that is all that is left for us, but that is definitely not enough to reflect the cultural specificity of a francophone population in one of Canada's regions, and the same will be true of the other francophones in the country who will also lose their regional productions, except probably Le Téléjournal.
Ms. Gibbs: In fact, in Acadia, the television drama series and documentaries that are produced in Acadia and that are really at risk include: Le Téléjournal, La Revue Acadienne, La soirée des Éloizes, the TV series Belle-Baie and the documentaries Éloge du chiac, Cayouche Le temps d'une bière, in fact all our documentaries. This is an issue for all Acadian and francophone regions of Canada, and I would even say that there are issues affecting all the forgotten regions of Quebec.
Senator Tardif: There is also the cancellation of the Local Programming Improvement Fund. If my understanding is correct, the CRTC decided, within 18 months, to cancel the funding granted to the regions to improve local programming, an initiative that was very much appreciated by all regions of the country.
Ms. Gibbs: It enabled them to do a better job of honouring their commitment to official languages. It contributed to minority community development. As you know, it represents $2 million in Acadia for the four Atlantic provinces. That is a small amount considering the impact on our communities and our outreach beyond our borders. It was really a major impact for a very minor expense.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. It is always a pleasure to have people from back home come and talk to us. The presentation was fantastic. It has really opened our eyes. Ms. Lord, earlier you mentioned — and we have heard this many times from other people — that, based on all the research, the same response always seemed to come back, that the national Téléjournal is really too focused on Montreal. You said that part of the problem stemmed perhaps from the fact that we are a minority in an official language minority region and that they perhaps do not consider us as being as francophone as they are.
Since New Brunswick is the only province that guarantees respect for both official languages, I find it hard to believe that Radio-Canada could not understand that we are not less francophone here at home than they who live Quebec City or Montreal.
I would like to hear your comments on that topic.
Ms. Lord: They cannot get over the idea that English Canada, which comprises the other nine provinces, including New Brunswick, is bilingual. How many times do we have to repeat that to them? You would think there was a wave in the 1970s, with artists like Édith Butler, Antonine Maillet and Angèle Arsenault, through whom people discovered Acadia. Things have calmed down somewhat since then. We now have a new wave with new Acadian artists.
So there is less surprise at the fact that we exist, but you do not hear about us much on Radio-Canada. How many times have we seen people surprised that we speak French? People tell us that regularly, but we have no forum to say it in.
Quebecers are obviously the majority in their own province. We are not, even though our equality is recognized by the Canadian Charter. That also does not correspond to the plan for Quebec society, which is the torchbearer of Canada's francophone community. It is as though they did not want to recognize the French Canadian archipelago. Quebec is obviously its main island; Ontario is a good island, and Acadia as well, but no one wants to acknowledge or accept it.
However, we are not visible either. That is the entire social problem: we are constantly invisible on Radio-Canada. So how can we get recognized when we cannot even see ourselves?
I would add that, in our demands, we have asked for a much higher profile on the airwaves, but it goes beyond that. This is Canada as a whole: yes, you have to make room for francophones, but you also have to make room for Canadian issues. This interests us as citizens.
Senator Poirier: We are an officially bilingual province, but that does not give us an advantage across Canada, where we are nevertheless recognized as a francophone minority province.
Ms. Gibbs: Decisions are made by people who have no interest in what we do, and I am not talking about senior management. There is a problem between the wishes of senior management and the people who make the content decisions.
We are certain that we are dynamic; we behave like people who contribute to this society; we do not behave like sheep; we can make a contribution, but, as Ms. Lord said, to be able to contribute, we have to be able to contribute. In Acadia, however, as in other French Canadian communities, we have a great deal to add.
In fact, Montreal has a lot to learn about our ways of doing things, our way of saying things and our resilience.
Senator Poirier: Earlier you mentioned 20 years. Do you think we are in a better position today with regard to Radio-Canada, or are we at the same level where we were 20 years ago?
Mr. Légère: I think we are at the same level. I remember very clearly a speech I made in the 1990s in which I said that the day Radio-Canada has a TV series that comes from Acadia, that has been produced in Acadia — I could have been talking about Ontario, Alberta or Manitoba — we will be able to start saying that Radio-Canada is really a national television network.
We had Belle-Baie, which was a TV series produced in Acadia, but that is over. What projects are we currently proposing for broadcast? I do not know of any. Is there one? Could someone tell me? But for the moment, there are none. So we find ourselves in exactly the same situation. Radio-Canada will start being a national television network when it allows our craftspeople and our artists to express themselves through a television series, for example, or an important project that will be seen across the country.
I attended meetings in Montreal, where a dozen directors around the table had come to hear us because we had virtually demanded that Radio-Canada be shut down, because the day the rest of the Canadian francophone community says that the present model no longer corresponds to our aspirations, no longer responds to our needs and is disregarding its mandate, we will have to consider another form of public television that would be spread across Canada, for example, and every region would have its own programming and, ultimately, a share in programming.
So at that meeting, the directors and the people around the table told me that, when they have an Acadian, Franco- Ontarian, Franco-Manitoban or someone from outside Quebec on a team, that has a major impact on the team as a whole, because the people who come from those communities are able to tell the other members of the research teams that there is something going in Halifax or Baie-Sainte-Marie or Shippagan and that it would be good for the style of the program for them to do it. There is currently no strategy to allow that. I do not know what should be done.
Senator Poirier: Would that be one of your recommendations?
Mr. Légère: It is hard to recommend that kind of obligation.
Senator Poirier: That could be part of the solution?
Mr. Légère: I think people should be open to something like that.
Ms. Lord: The resources in the region should be better used. Radio-Canada has resources everywhere.
When my study was published, I had been invited to appear on Michel Desautels' program. That was the day before Barack Obama's inauguration, and we had done some roundtables of Canada's black youth, in English and in French. Unlike on the English side, where four youths came from four different cities of the country covering the major regions, do I need to tell you where they came from on the French side? All four were from Montreal, and Mr. Desautels told me that it was hard to spend six hours in a single day finding young blacks in Canadian cities. There are black francophone communities in Calgary, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax. The regional stations are there; they could have provided the names very quickly. That was the answer I gave him.
The fact that the network headquarters is in Montreal is a problem. In the case of national programs, they ask themselves whether the team should not be outside the province of Quebec or at least outside Montreal. It could be in Ottawa, here, where there is already a greater sensitivity. That would take Montreal, which dominates the airwaves, out of the picture.
You asked whether it was worse, and the answer is yes, on two levels. As you will recall, we had a different regional magazine that was broadcast every evening after Le Téléjournal. For example, there was Clin d'œil. There were all kinds of highly varied regional-interest programs early in the evening. That is something we have lost.
Another thing that is partly coming back is that there were national correspondents in the regions. They have just announced that two correspondents will be hired, one in Moncton and the other in the west. That is something we previously had. Some say that is even a strategy by Radio-Canada, which is currently appearing before the CRTC, to demonstrate the efforts that are being made, but that is old news; there is nothing new; there were even more than two correspondents at the time.
Ms. Gibbs: However, there is one minor point. What has not changed is Radio-Canada's importance as the national public broadcaster. We repeatedly say it at the association, that this is something that must be protected and enhanced. Consequently, despite our criticisms, it is important that we invest more, bearing the obligations in mind. As the national network, Radio-Canada can improve so that it can indeed do its job and carry out its mandate.
Senator Poirier: Earlier we talked about the budget, particularly the cuts over the past 20 years and the impact we have seen in the minority regions. Do you have any research data showing — or are you simply aware — that cuts have been made in the Montreal or Quebec City region only, or whether they affect the entire province? Does everything happen in Montreal when they are asked to review their budget, or is it always elsewhere?
Mr. Légère: One answer is that they have cut Radio Canada International. When we bring up that topic, they have answers, but it is quite difficult to elaborate on. Does Tout le monde en parle have less money to produce its program? Does Les enfants de la télé have less money to do their program? I doubt it, but I do not have those books in front of me. That is extremely difficult. Does the Access to Information Act allow us to obtain all the details on the budgets and to see what has been cut, for example, in the past 15 or 20 years? I would be curious to see that. I get the feeling that the percentages are higher in the cuts that have been made in the regions than at the network.
Senator Poirier: That is what I wanted to know and to see whether we had an idea about that.
Ms. Lord: I would add to the comments made last week by Mr. Lalande, who cited the costs of the Belle-Baie series, saying that it was a more expensive series. He attributed that to the fact that it was made outside Quebec, but he did not say that it was a series that had a lot of outdoor shots, and that is expensive, whether you do it in Montreal, Quebec City or Ottawa. It is expensive if you are in Bouctouche or Caraquet, whereas the series produced in Montreal are generally done in the studio, which costs less. However, I thought that was really an appalling argument. I do not doubt that it was the most expensive series, but the main reason is not that it was produced outside Quebec; it was also because there were a lot of outdoor scenes, and that is very costly.
Senator Poirier: Do you think that, moving forward, we will be seeing a lot more community involvement in our community radio stations, our community television stations and things like that?
Ms. Lord: Community radio in New Brunswick is already an unparalleled success in Canada, regardless of language. The community radio station in southeastern New Brunswick is CJSE, with BeauFM. Reaching two-thirds of the potential audience is unparalleled in the country, in English, French or any other language. The same is true for community radio station CKRO in the northeast.
Why are they so popular? We always come back to this idea, and that is, among other things, that the CJSE people were visionaries when the station was launched in 1994. They said, ``We want to hear the local accent.'' So it will not be Quebecers or even people from Caraquet who come here and host for the southeast. You know that radio station well, Senator Poirier; people listened to it because, for the first time, they could hear themselves, with their own accent. Radio-Canada unfortunately was not yet offering that accent in Acadia at the time. When people recognize themselves, they can identify. Radio-Canada did not lose any of its audience as a result. People switched from English-language radio stations to a French-language community station. That is where you see how important it is to be visible, to be seen and heard. That changes everything for a community.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: I just want to mention one point briefly. I agree with Ms. Lord that the community radio stations in New Brunswick are overwhelmingly popular. A lot more people listen to community radio stations than listen to or watch Radio-Canada; that is for sure.
As regards the production of programs outside Quebec, there may be more or fewer, but there have been national programs produced in Moncton. For example, Bande à part, an emerging music and music news program, was created in Moncton. When it became a bit popular, it was repatriated to Montreal. It is possible to do this, and craftspeople are prepared to create programs and generate content. It was broadcast nationally and it was an excellent program; it still is. However, it was born in Moncton. It is one example of national content that can be produced outside Quebec. So it is possible. As for the excuse that programs are costly or difficult, if it was possible to do that in the 1990s with the technical resources available at the time, it is just as possible, if not more so, in 2012.
Ms. Friollet O'Neil: I just wanted to add a comment on the impact of the cuts. I believe it is also important to be aware — and I am sure all of us around the table are aware — that we cannot calculate the impact of the cuts in absolute numbers either in the regions or in Montreal. I believe the LPIF is a good example of that. A $2-million cut will not have the same impact in Montreal as in the regions. That will affect both Radio-Canada's presence in our regions and local production, but also our regions' profile on the Radio-Canada national network, which I think will have a considerable effect on the mandate to establish national cohesiveness among all francophone communities of Canada. I believe that we cannot talk in terms of absolute numbers here in calculating the impact of the cuts made to Radio-Canada in recent years.
Ms. Gibbs: One point should be borne in mind regarding the community radio stations. The role of community radio stations and that of Radio-Canada are not the same. We need both and we need both to be strong. Even if community radio stations are successful, that does not mean that Radio-Canada's mandate and purpose as the public broadcaster are not the same. Consequently, we must absolutely preserve both, regardless of how successful they are.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations, which I found very interesting. I have lived in New Brunswick all my life, and you may be assured that, as a citizen of the province of New Brunswick and as a new senator, I have a very clear understanding of Radio-Canada's importance both in our francophone communities in New Brunswick and across Canada.
It would seem that we are all on the same wave length with regard to programming on Le Téléjournal outside Quebec. As you know, two very important studies were conducted on the subject, first your study, Ms. Lord, and, second, the study by a Carleton University professor, which was conducted at the request of Senator De Bané. The two studies came to virtually the same conclusion, that Radio-Canada focuses mainly on coverage of Quebec news to the detriment of the other francophone communities.
The two studies have definitely produced results. Shortly afterward, we witnessed the appointment of Michel Cormier to the position of information programming at Radio-Canada and the creation of two new national journalist positions, one in Edmonton and the other in Moncton.
That is all well and good. However, for that great initiative to have any real impact, the staff responsible for preparing the national edition must consider it appropriate to use stories prepared by journalists in those positions in either Edmonton or Moncton. For that to happen, staff on the national edition of Le Téléjournal must agree to change the way they do things. In other words, there has to be a dramatic change in staff culture at Le Téléjournal.
Is that change possible? If so, how?
Ms. Lord: If we wait for that change to come from Montreal, I believe it is impossible. I am not optimistic that that can change. They will continue living in their Montreal bubble; they will still have to deal with their rival on the other side of the street, TVA, and things will stay the way they are. If we want a real Canadian news broadcast, it will have to be removed from Montreal.
It will also be good to develop the habit of calling upon resources in the regions. Here is an example — and Senator Poirier will no doubt remember this — the announcement of the new Official Languages Act in June 2002. That was a major event in New Brunswick; it had been 30 years since the act had been dusted off. The evening news broadcasts on both CBC/Radio-Canada networks featured a voiceover, with a few images commented on by a host, but no reporting. Radio-Canada Acadie has always had a journalist in Fredericton, a parliamentary correspondent, but it nevertheless dispatched other journalists because it was a big day for New Brunswick. On the anglophone side, The National broadcast a full report on the news. I believe the CBC used the regional resources a lot better. Unlike the CBC, Radio- Canada is not in the habit of doing that.
If we want the Téléjournal to make more changes than the appointments of the two new national correspondents that were announced, I believe that, if something happens in Vancouver, the resources in Vancouver should be used. There are resources in Winnipeg. There are resources in Sudbury. There are resources in Chicoutimi. There are resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not being used. Since they are not considered national, no one thinks of using them for the national news broadcast, whereas they also know their regions well.
In addition, when the Ottawa correspondents cover parliamentary news in Ottawa and file their stories, they always do so from a Quebec perspective. They do not speak to Canadian citizens about the impact of a government decision in one way or another. They focus solely on Quebec concerns. That could easily be corrected, but there are no directives. We are not fools; we see the product on the air. Nothing will happen until the directives are changed.
Senator McIntyre: I understand that the SNA and the Association des artistes have submitted briefs to the CRTC in connection with the renewal of the public broadcaster's licences and that you are to appear before the CRTC to make a presentation this week. In your presentation today, you made a number of recommendations such as that the LPIF should be replaced by another organization, that regional funding equivalent to the amount previously allocated by the LPIF should be established, that Radio-Canada's decision-making and control over national air time should be decentralized, that more specific information should be provided on the Canadian Francophonie and, lastly, as you said, that a seat should be reserved for a representative of the broader Canadian francophone community on Radio- Canada's board of directors.
Do you have any expectations in those areas as you appear before the CRTC this week? If so, what are they?
Ms. Gibbs: I am an eternal optimist. Can the impossible be possible? I will always believe so. However, there are conditions. There are conditions and Ms. Lord named a few, regarding the decentralization of power and production in the regions. That is clear. We are going to appear before the CRTC and we want Radio-Canada's national mandate to be respected.
Earlier you talked about a culture; the corporation's culture must change. There has to be a will to work together, and we have to be part of the solution. We absolutely have to be part of the solution. We have solutions to suggest that will not take away Quebecers' window at all; we are just going to improve the window of the entire Canadian francophone community.
I am an eternal optimist who believes there will always be something to do, or else we would not file briefs, we would not appear before the CRTC, and we would not be here today.
So, yes, we believe that things can be done, but we know that sometimes you have to plant a seed today so that you can harvest in 20 years.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: We are going to let the others comment because we are not attending the CRTC hearings.
Mr. Caissie: The CRTC nevertheless has the power to set conditions. If the CRTC decided a few years ago to establish the LPIF using revenue from the cable companies, the CRTC can do that again. We are eternal optimists, yes, but at the same time we are going to give it a try on Wednesday.
Mr. Légère: The power belongs entirely to the CRTC. It has all the powers; that is to say that, in granting its licences, it has the power to set conditions and to ensure they are met. I mean, at some point, it is constant; it never stops. I believe I am going to attend the CRTC hearings for the third time, and it is always the same thing. The CRTC slaps them on the wrist a little, saying they should try to be more effective in carrying out their mandate to reflect Canadian diversity, and we realize at the next hearings that they have done nothing. The CRTC absolutely has to set conditions; otherwise we have no chance of seeing a change in Radio-Canada's corporate culture. Without that, life will go on. They will have weathered the little storm of criticism from the Canadian francophone community and we will hear nothing more about it three months later.
If the CRTC people have any will, I believe they have the means, the power to make things change, and I believe that, if conditions are set, that change will ultimately be positive for the entire team in Montreal. Unfortunately, they will only realize after the fact.
The Chair: I want to be fair with Mr. Raiche-Nogue. Did you have an observation or comment to make on the previous question concerning the CRTC?
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: What question was that?
The Chair: I believe you wanted to talk before that question, but I do not remember the question either.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: It was a comment, going back to Ms. Lord's comments about the Official Languages Act in New Brunswick. The legislature will resume in New Brunswick tomorrow, and the Throne Speech will be delivered in Fredericton. I will watch and listen to Radio-Canada and the Réseau de l'information tomorrow to see whether any mention is made of the Throne Speech, which is an important event in politics here.
I can almost guarantee that no room will be made for it, or that, if there is, it will be at the very end of the broadcast and there will be virtually no analysis on the public affairs programs, whereas, in Quebec, it takes only a minor reshuffle or a report or something, not even a Throne Speech or a budget, and they lay it on thick; they analyze and overanalyze.
The Throne Speech tomorrow is an important event for New Brunswick, but there will not be a lot of talk about it.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I want to thank the witnesses for coming from so far away and for taking the time to come and discuss a topic that is important to us.
I feel compelled to disclose to you that I worked at Radio-Canada for more than 20 years. I was vice-president for the francophone regions from 1983 to 1988 under the direction of Pierre Juneau.
When Mr. Juneau took decision-making away from Montreal and moved it to Ottawa, he took the risk of appointing a young girl from Sudbury to be responsible for regional radio and television. And that radio and television had independent budgets for improving facilities in all regions.
I will not conceal the fact that Mr. Juneau regretted his philosophy. He unfortunately died that same year. That man really understood what francophone minority life was. He was convinced that it was the country's francophone regions that would save Radio-Canada because, as you all have said so well, Radio-Canada is necessary.
It is not an add-on; it is not a complement to private broadcasters. It is really a necessity. In 1978, I opened Radio- Canada's services in northern Ontario by establishing a production station equipped with 35 retransmitters.
As you know, distance is one of the biggest obstacles we face in this country. That is the very nature of our country. And CBC/Radio-Canada, both the English and French sides, is really the only living and daily link that unites the country.
However, I would say that public funding has gradually declined since 1979. Between 1985 and 1988, there were significant reductions, when the corporation relied increasingly on advertising revenues, to the great despair of our private radio/television networks. Radio-Canada then became a player vying for a piece of the advertising revenue pie.
I would like to answer the question whether there has been a contraction. Ms. Lord, if you analyze the figures on regional slots from 1980 until the present, you will see the decline in regional slots on both radio and television. You will see another decline, in the number of national programs produced in the regions, whereas there was an increase in the number of national programs produced in the regions during Mr. Juneau's time.
I have a question, but Ms. Gibbs began to answer it. On the one hand, we all agree that Radio-Canada is essential to the country's survival. On the other hand, there is real dissatisfaction based on the statistics.
How do we go about meeting the two challenges without using the dissatisfaction to say that we may perhaps stop Radio-Canada's television operations and keep only the radio because they are too costly? How do we avoid that?
You will be appearing before the CRTC soon. Mr. Légère, how are you going to avoid the danger that stalks us as Canadians across the country, including Quebec?
Mr. Légère: First, we have to recall the necessity of this communication tool and the work that tool can do if it is well used. Let us not forget that we have regional stations that produce daily news broadcasts and certain programs. The national broadcast is one thing, but the regional broadcasts are essential to improving our knowledge of the challenges we face every day.
I am going to tell you this. We are going to repeat it. When we say that the CRTC must absolutely compel Radio- Canada to carry out its mandate, I mean the CRTC must be told to take measures that will make the officers and teams of Radio-Canada's national network realize that it may be true that they are not doing what is necessary and that it is time for them to do so and that there will be consequences if they fail to do so.
Ms. Gibbs: One thing is clear: We are not appearing before you as we will appear before the CRTC. Before you, we are discussing the problems in a much more transparent manner than we will be doing before the CRTC.
Before the CRTC, we will not be spending an hour or two talking about our complaints. We will be talking about certain complaints, but we will also be talking about certain things that the CRTC could do to improve positioning and regional production. One of the problems we see is that there are fewer regional programs or national programs made in the regions.
We in Acadia have evolved and grown up. We behave like people who are part of the majority; we have something to contribute. So something is not working any more because, although we were once small fishermen, today we really have something to contribute to the country, no more so than Manitobans, no more so than the Fransaskois, but just as much. It also has to be said that we are a people that needs to be respected, just like the Quebec people.
Senator Charette-Poulin: In response to a question that was put to you, you said that quotas could not be imposed on Radio-Canada. Could you explain why?
The Chair: Who wants to answer?
Ms. Gibbs: I think we could impose one, and I believe that, if we do not do so, hope will really fade away. In my view, the CRTC has an obligation to allow a certain percentage of local production and a certain number of our productions on the national network. As I am not a statistician at Radio-Canada, I will not go into the figures, but one day someone will definitely have to put on his pants and determine who needs quotas in our region.
Mr. Légère: I did not want to talk about imposing anything because we were talking about teams, about imposing someone from the regions on all the teams, because that is always possible in the measures that come from the CRTC, which tells all those programs and the people responsible for those programs that it is important for them to reflect Canadian realities.
It is very possible to meet production quotas, but within teams, if two people apply for a job, the best of the two will usually be recruited. This is not simple.
Ms. Lord: Let us consider the technologies at our disposal. I am at a university that has three campuses in three different regions. I have a recruiting team with members of that team on the three campuses.
We speak by telephone, by videoconference. We hold our meetings and we have recruitment strategies. Radio- Canada can do that very easily. Earlier I was telling you about the team of Christiane Charette, who had five researchers. There could have been two in Montreal, or even one in Montreal, a second in Quebec City or Chicoutimi and a third in Ontario, a fourth in the west and a fifth in Acadia. There are ways to talk to each other in the morning. In any case, René and I were morning journalists at Radio-Canada at the same time. I remember very clearly that we had people from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island with us at meetings in Moncton, the correspondents in the other regions of New Brunswick.
We did that in the Atlantic region for the regional news broadcast. So that can definitely be done for national programs. That idea can definitely be imposed; that is what I mean.
Ms. Gibbs: We need to do some catching up. When women wanted to take their place, some positive discriminatory practices had to be implemented. The same was true for blacks. So we need a catch-up plan for our regions and positive discriminatory policies or else we will not get there.
Senator Poirier: Earlier Ms. Gibbs said that they were going to appear before the CRTC and that what they said would not be entirely the same as what they are saying today. Why not share with them what you share with us?
Ms. Gibbs: We will say essentially the same things, but perhaps not necessarily in the same way. We need the Senate's support, but your power is different from that of the CRTC. We do not want our words to cause anyone to pull the plug on our public broadcaster, even though we are going to talk about our problems. Consequently, we will say the same thing, but we will say it to be sure that the CRTC understands the importance we attach to a public broadcaster.
Senator Poirier: I just want to ensure that they hear you because what you say is important, because I am also hearing what is important, but perhaps in a softer way, but they need to hear it all the same.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Getting back to what Ms. Gibbs said about there being some catching up to do, I was responsible to the regions for implementing the plan on the presence of women on the air. I will not conceal from you the fact that, as vice-president, I went and sat down confidentially with each of the vice-presidents of the networks. We established very clear targets, and they achieved their targets because we convinced them. Do you know how? We talked to each other one on one, about how ratings would increase when there was a more balanced ratio of men to women representing our population today, a 50-50 ratio. And it worked.
The responsibility you have on your shoulders as groups representing our Acadian culture is so great, and that is why we appreciate so much the fact that you are here today, because you have a lot on your shoulders, and we are at a turning point in our country and must ensure that the country, with its complexity and challenges, is presented to us, in images and sound, on Radio-Canada's radio and television and on the Internet every day. That is a great responsibility and we thank you.
Senator De Bané: The primary objective, the primary reason for being a national public broadcaster, funded in large part by taxpayers, is definitely to enable Canadians to see themselves, hear themselves and have a voice, a face and gradually to develop a common identity and values. These are far from being the first reasons why we ask everyone to pay so that we can see ourselves.
What does it represent for someone who is in a minority setting to see other people who are also in a minority setting fighting to preserve their francophone identity, whether they are in Vancouver, Saint-Boniface, Edmonton or other places across the country? What does it mean from a psychological standpoint to see oneself and to hear others who have to meet the same challenge as us?
Ms. Lord: That is a remedy to isolation. It makes it possible for people to commune together. If there were a better French-language national news broadcast, we would occasionally hear the news that the Franco-Albertan schools are overflowing, that there is a shortage of French-language schools in Alberta. We never get that news in our region. That would be encouraging and stimulating. There is obviously all this representation of the francophone community as a whole, but there is more than that. Radio-Canada does not reach out to Canadian citizens.
Here is an example from my study. There were nine news stories on the two broadcasts when the federal budget was presented. On the Radio-Canada broadcast, seven stories came from Quebec. During the entire period of the study, there was nothing from Alberta, but it could have been very interesting, as a Canadian citizen, to hear a viewpoint from Alberta, which plays a decisive role in Canadian equalization. It is the only province that has no provincial debt. So how does that province, which is unique from a budgetary standpoint in Canada, react to the federal budget? We only hear about Quebec in French, whereas that news will be given in English. And yet, when the H1N1 flu epidemic started a week later, we discovered that the public health physician heading up the public health service in Alberta was a francophone who spoke excellent French. So we saw him on national television.
H1N1 was a national issue. I was delighted to see that a francophone from Alberta could speak about the H1N1 flu in French. That is the kind of example that we unfortunately do not see often enough. If we saw them more often, getting back to my first answer, that would break down the isolation, and that is what is important.
Ms. Friollet O'Neil: My comment is similar to that of Ms. Lord. I often cite my own family as an example to explain this situation that, like Obélix, I fell into when I was young and became committed. However, that is not the case of all the members of my family, who are unaware of this plural Canadian francophonie. Why? Because when they turn on the television, nothing tells them that they are francophones fighting every day as we are, in New Brunswick, or in Manitoba; no one is saying that there is a francophone community in Maillardville, British Columbia, experiencing similar issues to those in the communities of Dieppe, Moncton or Caraquet, New Brunswick, to talk about my province.
So, yes, it is rewarding to see that our community has some importance and carries some weight in the eyes of the Canadian francophone community and of Canada as a whole, but also to know that there are francophone communities like ours across the country. So that simply shows that we still exist and are together.
Ms. Gibbs: In a similar vein, I believe that seeing each other and hearing each other means knowing each other. We francophone and Acadian Canadians need to know each other, but I also need to hear about Magdalen Islanders, people from the Gaspé and the Saguenay. We do not hear about them either. We need to talk about the regions. The regions of this country are not well covered. I think it is fundamentally important, when we talk about regional production, about covering our regions, to talk as well about Quebec's regions, which at times are as abandoned as we are.
To my mind, the day we establish dialogue among the communities of the Canadian, Acadian and Quebec francophonie will be the day we speak with the voice of a great nation.
Senator De Bané: We are the second largest country in the world; we have six time zones and three oceans. Our country is as large as all of Europe.
Radio-Canada constantly says it has no money. In mid-October, Canadian Press interviewed the director of communications at Radio-Canada. We learned that there are 1,300 journalists at CBC/Radio-Canada — 1,300! I will send you the article, which appeared in the Globe & Mail.
Of the 1,300, approximately 600 are at Radio-Canada. Of that 600 — not exactly; it was 587 — two-thirds, or 62 per cent, are in Quebec, a province where there are 8 million inhabitants including 6 million francophones. Radio-Canada is obviously interested in them.
I say it is interested since the Senate of Canada conducted a multi-month study in Ottawa and Quebec on the concerns and nervousness of Quebec's English-speaking community. There was not a word of it on Radio-Canada. That does not interest them.
There are 6 million francophones in Quebec. Add to that number the non-mother-tongue French speakers and you get 7.5 million. They have nearly 400 journalists. In Ontario, a province with 13 million inhabitants, 60 per cent more, the CBC has barely one-third of their journalists in Ontario, one-third. In Quebec, they have two-thirds in a single province.
So when you talk to me about money, I also think that Radio-Canada's culture has to be changed, if the only thing that counts for them is Quebec, if, in their minds, francophones who do not live in Quebec are enemies or adversaries because they have chosen Canada and they should therefore not be covered.
That is why I found it very hard when I watched the television broadcast of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in Montreal. There was not a word about the francophones celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the rest of Canada, not a passing reference. And the act tells us that they are there to create a Canadian community and they do not even want to mention the francophone communities that are fighting elsewhere once, during a show that lasted two and a quarter hours, not once. And as you said earlier, and as Lionel Groulx said, the francophone communities outside Quebec are the first line of defence. If they fall, Quebec will fall too.
So I figure, yes, we have to talk about money, but it goes deeper than that. Having 400 journalists in Quebec for 6 million inhabitants, really! Look at the CBC, which has an efficient broadcast; they do not have 400 journalists in a province that is 60 per cent larger. The ratio is three times greater in Quebec than in Ontario.
So I understand the money issue, but I am not convinced it is the primary obstacle. No. You yourselves have cited examples of how, for them, it is a Quebec view of the world. That is it. Do not hesitate to react.
The Chair: Reactions?
Ms. Gibbs: I would like to add something. The imbalance is perhaps unpardonable, and that reflects exactly the malaise you just presented to us.
That does not alter the fact that, as was said earlier, Radio-Canada has been on a crash diet since 1979. I believe the bleeding has to stop. Even the CBC is on its own diet. There are two things: there is the culture and there is the Montreal ivory tower. I incidentally call it Radio-Montréal, not Radio-Québec. However, we have to be given the means. If we want to provide a significant window on what is being done right in our regions, we have to have the means to do it. We do not want to produce programs on smaller budgets. We want to have the means to make good productions and to be proud of what we do. And the artists could very well contribute, but we need to have all the means.
Senator De Bané: I understand what you are saying. Last week, we heard from a witness who had a PhD, a journalist who worked for Radio-Canada and had extraordinary access. She published a book saying that, in Montreal, where she witnessed the production of Le Téléjournal over a number of months, nearly 600 people are involved in producing Le Téléjournal. The Treasury Board people in Ottawa must have taken note of that information: 600 people. They must be saying to themselves that there are limits, speaking only about Quebec, because talking about Canada is obviously out of the question; they always have to say ``Quebec and Canada.''
It was Thanksgiving in the United States a few days ago. What did I hear on Radio-Canada? People were going to do a lot of shopping, in Quebec and Canada.
The expression ``in Quebec and Canada'' is loaded with meaning. They never talk about Quebec any more without talking about Canada, ever. If they really want not to talk about Quebec, they say ``the country.''
Ms. Gibbs: Or Europe.
Senator De Bané: But if they say ``in Canada,'' they always have to add ``Quebec,'' even for Thanksgiving shopping.
Senator Comeau: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
When I attend committee meetings, I like to close by asking what the main message that comes out of the discussion is. I am getting two messages this evening. One message is very clear and that is that Radio-Canada is not talking about us and is not carrying out its mandate.
However, every one of you has told us this evening that there is a serious problem, and that is the budget cuts. This may be something that the committee should examine, to determine the exact amount of the budget cuts we are talking about. I do not know the exact amount, but we will look into that. That is pursuant to a piece of commentary that appeared in Le Droit today stating that Louis Lalande, Vice-President for French Services, told the CRTC last week that francophone listeners and viewers outside Quebec would like to see themselves represented to an even greater degree in the services the corporation offers, but he added that the current financial situation made matters difficult. That is still a challenge.
Consequently, he agrees with you that the root of the problem is the lack of funding. Should we simply tell the government that now? Should we tell it that they need only give Radio-Canada more money for the problems to be solved? Is that the message you want to send them? Because that is the message I am receiving this evening. I agree with Senator De Bané. In my opinion, we have symptoms of problems, but I do not agree that the root of the problem is the lack of funding. We will be examining that, of course, but I believe these are symptoms because the stranded turtle item that makes Radio-Canada's news as being something special about the Atlantic region is followed by an item concerning a flat tire on Décarie Boulevard in Montreal. The problem is much bigger than a lack of funding. You have sent us a message this evening, and I understand that it is a money problem. Is that correct?
Ms. Lord: Beyond the money problem, there is the problem of the very culture of the Radio-Canada tower in Montreal.
Senator De Bané: Bravo!
Ms. Lord: It is the Montreal bubble. It is the number one problem for national content which is in fact not national. However, with regard to ensuring that production takes place in the regions, yes, it is a funding problem.
Senator Comeau: That is the message that was somewhat confused this evening.
Ms. Lord: Yes.
Senator Comeau: I would not want to see you go to the CRTC and give them the message that Mr. Lalande is correct and that it is just a money problem. That is what he is saying. Do you agree with that? Be careful.
Mr. Légère: You have to say things in the right way, but one thing is certain: the main message is that Radio- Canada should be required to comply with its mandate. That is written in black and white.
Senator Comeau: Absolutely.
Mr. Légère: From the moment they manage to do that, yes, additional funding will make it possible to produce programming in accordance with the production mandate that reflects the realities of the regions across the country.
Senator Comeau: Earlier, Mr. Légère, you made the comment that you had appeared before the CRTC at some time in the past and had virtually sent them the clear message that the mandate should be changed or something different should be created.
Mr. Légère: That was the producers' meeting. We held a meeting with a lot of producers and we were telling them that there was a problem somewhere. We wanted them to explain to us why it was so difficult to reflect regional realities as a whole on their programs. That was when some producers said that, when they have francophones from our communities on their teams, the production meetings inevitably have an impact because those people can say that there may be a story going on in Chéticamp, Saint-Boniface or Sudbury, and those people working in the field in Montreal may not have had a chance to discover or get to know that. There is a little intellectual laziness in that regard, but that is sort of what I talked about.
Mr. Caissie: It is not just about money. It is a corporate culture. For example, we realized that the money from the Local Programming Improvement Fund that was intended for the regions and that, as a result of a centralized decision, was not going there, made it possible for us to have many more productions that were more about us. That may be an example to keep in mind.
Ms. Gibbs: Clearly, if we do not want to have 600 journalists or 587 journalists in Montreal, and we want to produce programs across the country, with the large country we have, two things must be done. There is a corporate culture that has to be changed. There are obligations that must be met. Radio-Canada has obligations. However, as Mr. Caissie said with regard to the fund, there is $2 million in Acadia that makes all the difference. A matter of money, but, if we want Radio-Canada to be able to work with our communities, it is necessary, and we would like to have the means to turn out good productions. We want the means to put ourselves in a good position and we do not at all have the means to fail.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: Money will obviously not solve everything, but cutting the funding granted to Radio-Canada will have a harmful effect on news quality and on representation of the regions. Money does not solve everything, but less money will cause problems. Perhaps it is the way the money is spent because money spent in the regions to hire journalists, researchers and producers can make an enormous difference. Giving 50 per cent more funding to Radio- Canada, which can then decide on its own to do what it wants, to invest in Montreal, for example, will clearly not solve the problem, but investing in the regions could perhaps make a big difference.
When the Local Programming Improvement Fund was cancelled, we felt the effects of that decision in our newsroom here at Radio-Canada Acadie in Moncton. One researcher lost his job, a host lost hers. When there is less money, we feel the effect. It is striking. There are fewer people in the newsroom to work. Money is still very important. Funding is a major tool.
Senator Comeau: There was an expression in the United States a few years ago to the effect that throwing a little money at something could also have an impact on minority regions.
Make your message clear. The root of the problem is either money or a corporate culture. It is up to you to decide.
Ms. Gibbs: The problem is twofold. When you get out of the major urban centres, New Brunswick is a rural province. A lot of Canadian francophone communities are located in very rural provinces. If we do not want to disappoint people, from Moncton to Caraquet, the window on Acadia must have many facets and not come from just Moncton or Halifax. We need the two approaches, and I am not sure they contradict each other, but that will make people more informed and we will pay attention to the way in which we present matters.
Senator Comeau: I gave you my recommendations. Take them as you will.
Mr. Raiche-Nogue: The problem is not that simple. This is not just about money or corporate culture. Canada is complex. Radio-Canada is complex, and it is not enough just to change corporate culture or anything else. Money and culture are not contradictory; you can have one together with the other. We should not over simplify the solution either.
Senator De Bané: Why did she say ``my colleague Senator Comeau''? That is worth thinking about. The Local Production Improvement Fund is a program that was conceived, desired, decided on and imposed by the CRTC. It has just cancelled it, knowing perfectly well that it will cost $40 million less a year. Why are most of the commissioners independent; this is an administrative tribunal. Once they had seen everything, they said, no, we cannot charge all consumers in Canada who have cable $40 million so that that amount can be paid to stations that have not proven that they really needed it and that they were going to do something with it and so on. Why did the majority of CRTC commissioners vote in favour of not extending a program that they themselves introduced? If you have any contact with those people, it would be worthwhile getting them to confess to you. What was it about that program that was not good? And ask them to change it, if it is a minor detail that displeases you about the way the money was spent, to make the changes; we need the program because the same people who introduced it abolished it. Something is bothering me there.
Ms. Gibbs: We do not have any inside knowledge. However, we know that there was a lot of pressure, which did not come from our community or from regional stations, not to mention the private sector. We do not know why they cancelled it, but I can tell you that the reason why it was established is that it was a catch-up fund, and you have decision-making authority for that. If it was good three years ago, it is just as relevant now, despite an unwise decision by the commissioners.
The Chair: You would recommend that the fund be re-established?
Ms. Gibbs: Indeed, let them call it what they want; that is not important, but a catch-up fund is essential in supporting the minority communities.
Senator McIntyre: We have to go back to the essential point, which is that Radio-Canada has two mandates: its first mandate is to comply with the Broadcasting Act and its second mandate is to comply with the Official Languages Act. The Broadcasting Act has been clear since 1991. Radio-Canada must offer programming that teaches, informs and entertains. That is Radio-Canada's mandate. And Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster, is not carrying out its mandate at the present time. We are increasingly witnessing the Montrealization of the public broadcaster, and this is the correction that must be made.
The Chair: The deputy chair of the committee, Senator Champagne, could not be with us this afternoon, but she has sent me a question that she wanted me to ask Ms. Lord. So I am going to take the liberty of asking her question.
There is a persistent rumour that there may be two new French-language television networks whose programming will consist of exclusively of programs from francophone regions outside Quebec. Ms. Lord, what do you think are the chances the CRTC will grant a licence to at least one of those two new networks? You may answer now or later in writing if you prefer.
Ms. Lord: I am aware of this issue. You have to know that the CRTC has decided to make room for a new national francophone channel for mandatory carriage. We know that the cable industry in Canada has been deregulated since September 1, 2011. Consequently, Radio-Canada is still under mandatory carriage across the country. TV5 Québec Canada is subject to a two-year stay that will end on August 31 of this year. Consequently, two projects were submitted.
There is a difference between the two projects, contrary perhaps to what Senator Champagne has written in her question, and that is that one project is called the Chaîne Accents, and Quebec is completely absent from its production and programming, and the other is TV5 Québec Canada, in which Quebec is involved with the rest of the Canadian francophone community, except that there would be co-productions that would increase over the years with Franco- Canadian producers and Quebec producers, but outside Montreal. It would be an interregional network so that it would also be able to show all the francophone regions of Canada, including those in Quebec, which, as was said a little earlier today, are not seen on Radio-Canada.
Ms. Gibbs: On that point, we are clearly being asked to provide support for the plans of TV5 or Accents, for the Canadian francophonie, and I just came back from a forum not so long ago, and with regard to Acadia, we are examining all the options before us. We can have a public broadcaster called Radio-Canada and I believe the CRTC could also grant a licence, and another complementary network that will offer a regional window. That could be a welcome addition and could even be one of the sparks that makes Radio-Canada Montreal become Radio-Canada Canada.
Mr. Légère: Essentially, what we understand is that, in the range of networks and channels offered on cable, the CRTC people have announced that there is something lacking from the group of French-language networks. They have therefore expressed the desire for projects to be presented, and that is what is being done. This would be done in a complementary manner with Radio-Canada. It would be an addition to give our producers access to a new broadcaster, which could have the effect of increasing the number of productions from the Acadian and francophone communities in Canada.
If this occurs, it is excellent news. I believe it would have no impact on Radio-Canada's mandate. I have a minor fear that Radio-Canada might shirk its responsibility to serve the regions, knowing that this new channel would be doing it, but I remain confident. I would really not like to hear that.
Karine Godin, Advisor, Association acadienne des journalistes: I wanted to add something along the lines of what Mr. Légère was indicating, to say that a new channel would be a complement because Radio-Canada has a Canadian mandate, and I believe it is very important that it retain its mandate and continue serving the regions and minority francophones. We still need Radio-Canada, which is nevertheless a benchmark for news here in New Brunswick, but also in other Canadian provinces.
The Chair: On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank all the witnesses who have appeared here today. As you have no doubt seen from the questions asked, the committee wants to make recommendations to Radio-Canada to assist it in responding more effectively to the needs, those that you have expressed to us, those that are obvious and less of obvious. It is our responsibility as senators to ask the questions that concern us most and your responsibility as witnesses to tell us about your greatest concerns. That has been done, and I thank you all for it.
Honourable senators, next week the committee will hear from the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse and the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta as a panel and by videoconference.
In addition, next week, we will have a meeting outside our usual slot, on Wednesday, December 5, at 3:30 p.m., to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
On that note, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)