Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of December 2, 2013
OTTAWA, Monday, December 2, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day, at 5 p.m., to carry out a study on CBC/Radio- Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Andrée Champagne (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I am Senator Andrée Champagne, from Quebec. I am the deputy chair of this committee, and I will be presiding over this meeting in the absence of our chair, Claudette Tardif, who had a medical appointment today.
I will begin the meeting by asking the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Robichaud: I am Fernand Robichaud, from New Brunswick, Saint-Louis-de-Kent.
Senator Chaput: Good afternoon. I am Maria Chaput, a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon. I am Rose-May Poirier, a senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, northwestern Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Good afternoon. I am Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we are continuing our study on CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Those who have been following our committee's activities for a while know that one of our members up until a few months ago was Senator Pierre De Bané. He had to leave the Senate, in compliance with our laws, as he had reached the age limit. Those among you who have been following our work know about the importance of Senator De Bané's comments, and the work he prepared and presented on CBC's obligations and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure thought it would be a good idea to ask the former senator, at the beginning of the session — since the CRTC has imposed new rules on the licences — to explain to us those changes and tell us whether they have led to improvements or have not changed anything. The person who has studied all those changes and can explain everything to us is certainly our former colleague, to whom I have the pleasure of giving the floor, the Honourable Pierre De Bané.
Hon. Pierre De Bané, P.C., former senator: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Chair. First, we all hope that you will shrug off this nasty irritation very soon. Second, I also want to tell you how thankful I am to my colleagues for inviting me to discuss a topic that was truly a constant concern of mine.
[English]
I realize that there is no other country in the world where all the citizens fund one national broadcaster and that broadcaster interprets its mission differently depending on what language we speak. That has troubled me a lot.
Particularly, when the national broadcaster, through its French section, answered me in writing, and officially to the former chair of our committee, the Honourable Maria Chaput, that there is absolutely nothing in common between the two audiences and that explains why there is no resemblance between ``The National'' and ``Le Téléjournal.'' This was put in writing in the official response to the chair of our committee in answer to all the questions we put.
[Translation]
If you will allow it, Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to quickly go over all the documents I have prepared for you.
The first document, of which only a summary is provided in the binder, is the most significant study I have read on the issue. Following the election of the Parti Québécois, in 1976, Mr. Trudeau wrote to the Chairman of the CRTC, Harry Boyle, to ask him whether CBC/Radio-Canada was fulfilling the mandate given to it in the Broadcasting Act. Chairman Harry Boyle answered that he would have to conduct a study on the issue and that, in order to do so, he would have to hire Canada's top experts to answer that question.
[English]
The CRTC hired a great number of top experts to make studies, and all of these are in the annex to the report. You will be receiving the full report, which is a huge document that the clerk of the committee has in his hands. A copy will be delivered to your office. What I have included here are only some excerpts of the document. I have highlighted, in those excerpts, some of the observations of the CRTC.
Let me read to you one of them, which is very important. On page 80 and 81 of the report but, in your document, in English, page 21, and in French, page 23.
[Translation]
Here is a direct quote:
There seems to be a good deal of anxiety, both inside the CBC and outside it, about protecting the CBC in its present form. We believe that this feeling is out of touch with the reality of the situation now. It seems to spring from a fear that the CBC may lose its present degree of autonomy and be taken over as a spokesman for the government, or rather for the party in power in Ottawa. It seems to us that this danger is remote, and we have tried to show that the present status of the CBC, in which it has autonomy without true accountability, is a far more immediate danger, and one which threatens the continued existence of the CBC itself.
[English]
It seems to us that this danger is remote, and we have tried to show that the present status of the CBC, in which it has autonomy without true accountability, is a far more immediate danger, and one which threatens the continued existence of the CBC . . . .
[Translation]
In addition, while doing its study, the CRTC did not receive CBC/Radio-Canada's permission to question the employees. The commission was told that this would be an intrusion into the corporation's management. This is a summary, and you will obviously see in the report many pages outlining the findings of experts from all Canadian provinces who participated in the study. Two very thought-provoking observations were laid out. They finally say that the two news bulletins appear to come from different planets.
[English]
There is absolutely nothing in common between the two.
[Translation]
They also add a point to which we have not paid enough attention — a journalist's role is not only to cover the news, but also to decide which stories are important. There are thousands of news items every day, and the ones reporters choose for the 20 or 30 minutes of airtime are the stories people should focus on. When journalists choose only one type of news items, they are professionally biased. I thought that was very interesting.
The report adds that all media do this; they try to find issues that are surprising or out of the ordinary. However, they do point out that only CBC/Radio-Canada has a statutory obligation to cover Canada as a whole and provide a global picture. That is the only medium of communication with this obligation, which it is breaching systematically. This is the most important document to read. It is by far the most significant study.
For the next few points, you have my report I prepared for the CRTC. I also wrote Shaun Poulter to obtain the number of journalists and their geographic distribution. He sent me the list. It took a while, but he did send it to me, and I asked for his permission to publish it.
[English]
He told me, ``You definitely can do that, and it's nice of you to ask.'' That document is under tab 3, the geographic distribution of all the journalists, with permission to distribute it.
[Translation]
Ms. Pleszcynska was then the director of programming and other services outside Quebec, and I told her that I had a note according to which there were over 200 journalists outside Quebec. She confirmed that, and she would have known because she was the director. When I submitted my brief to the CRTC, The Canadian Press called CBC/Radio- Canada and said the following:
[English]
Hey, De Bané says there are 600 journalists at CBC and 600 at Société Radio-Canada, and Mr. McKinnon, Angus McKinnon, director of communications of the corporation, confirmed the numbers.
[Translation]
Finally, Chantal Francœur, Ph.D., professor in communications at the École des médias de l'Université du Québec à Montréal, did her Ph.D. thesis on the Société Radio-Canada, where she spent 15 years as a journalist. For the first time, Société Radio-Canada allowed a Ph.D. student to enter Radio-Canada and attend senior management meetings for months. She wrote a book about the experience. That book is basically her Ph.D. thesis, and I invite you to look at the number of journalists on page 8 of her book.
[English]
You have the translation in English of that paragraph of her Ph.D. thesis where she says:
[Translation]
In the winter of 2010, just before the integration, Radio-Canada's information service across the country had 765 journalists, occupying a wide range of positions, including correspondents, presenters, researchers, editors, assignment editors, copy editors, specialized journalists, regional journalists and national journalists.
You can understand my surprise over the fact that 559 of all those people were in Montreal.
Under item No. 7, you see that Shaun Poulter sent me a list where the number was 1,200. Now, he has sent our former chair, Senator Chaput, information according to which there are currently only 550 individuals in both networks. In this case, journalists are considered to be only those employees who are on the air.
Of course, as Professor Francœur points out, journalism, as a profession, involves a lot of variety. I was told that some journalists work out of their car at night, covering road accidents. Today, electronics have brought so much variety into television and radio. Journalists also take care of Web content and other duties.
In response to the madam, after all the others had confirmed the number of journalists, we were sent this kind of an answer. That gives you an idea and explains to me why, when I testified before the CRTC, I was asked why CBC/ Radio-Canada was so resistant to providing information. That was a question put to me, and the CRTC is wondering why this corporation funded by all Canadians is unable to discuss reality in a clear and honest manner.
Under point 8, I analyze all that. Under point 9, you will find the letter sent to the chair of the committee, who was Senator Maria Chaput at the time. That letter contains the following sentence.
[English]
To paraphrase, it would be misleading to evaluate the subjects raised on the Téléjournal in comparison with the content of The National broadcast of the CBC antenna. Certainly both broadcasts are news programs, but their respective teams take editorial decisions based on the imperative of responding to the needs of their listeners, which are very different.
We are there with the explicit decision to put aside the objectives which are mentioned in the Broadcasting Act, and let me remind you of some of them. There are nine different objectives, but I will mention only the following:
[Translation]
ii. reflect Canada and its regions [. . .]
iii. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
vi. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity. . .
[English]
Those are two different audiences. This is the imperative to give totally different things.
[Translation]
And the corporation does not seem to care about the fact that, every evening, on television, there is absolutely nothing in common between The National and Le Téléjournal. Those two news bulletins have nothing in common, even though the act states that the programming should ``contribute to shared national consciousness and identity.''
After I submitted my report, Société Radio-Canada published a news release on its website where it stated that it was misleading of me to compare Le Téléjournal to The National because I should, on the contrary, carry out a study on all of their news bulletins over a 24-hour period. Clearly, that comment was made in bad faith. Everyone knows, as the CRTC points out, that the program that attracts the majority of Canadians is the 9 o'clock news. The commission adds that the news should not come on at 11 p.m., but rather at 9 p.m., as many people are already in bed by 11 p.m.
What is Radio-Canada doing today? It airs its news bulletin, which basically covers Quebec, at 9 p.m., and those who have cable television — and only those who have cable television — can tune in to a news bulletin at 11 p.m., on RDI. Those who do not have RDI cannot have access to news for other Canadian provinces. That is covered under points 10 and 11.
Under point 12, you will find my response to Radio-Canada during the CRTC hearings. Radio-Canada was the first witness and also the last. If anyone had anything to say regarding its brief and what Radio-Canada said about it, they had the right to respond. That is what I did. I will tell you only a bit about that response.
At some point, the Chairman of the CRTC asked the President of Radio-Canada what the percentage of Canadian news was on his news bulletin, Le Téléjournal. Mr. Lacroix answered that Canadian and foreign news accounted for 50 per cent of the news bulletin. He put Canada in the same category as foreign countries. I think that is inexcusable. Up until a few months ago, on Radio-Canada's radio station, announcements would be made several times a day asking listeners to tune in to their afternoon program on Canadian and foreign news. They are lumping Canada and foreign countries together. That is what the president himself did before the CRTC. The figures are actually very straightforward. International news items account for 35 per cent, and Canadian news items account for 15 per cent of the content. He simply added the two figures. He said that Canadian and foreign news stories account for 50 per cent.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. De Bané, I think you are fairly familiar with how our committee works. I am prepared to offer you five additional minutes, but perhaps you should wrap things up, so as to allow our colleagues to ask all the questions they have in mind.
Mr. De Bané: I will not abuse your patience; you have already been very indulgent so far.
Under point 13, you have the percentage of Canadians who speak both languages. That figure comes from Statistics Canada, and it is posted on the website of the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie. When the chair, Senator Chaput, asked Patricia Pleszczynska how many people spoke French outside Quebec, she answered that she had only one figure — the number of individuals whose mother tongue was French — and that figure was 1 million. According to Statistics Canada, there were 2.6 million French speakers outside Quebec. Today, that number is 3 million. This is the only radio and television broadcaster that underestimates its potential audience.
I was really surprised that she did not know about that Statistics Canada figure.
In addition, The Globe and Mail also used the Statistics Canada figures and presented the charts differently.
Under point 14, you will find Radio-Canada's plan to abandon the trademark ``Radio-Canada'' and replace it with the word ``Ici.'' I am submitting an article by Sylvain Lafrance, former president. According to him, Radio-Canada is one of the 10 most respected trademarks in Canada. And yet the corporation wants to replace it with the word ``Ici.'' Vice-President Mr. Lalande's statement will probably become part of the French network's history. When he was asked whether he was abandoning the name Radio-Canada, he answered that he was not, as that would always be on his business card.
[English]
Richard Stursberg, who was vice-president of the English section of CBC for six years, wrote a book about CBC/ Radio-Canada. I have provided for you excerpts from his book where he says with respect to the relations between the two corporations that there is more jealousy, tension and acrimony between the two wings of the corporation, it's unbelievable. And he said as for the members of the board, well, it's very difficult for them to ask any questions about Radio-Canada because they don't speak English. They never look to that network, so they cannot ask any questions, et cetera.
It's worthwhile to read the excerpts from his book, and he has been there six years. he is a former assistant deputy minister in Ottawa, former President of the National Film Board, former President of Telefilm Canada and he is bilingual. He even offered Mr. Lacroix, the president, to switch, to go and run the French network. He asked to be moved to the French network.
[Translation]
I also submitted a study.
[English]
Number 17 is a study done by the law faculty of the University of Montreal for the Government of Canada about the relations between the CRTC, CBC and the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
This study was carried out by Professors Trudel and Frémont.
[English]
Essentially, when the CRTC gives instructions to Radio-Canada that Radio-Canada does not want to implement, Radio-Canada can go and complain to the minister. Today it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The minister, after receiving that complaint concerning CRTC by Radio-Canada, meets with the CRTC, and then he publishes his instructions to CBC, and they have to be published in the Canada Gazette.
Finally, you have my speech and my bill on June 18. Essentially, I was inspired by that authority of the minister that also exists in the Bank of Canada for the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who has the authority to manage the currency and the rates. When he receives written instructions, he has to follow them.
[Translation]
I am not challenging Radio-Canada's freedom of expression, but I am proposing different considerations — and some additions or modifications can be made. Those considerations should be part of a bill so that, either the government or both houses would be instructing Radio-Canada to respect the law, ensure that their news items cover Canada and all its regions — in compliance with the law — instead of just one province.
And there you have the summary of the documents I am submitting for your consideration.
The Deputy Chair: Am I to understand, Mr. De Bané, that the new licence conditions issued by the CRTC are not meeting your expectations regarding the broadcaster, which will continue to focus on Quebec too much? Do you think that covering the whole country's news more and increasing the collaboration between the two networks is not going far enough?
Mr. De Bané: Absolutely, madam. You have summed up my thoughts very well. What we have here will not change much. We should look at all the commitments Radio-Canada made in 1977, following the CRTC's report. None of the commitments have been fulfilled.
As Mr. Stursberg says, the two sections of the corporation are still not communicating today. There were countless times I saw programs on CBC that would have been a great addition to the French network. There is no doubt in my mind that they have no intention whatsoever of following through.
In the letter they sent to the Senate committee, instead of agreeing with the reality — that these are people who live in the same country and speak different languages, so news that interest both communities should be broadcast — on the contrary, the corporation said that there was no connection between the two, that they are very different and that the respective news have nothing in common. After having said all that, CBC/Radio-Canada will make statements in its annual report that will make people laugh. When I quote anything from the report, people start laughing.
Florian Sauvageau told us, in committee, that when he hears such comments, he also wants to laugh, as it makes no sense to say that CBC/Radio-Canada is a uniting force for all Canadians. He says that he also laughs when he reads the annual report. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately, this has been the situation for years and it will persist, as the corporation believes that most of its audience is in Quebec. I thought that the expression Mr. Lacroix used before the CRTC was unfortunate. He referred to francophones from the outside, and I thought he was talking about those living abroad, in other countries, but he was actually talking about those living outside Quebec! What is that about?
The Deputy Chair: Here is someone who is very familiar with problems faced by francophones from the outside — Madam Senator Chaput.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Senator De Bané; it is always a pleasure to see you again. I am happy to see that you still have the same passion and ardour in defending these issues, which are just as important to you, and I thank you for that.
If I have understood correctly, you are not satisfied with the CRTC's latest licence conditions, as they will not make much of a difference.
Mr. De Bané: Exactly.
Senator Chaput: How do you think these latest licence conditions should have been imposed to truly make a difference?
Mr. De Bané: The first thing we should keep in mind is that, if the CRTC intends to impose a licence condition, the law stipulates that the commission must sit down with CBC/Radio-Canada and try to come to an agreement. The CRTC cannot impose a condition without consulting CBC. It must sit down with the corporation and explain to it what it has to do. The commission cannot refuse to renew CBC's licence because the corporation operates under a statute. The system is completely different from the one that governs the private sector. If CBC finds the CRTC's request to be too onerous, according to the study conducted by the Université de Montréal Professors Frémont and Trudel, it can ask the minister for a review. So the CRTC is limited in what it can actually do. It must negotiate what it would like to impose on CBC/Radio-Canada, and the corporation can complain to the minister.
As the CRTC says, CBC/Radio-Canada is resisting any kind of accountability being imposed on its administration. The corporation says that, frankly, it is not accountable to anyone.
[English]
They are not accountable to anybody.
[Translation]
He says that this is CBC/Radio-Canada's problem. This situation makes no sense.
Senator Chaput: Mr. De Bané, what can be done to change things, so that Radio-Canada can reflect the picture of Canada and its regions, the picture of what I and others are?
Mr. De Bané: What you are saying rings very true, as the only reason for a public sector's existence is to allow Canadians to be seen and heard. Professor Marie-Linda Lord, of the Université de Moncton, says that, when she sees a francophone from another province on television, she is encouraged in her determination to remain true to her culture and identity, since she sees other people doing the same thing elsewhere.
Currently, as you know, Radio-Canada, from coast to coast to coast, showcases only Quebec. Of course, every province has a regional channel that is very important, since the private sector will never give us a broadcasting station in different provinces, except in a very specific market. So we need Radio-Canada to provide a regional service specific to each province. But the regions are never covered in the national news.
According to the study we conducted, communities outside Quebec — the provinces, aside from Quebec — account for about 2 per cent of Le Téléjournal's airtime.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Chaput, your name is already on the list for the second round.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. De Bané, it has always been a pleasure for us to read your work and especially to hear from you.
We all have a copy of the October 19 letter sent to this committee by the broadcaster's director of government relations. In his letter, the director points out that journalistic decisions and programming are protected by the Broadcasting Act. As a result, like you said, a number of questions asked received no detailed answer.
What do you think of this response by the director of government relations? Do you think it is true that journalistic decisions and programming are protected by the Broadcasting Act?
Mr. De Bané: Senator McIntyre, that is entirely correct. The act clearly and explicitly states that Radio-Canada has freedom of information. There is no doubt about that. I would even add that none of us want a broadcaster that spreads propaganda. No one wants that. The issue lies in the fact that the corporation is using that legislative provision to justify not being accountable to anyone.
For instance, I asked them how many French Canadians, Acadians, tune in to Radio-Canada's French station and who, at 9 p.m., switch to CBC News to hear the news for the whole country and not just one province. I asked hundreds of similar questions in the two documents I sent to Radio-Canada. In response, they told me that they did not have to answer me, that this was a matter of programming, and that they do not respond to such questions.
I also asked why they sent a whole team with Mr. Lépine, a great journalist, to China, to make three or four spectacular reports of several hours on the emergence of that new economic power and on China's impact on various industries in Quebec — not in Canada, only in Quebec. They answered that they were protected by the legislation that guarantees their freedom of information. They use that to avoid answering any questions.
That is why the CRTC says, in the excerpt I read to you, that no questions should be answered because, otherwise, the party in power, the government will control us, and so on. The CRTC says that this unaccountability represents a much greater danger. This uncaring attitude may end up costing Radio-Canada its existence. They are saying this to parliamentarians. The corporation is resisting parliamentarians and the general public.
If the CRTC's study has highlighted anything, it is the fact that the public wants freedom of information — a public sector — but it also wants professional ethics and competence. The public broadcaster is using the provision you quoted to avoid being accountable to anyone.
Telling the committee that there are 550 journalists, when Professor Chantal Francœur says that, in Montreal alone, there are 550, is not the right way to do things.
The Deputy Chair: Senator McIntyre, does that answer your question?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, thank you.
Senator Bellemare: Mr. De Bané, it is truly a pleasure for me to be able to hear you talk about your favorite topic.
Although I am totally new to this committee, I understand the whole problem. There are many issues I am not familiar with. However, I am a Canadian who tunes in to the news in the evening. When I want to hear about Canadian news, I watch Peter Mansbridge on CBC, and afterwards I switch to Quebec news. I have always told myself that Radio-Canada may have been focusing more on Quebec news owing to the competition with TVA. But I sometimes find that the editorial choices are not the wisest.
My question has to do with a discussion we were both there for, one you participated in. It was during the clause-by- clause consideration of Bill C-4, in relation to the current government, which wants to hear what is being said at the collective bargaining table or be in the room. And I am not sure whether you recall or not, but you made a rather eloquent and impassioned comment with respect to the union representatives who were there and who did not want the government sitting at the bargaining table.
Do you think that what the government is trying to do with collective agreements could open Téléjournal up to the Canadian reality? They told us they did not want the government there because the discussions would involve how work was organized. I did not understand all that well, but things became a bit clearer after hearing what you had to say. Could the collective bargaining matter influence editorial decision making, or is it simply a sidebar that has nothing to do with the issue?
Mr. De Bané: Well, you see, the way the corporation is organized is that it has a main office in Toronto and another in Montreal. At the end of the day, it is those two divisions of the corporation that put their mark on Radio-Canada and CBC. But CBC does make a greater effort to cover the entire country, whereas Radio-Canada takes a Quebec- centric view, with 550 people in Montreal receiving news reports from journalists scattered throughout the country. The people in Montreal are the ones who decide which news stories matter and which ones do not. And what we have, as a result, is a situation that bears no resemblance to the Canadian reality.
I will use this opportunity to tell you that the third volume of my study was done by a Ph.D. graduate who teaches journalism at Carleton University. His name is Vincent Raynauld and he hails from Montreal. He took all the news segments that aired on Téléjournal and The National over a period of 2 years, 2010 to 2011, and carried out an analysis. After watching every newscast for two full years, he found that 40 per cent, or slightly more, of coverage focused on Quebec, 35 per cent dealt with international news, 15 per cent addressed Canadian news, through a Quebec-centric lens, and about 3 per cent focused on all the other Canadian provinces, combined. A study by Professor Marie-Linda Lord, of Université de Moncton, found that CBC dedicated more coverage to the Acadian community than Radio- Canada did.
This is something that, in my opinion, goes beyond labour-management relations, because the act says very clearly that Radio-Canada is responsible for the content aired on the network. Senior management cannot shirk the broadcaster's responsibility and claim that, because of a collective agreement, unionized employees have full independence, as is the case with most newspapers, and the corporation cannot, therefore, force employees to change their coverage of the news. That is not the situation at Radio-Canada.
I would like to bring something else to your attention. I wrote to Quebec's largest newspaper, La Presse, and I asked for a geographic breakdown of its reporters. The newspaper has reporters in Quebec and Ottawa, but no full-time reporters in any other province. It does, however, have 12 full-time journalists working around the world, in the U.S., Brazil, Russia, Paris, London and New York. Yet it has no one in the rest of Canada. And that is the paper with the deepest pockets.
You will find the letter I received from the editor in your notes on page 245 of volume 2. He lists the newspaper's total number of reporters as 215, its number of full-time reporters at the National Assembly as 3, its number of full- time reporters in Ottawa as 4, and its number of full-time reporters in Canadian cities outside Quebec, excluding Ottawa, as 0. Internationally, the newspaper has reporters all over the place, Los Angeles, New York, Paris (two), London, Moscow, Latin America and Asia.
Senator Bellemare: So does that mean the situation at Radio-Canada in Quebec also exists at newspapers?
Mr. De Bané: Wait, that is them. They are only in Quebec. Despite having 215 reporters across the country, Radio- Canada's news stories do not deal with national affairs. They are told their stories will be aired, will receive coverage. In Ontario, where you live, they are aired, in Manitoba, in New Brunswick and so forth, but not on the 9 o'clock news. If you have cable, you will see them on RDI at 11 o'clock, but not at 9. That time slot is reserved for Quebec coverage. Even Canada gets very little attention. It makes no sense.
The bill I introduced deals with various elements that are not related to information but that enable parliamentarians and the government to direct Radio-Canada in certain areas. Consideration should be given to the need to remove some of the areas I am suggesting and add in others. Under my bill, the government can give the broadcaster instructions in writing as it does to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, for instance. And if both houses of Parliament, supported by the majority of parliamentarians, give the broadcaster instructions in writing, they can, without influencing information, tell the corporation that its name, Radio-Canada, does not appear where it should, for instance.
By the way, in my submission, I included a page that shows the logos for CBC and Radio-Canada. The emblem you see there is what they call ``the pizza.''
The Deputy Chair: The pizza.
Mr. De Bané: Yes, that is right. In English, you have the logo and CBC appears underneath. If you turn to tab 18 in the big binder and look at the logo comparison sheet, you notice that CBC puts its name near the logo in many cases, CBC News, for instance. Radio-Canada, however, does not do the same.
Senator Bellemare: That is true.
Mr. De Bané: Recently, they even wanted to drop it altogether. So that gives you a sense of the situation. Radio- Canada never mentions ``Canada'' without referring to ``Quebec and Canada.'' If the network wants to avoid saying both together, it talks about ``the country.'' It does not say ``Canada,'' but ``the country.'' And if it does say ``Canada,'' it always adds ``and Quebec.''
The Deputy Chair: We will now move on to the second round. I will give the floor to Senator Chaput.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, then, the latest licence conditions will not change anything?
Mr. De Bané: No.
Senator Chaput: In your submission at tab 12, one of your conclusions reads as follows:
Radio-Canada['s] approach to the hearings suggests that the current system of accountability has been ineffective.
And you say the committee of inquiry came to the same conclusion in 1977. So I am going to somewhat repeat the question I asked you at the very beginning. What is the solution or part of the solution? In your view, what would make a real difference?
Mr. De Bané: I will give you two points to ponder as I try to answer your question.
The first is that the public wants freedom of information, meaning it does not want the public broadcaster to become a propaganda machine funded by taxpayer money. That is for sure.
The second point is this. People are always more interested in what is going on around them than in the larger region they live in. That is why some of the world's biggest newspapers located in several European countries — France, Germany and England — choose to focus on what happens within the country in question. And the European Commission in Brussels realized that. How can you have a European Union when major national newspapers such as Le Monde, France Soir, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, not to mention key German and Italian newspapers, cover solely what goes on in their respective countries? So the European Commission decided to give a few million euros to a private company headquartered in Lyons, France, to broadcast the program Euronews, a network that covers the news in the 27 countries of the European Union. The only stories that newspapers and the media want to cover are those that happen close to home.
We do a lot more. More than two thirds of Radio-Canada's budget comes from the government, with just a third of it generated by advertising revenue. That is why, in its report, the CRTC basically said the broadcaster needed to understand that trying to win the ratings race would destroy its mission. And Radio-Canada uses that race to cover only what is of interest to advertisers.
I can recall Florian Sauvageau saying that Quebec received a disproportionate amount of coverage because the audience was there, and the act was disregarded. They tell us their story is different so they do not have to take anything else into account. The act is very clear, however, as is the contract between the European Commission and Euronews; the commission wants pan-European coverage and that is what it pays for. So when you tune into Euronews, you see news coverage of all the countries. But we have completely lost sight of that here, and it is a shame.
Speaking of my own province, I would say that, for the past 50 years, entire generations of Quebecers have been cut off from Canada, a situation that led Bernard Landry to call Radio-Canada the national broadcaster of Quebec; he claimed it as Quebec's own. Pauline Marois has said she wants the Council for the Arts, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, five organizations in all, repatriated to Quebec. The only organization she is willing to leave in Ottawa's charge is Radio-Canada, the largest cultural engine we have. Ms. Marois says it can stay put, but she wants all the others.
The Deputy Chair: It seems, senator — I still call you that, because you will always be a senator to me — that the Euronews network is doing a good job.
A week and a half ago, I was in Moldova — probably where I caught this cold — for the meeting of the Europe region of the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie. I got to see just how much the country had been ravaged by the Ottoman and Roman Empires. Then you have Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. Moldova wants only one thing right now, to be part of the European Economic Union. The country is fighting — and we can see what is happening in Ukraine because it, too, is experiencing that division — and it seems that the people at Euronews are doing an awfully good job of covering European news. I saw it, heard about it and read about it, because Moldova now has a fair number of French-language newspapers, as well as a French-language university. It is rather surprising. Senator McIntyre, the last question goes to you.
Senator McIntyre: Senator De Bané, you sat on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for at least four years. You have had multiple opportunities to express your views on CBC/Radio-Canada, the national broadcaster, and its compliance with its obligations.
When it comes to the national public broadcaster, you have always maintained your view, and we thank you for that, whether it be in the Senate, on a parliamentary committee, in a public forum, as you are doing so well today, or before the CRTC. How do you see the situation progressing?
For instance, do you think our committee can really help bring about change?
Mr. De Bané: Senator McIntyre, thank you kindly for that question. I feel very strongly that this committee can make a tremendous difference, and I will give you a few suggestions as to how.
The first and simplest suggestion has to do with CBC's bright idea of broadcasting the weather forecast from Vancouver at the end of its national television newscast, The National. Obviously, the weather forecast can be done from any city, and everyone knows that the bulk of CBC's staff is in Toronto. But the choice of Vancouver immediately gives the viewer a sense of how vast the country is.
Could Radio-Canada not deliver the weather forecast from Moncton, Halifax, Manitoba or some other province? It would be such a small thing to do. But no, absolutely not. Everything has to come out of Montreal.
Radio-Canada has no interest in showing the scope of the country. Everyone knows the weather forecast can be delivered from any city.
Something as simple as that they will not even do. Everything has to be done in Montreal, regardless of whether it has to do with Chicoutimi, Trois-Rivières, Gaspé or elsewhere. And if the weather forecast is given for Ottawa, it has to be given for Gatineau because Gatineau is in Quebec and Ottawa is in another province. Adopting that kind of attitude makes no sense.
Why did my study resonate with some people, causing Radio-Canada to respond to my findings on its website and criticize the fact that the study focused on a single program, Téléjournal? Why did Radio-Canada take issue with the decision not to include its 4 a.m. newscasts in my research? Because I commissioned a professor who came recommended by the School of Journalism, a professor who watched the newscasts daily and analyzed the data he collected. He told me that he had received calls from separatists and they were hopping mad. But after reading the study, they admitted that they could not dispute the findings. No one dared to challenge them.
I would very much like to see the committee retain the services of the same researcher or someone else of Marie- Linda Lord's calibre to carry out this research on a yearly basis. If Radio-Canada continues to limit its news coverage of all Canadian provinces outside Quebec to two minutes, year after year, it will have an impact. The government will eventually say that something has to be done.
I did the work for 2010-11. It should be done for 2012-13. It is not very expensive and it is worth doing. A couple of senators or the committee should get together to hire an expert to keep up the work. And it needs to be kept up because the numbers do not lie.
What I appreciated about the work Vincent Raynauld did is that not a single Canadian article criticized the scientific validity of the study. It was carried out with so much care and expertise that no one could dispute the findings. All that Radio-Canada could say was that I should have taken the 2 a.m. newscasts into account as well. Come on!
Continuing the work is worth the effort. This study validated what I was saying. I would watch every day and take notes, but this research really drove the message home. I stressed the importance of Quebec to the CRTC. It stands to reason that it should receive a significant amount of news coverage. But how much coverage should it have all for itself? As much as the other provinces combined? What would you say if it received twice the coverage given to all the other provinces combined? Three times more? Four times more? Today, it gets eight times the coverage given to the other provinces combined. Any stories about the Canadian government are always reported from the perspective of the Quebec government. That makes no sense and it has to end.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Robichaud, you have convinced me to keep things going for a few minutes longer.
Senator Robichaud: You are easily convinced, Madam Chair.
What influence do you think our committee could exert on Radio-Canada? You said we had a role to play and you know how we operate. We hear from witnesses with different perspectives on the topic of study. We prepare a report, submit it to the Senate and ask the minister to provide a response. Unfortunately, that is often the last step. So it would have to go further than that, the impact would have to be bigger.
Senator De Bané: That is the million-dollar question. What I always liked about this committee is that we always rose above partisanship, because all of us here realized that we made the best use of the committee's time when we communicated.
Since the beginning, the Canadian government has implemented a host of policies to make this country what it is, to give it a measure of robustness. It started with railroads, a transportation policy, a telecommunications policy, an arts council, a national film board, a public broadcaster and so forth. All of those things combined are the glue that binds this country, one that is larger than all the nations in Europe put together.
The situation has been getting worse over the past 30 years. As of 1970, there ceased to be any relationship between Société Radio-Canada in Montreal and its English-language counterpart in Toronto. Keep in mind that the Broadcasting Act created just one corporation, but the two networks are not even on speaking terms. The question then becomes who is the main purveyor of the two solitudes? Radio-Canada. As the CRTC pointed out in its report, the people at CBC do not speak French and those at the French-language network, many of whom are bilingual, have no interest in Canadian affairs. In reality, both are the main purveyors of the two solitudes.
The ability to put partisanship aside is what gives the committee credibility. It is critical to find a way to hold CBC/ Radio-Canada accountable to Parliament, the government and taxpayers, without infringing on freedom of information.
My bill would enable both houses of Parliament together or the government, one of the two, to give a directive to the broadcaster in order to ensure compliance with an objective in the Broadcasting Act that is not being fulfilled. A directive may be given in relation to the corporation's image and branding, to ensure it respects the broadcaster's names and does not invent new ones. I provided a few examples of areas where we would be able to give directives that would not infringe on the act, on freedom of information.
In other words, I really believe in this committee because we are all driven by the same goal. Party politics do not factor in to the discussion.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. De Bané, drawing on the determination you instilled in this committee over the years and inspired by the bill you brought forward before you left us, we will hopefully be able to make a real difference and have you back to celebrate.
Up north, the only air time dedicated to French-language programming is a half-hour on Friday night, 11 to 11:30. We heard from parents who wanted their kids to listen to the radio in French but could not because of the late time slot.
Thank you for all your hard work over the years.
Honourable senators, we will take a short break.
As deputy chair, I am going to ask you to consider some future business in camera.
(The committee adjourned.)