Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 13 - Evidence, January 28, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:45 p.m. to continue its study on the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. Today, we are continuing our study into the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Our witness, Alain Saulnier, is the author of the book Ici ÉTAIT Radio-Canada, and is the broadcaster's former director of news and current affairs. I invite Mr. Saulnier to begin his presentation, and senators will be able to ask him questions afterwards.
The floor is yours, Mr. Saulnier.
Alain Saulnier, Visiting Professor, Communications Department, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal: Thank you for inviting me. I am very honoured to be here. My presentation will basically touch on two topics: the CBC's relevance in the new digital world order and the importance of its independence and proper funding.
I believe that the CBC is one of the country's most important institutions, and I would like you to know that it is more vitally important than ever in the digital age.
When the CBC was created in 1936, it had to counter American influence and provide a cultural and democratic presence across Canada so that anglophone and francophone Canadians would be well served. This mission was unchanged with the advent of television in 1952.
Since the Internet age, some have said that access to a colossal amount of information has never been easier, that the private sector provides high-quality news and cultural programming, and that, as a result, democratic governments can afford to get out of broadcasting. While these assertions are understandable, I would argue that governments should think twice before considering them.
On the contrary, I believe that if we wish to preserve democratic values, it is vitally important for the citizens of each democratic country to be able to access a wide variety of sources, including at least one major source independent of corporate and financial interests. In Canada, the media giants Bell, Rogers, Quebecor and Gesca, as the subsidiary of the Power Corporation of Canada, may be fine organizations — and my goal here is not to discredit their work — but it would certainly be foolhardy to leave this area entirely to them.
By setting stringent journalistic standards, presenting in-depth discussions on major issues and providing guaranteed access to a wide range of viewpoints, a public broadcaster plays a critical role in maintaining the public's ability to think critically. This critical thinking serves as a healthy check against propaganda and extreme ideologies. Given how vulnerable young people are to indoctrination so prevalent on the Internet today, this makes ongoing development of critical thinking all the more important for preserving our Canadian values and democracy.
I would go so far as to say that a major public independent media organization plays a role as important as schools in providing sound points of reference. It is one of a number of tools a country needs to counter extremism, one that politicians have a responsibility to protect.
Of course, at times, criticism of the public broadcaster may very well be warranted, and while there is nothing wrong with debating its performance and actions, in no way does this detract from its vital importance.
To have an impact, the public broadcaster needs to be a leader on new digital platforms, as much as it always has — and must continue — on radio and television. This poses an exciting yet daunting challenge. We are seeing the Internet dominated by private media giants such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Netflix, which wield enormous power, unimaginable even just a few years ago.
Facebook has been around for just 10 years. Twitter was not around 10 years ago. However, they are front and centre now. The same goes for Netflix and YouTube. French author and expert Éric Scherer calls them the new predators, and I quote from one of his books:
New predators, a handful of Web giants, with their unprecedented power and dominant position, appear invincible. They are currently working to fragment, if not lock up, the Web, which was supposed to be an open and free field.
In a world where information and disinformation are waging what I call the extreme combat of the 21st century — and this is just a way for me to show what kind of world we are living in right now — we need to keep our national bearings and regional anchors that reflect who we are. We cannot leave it solely up to the news giants to wield control over our democratic and cultural life.
Let's now talk about the independence of public broadcasters. Here as in Europe, our public broadcaster enjoys a good reputation and a brand that inspires trust. This trust depends on an essential condition: the broadcaster's independence from government, political pressure and financial interests.
This independence must be clearly enshrined into law and in the minds of elected representatives. Of course, once again, this does not preclude public criticism. That is why it is important for the process of appointing CBC's CEO and board of directors to be completely transparent and responsive to all parliamentarians. Currently it seems that the only criterion for appointment is to have partisan ties with the party in power.
In my book Ici ÉTAIT Radio-Canada, I point out that the current CBC board was appointed primarily for partisan reasons. Research by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting shows that 10 of the 12 board members have contributed financially to the party in power, and some continue to do so. This needs to change. These appointments must be based on genuine expertise and representativeness. They must also be subject to approval by a parliamentary committee.
In the past, other major players have stressed the importance of a non-partisan appointment process, particularly as set out in the 1986 Caplan-Sauvageau report. In passing, I can also mention Pierre Juneau's report published in 1986 as well. In my book, I also published the covering letter of the briefing book prepared by Robert Rabinovitch for his successor, CEO Hubert Lacroix. In the letter, he stressed a major point, which I would like to quote:
It is critical to this country that the Corporation retains its editorial and journalistic independence from external forces in order to remain a true public broadcaster, and not a state broadcaster.
This is the reason that the appointment of the President & CEO is not at pleasure and that the Corporation reports to Parliament through the Minister of Heritage.
On the issue of funding, one expectation people have of a public broadcaster such as the CBC is that it provides services that the private sector is less interested in due to slightly higher costs and lower profitability. That is a fact. For instance, CBC Television was able to broadcast a program such as "Enquête.'' Reporting by the French-language program "Enquête,'' which was created when I was head of French-language news, eventually led to all the inquiries into the awarding and management of public contracts in Quebec's construction industry. The CBC also airs science programs such as "Découverte'' on television and "Les Années lumière'' on radio. In terms of information, only the CBC provides a window on the world with correspondents permanently posted abroad. This aspect of the CBC is a unique and tremendous asset.
In Canada's less-populated regions, which are by definition not as profitable markets for private broadcasters, local news — all media combined — would be sparse without the CBC. I would add that this is vital for francophones outside Quebec.
With regard to cultural programming, the CBC is able to take more risks and provide creators with freer rein to experiment. Major TV series produced by the CBC, especially on the French-language network — and let me say that, in my presentation, I am referring to the Radio-Canada francophone market more than to the CBC market, which I am honestly not as familiar with, although we have clearly shared experiences and many things —
The public broadcaster is also able to air major productions such as concerts by our symphony orchestras that would not necessarily attract lucrative sponsorships.
The high journalistic standards for news and bold cultural creation must find its place on the web. Accordingly, while new content more suited to new media platforms is being produced, there is still a need to produce good television and radio. We must not have one without the other.
Traditional media is far from dead. When we are talking about CBC television, we are still looking for another 15 to 20 per cent market share for programming. That is nothing to sneeze at; that is a lot.
Traditional media is not dead. Their content can be found on screens all around us: cell phones and tablets, small and medium-sized computers, and smart televisions, or connected televisions, as they are called these days.
In order to maintain leadership, the CBC should also tap into the creative talent of the younger generation. Instead, the corporation is currently being forced to lay off much of its young workforce. In order to fulfill all of its mandates, the CBC needs stable, adequate funding. A major shift is urgently required; otherwise, if support is not provided, there is little chance that the corporation will have enough resources to maintain its place and credibility in the new, constantly changing digital environment.
There are a number of possible funding models that provide stability and independence. Current funding sources (government grants and advertising — and I am in favour of the option of reducing the advertising portion of the CBC funding) need to be revisited, and there needs to be a discussion on all other possible revenue sources: royalties, levies on devices, taxes on Internet service providers, and so forth. We are at the stage where we need to explore new ways of funding public broadcasters. This is the case everywhere around the world.
The 1991 Broadcasting Act is clearly obsolete. It is older than the Internet and therefore no longer relevant. A complete overhaul of the legislation is urgently required.
There needs to be a genuine discussion on the future of the CBC and of the country's entire media ecosystem. This discussion needs to focus on news and culture, new and conventional media, content production and distribution, and the special and fundamental nature of the French-language market that needs to be preserved. We all agree on that across the country.
The discussion needs to involve the entire political, institutional and public sphere. That is why I applaud the work that you do here. Urgent action is also required to retain the young people currently being forced to leave the public broadcaster. They represent the future. They are the masters of the digital world. It is ironic that the idea is to go digital, but without the young people. Perhaps some of you have seen Charles Tisseyre's video on YouTube. He was very clear about that.
I will be pleased to answer your questions. You will understand that I will refer more specifically to the French-language broadcaster Radio-Canada and its market. I do not claim to be able to fully speak to the English-language CBC or the anglophone market, although I am open to any type of question.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saulnier. I have Senator Plett, followed by Senator Demers and Senator Eggleton on my list for now.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair, and thank you, sir, for being here this evening and giving us this report. I have a few questions, if I could.
My first question is about the appointment process that you referred to in your statement here:
Research by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting shows that 10 of the 12 Board members have contributed financially to the party in power, and some continue to do so. This needs to change.
Every person has some political leanings and some political preferences, and indeed every person is not only entitled to vote but I believe has a moral obligation to vote. So we all have political leanings. Whether the person has contributed financially to either the party of members opposite or to ours, how does that in any way disqualify them from being professional people and being able to run a corporation like the CBC?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: That is an excellent question. My goal is not to say that those people should not have access to a board of directors, far from it. I had experience with other boards before my last five years at Radio-Canada. Regardless of their party, people can legitimately obtain positions of that kind on the board or as CEO, based on their skills.
However, once that is achieved, it is important to review what I would call the transparency of the appointment process in order to understand what criteria are used to make the appointments. Are we talking about skills? Could we know what they are? Could we know the professional background and experience that might qualify those people for those positions? I have no intention, either in my book or my presentation, of saying that we should limit those people's access because of their partisan affiliations. However, what I am saying is that we must find a certain balance and make competency a priority. Competency can come from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, or even from outside those political parties, simply because people have recognized experience in their fields.
[English]
Senator Plett: So you agree that, regardless of your political affiliation, since we have three political major political parties in Parliament, if we were to take the top 30 people that would be qualified to run an organization like CBC, there's a pretty good chance that there might be, and I would like to believe, 20 Conservatives. For the sake of argument, let's say there would be 10 Conservatives, 10 NDP and 10 Liberals. It would make sense for the government in power to probably have more in common with and know the 10 who were part of their party, as I'm sure members opposite did when they were in government, and that these would still be highly qualified or could be highly qualified people.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: As I explained, I have worked with other boards of directors, which certainly included political donors, people with partisan affiliations with the Liberal Party, for instance. I would not want my comments to give you the impression that the number needs to be restricted or there needs to be a quota for those coming from the party in power, and then have a minority for those who come from the minority parties. I am just saying that there is a pressing need to shed some light on the appointment process. What criteria must be met to become a board member? What about the criteria for the CEO? Quite frankly, no one has a clear idea; no one really knows what are the hiring criteria, if we can use that phrase, that we can expect for board members. That is basically what I was saying.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you for that answer.
I don't want this next question to be deemed as too partisan. I know that my friend Senator Eggleton might deem it to be that, but this is from your book, so I am going to ask this question.
In your book, you noted that Prime Ministers Trudeau and Chrétien explicitly threatened the CBC and Radio-Canada because they disagreed with the content it was producing. Has this level of government funding remained more stable in the last 10 years than it did during the 1990s?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: You are correct in saying that no party has ever spared the CBC, and that is exactly what I say in my book. In some ways, there has always been some tension between the public broadcaster and the party in power. In one sense, that is normal and understandable.
However, we must also remember — and I also explain this in the book, if you have read it — that, for instance, there were significant cuts under Prime Minister Chrétien in 1996-97. Can we make a comparison today? Can we talk about stable funding today? I would say no. I would say that there have been some real cuts. I made some myself as the head of news and current affairs. Three or four years ago, $115 million was cut at the CBC. The problem is that all this is happening at a time when we really need major investments to make the transition to the digital world. That is why I feel that the public broadcaster is being abandoned; now is the time to invest more money.
The newspaper La Presse has invested tens of millions of dollars to move toward La Presse+. Now is not the time to take away the funding from public broadcasters as they have to adapt to the digital world. On the contrary, stable funding is needed to help them make this transition. That is what I hope governments will do over the next few years.
[English]
Senator Plett: One last question, if I could. Let's talk about that stable funding a little bit. In a Star editorial that you wrote in November, you noted that in your opinion, the French-language Radio-Canada side was getting more of its budget cut than it should and, by extension, the English-language CBC side wasn't getting enough budget trimmed.
On that note, Radio-Canada, and we've talked about that here many times, seems to be more successful in attracting viewers than the CBC. Do you feel that there is anything that Radio-Canada is doing well that English CBC is not to attract the viewership, or do you believe that it is primarily money and, of course, by what you're saying, getting more budget cut, yet they seem to be doing a better job obviously with less?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: That is a tricky question, because my objective is not to say that we need to take money from the CBC and give it to Radio-Canada, or vice versa. We might perhaps rejoice in the fact that Radio-Canada's current business model is more solid. More advertising revenue is coming in as we speak. As a result, during the last fiscal year, Radio-Canada met its objectives in terms of commercial sales. In short, I am not saying that we must rob Peter to pay Paul. However, stable funding is needed, not to be able to say that the CBC is a less substantial service than Radio-Canada or that we must keep Radio-Canada and abandon the CBC, but, independently of the ratings, whether in the English-speaking market or in the French-speaking market, we need an independent public broadcaster that is properly funded. That has nothing to do with ratings or the performance of advertising sales. The funding must be for each of the two, the CBC and Radio-Canada, based on their respective markets. Far be it from me to say that we should protect one more than the other. These two markets need to be able to count on stable funding.
[English]
Senator Plett: Regardless of ratings.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: Of course, Radio-Canada can have ratings of up to 2 million people, with "Unité 9'' for instance. However, because of the representation of the population, the CBC will probably never be able to reach those types of ratings. Of course, if the ratings are down to zero, there is no need to have this conversation, but when you have five or six market shares, the way several European or Scandinavian countries do, it is important to understand that you cannot set a basic threshold to justify a refusal of funding. Personally, I am in favour of finding a balance to address the various objectives and challenges of each market, the francophone market as much as the anglophone.
Senator Demers: Mr. Saulnier, I appreciate your testimony.
I feel that the CBC is one of the most important institutions in this country and, this committee, with our chair Senator Dawson, is listening carefully and taking the study very seriously. We want to be able to spend Canadians' money better and we want spending to be reduced. No one here wants to shut down the CBC. You are correct, it is important, but we would like spending to be reduced and the production to be better. All the people whom we met here are very competent and express themselves very well, and when I listen to you, you have very specific answers. And that is the perspective we want to be able to understand the situation.
What is the biggest challenge? I understand that you talked less about the CBC and more about Radio-Canada. I am wondering what the urgency is for Radio-Canada to reach the francophone public — there are still anglophones who tune in to Radio-Canada — and turn it into a box whose real value can be recognized. At one point, its value was extremely important, but it has gone down.
Mr. Saulnier: First, since I am 62, I can remember the time when Radio-Canada was the only channel on television. Then, one day, Télé-Métropole, as it was called, came on the scene. Radio-Canada had the monopoly for francophone culture at one point.
Today, to stand out, I think Radio-Canada must offer programming that is different from that of its private competitors. That does not mean that we must be happy with one market share, as I said earlier to Senator Plett. Performance is still needed. However, the programming has to be different. Personally, I am in favour of the concept of making sure that, whenever you turn on the TV, listen to the radio or surf the web, you are always aware that you are somewhere other than with a private producer or broadcaster; you are with Radio-Canada. There is a problem with that right now; given that Radio-Canada and the CBC have not been very well funded in recent years, the only way for Radio-Canada to get out of this pickle, so to speak, was to increase its advertising revenue.
When I came to Radio-Canada in 1984, we could talk about that accounting for perhaps 12 or 15 per cent of the funding. Today, more than 30 to 35 per cent of its funding comes from advertising revenue. What impact does that have? The impact is that the ratings are determining factors, because if there are no ratings to attract commercial and advertising revenue, you will automatically generate less revenue. However, the more you do that, the more you are going to have to come up with programming that is similar to that of your private competitors. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing what others are doing to get the ratings.
I am not some sort of purist who believes that there should never be any mass-appeal television series, and so on; that is not my style. However, when I turn on the TV, I know that I am not watching "Occupation Double,'' but rather a program produced for the viewers of Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Take your time.
Senator Demers: No, that's okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. He gave me a good answer.
The Chair: I did not want you to feel pressured.
Senator Demers: Not at all. I am used to pressure.
The Chair: Yes, that is true.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: You have a background in news and current affairs with Radio-Canada, and we've had some discussion at this table about duplication of news at a local level in particular but to some degree on a national level between the private broadcasters and the public broadcaster. What's your view on how that should be handled?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: One of the problems we are facing is that, when we are dealing with local news or programming and with francophones outside Quebec, the only way to have access to the local news when you live out West is through Radio-Canada, whether on the radio or on television. So Radio-Canada must have a place inside this space we call local news or local programming. That is very right and proper.
That being said, all the francophones who want to have access to the world and to the best achievements in all areas need to be able to have access to those items through a public broadcaster. So we need more international news, quality shows and digital programming well tailored to the new vocabulary or language that we use to inform people digitally. That means that we must find the proper balance for local programming.
However, as a francophone, I want to know what is happening around the world. I don't want to simply see myself in my local or regional world. So we must have this ability to look everywhere around the world. That is an asset for francophones. How can that be done? I think it depends on the market. Things might be done very differently depending on the various markets. Each region should be analyzed, but finding the right balance is a must. The idea is not to do something at the expense of something else. Once again, we need to find the right balance. But whatever the case may be, we must provide programming and content that always stands out from that of private competitors.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: When it comes to funding, I have very substantial agreement with what you said here:
. . . the CBC needs stable, adequate funding. A major shift is urgently required; otherwise, if support is not provided, there is little chance that the Corporation will have enough resources to maintain its credibility in the new, constantly changing digital environment.
I read that because I think it an important statement.
You've talked about other funding models. We're about to go look at one. Some of us are heading off to look at the BBC in London. They have a traditional funding model that puts them in good stead in terms of the independent financing they have. Here, we depend more on the government of the day, and the government of the day, whether it has been Liberal or Conservative, has for a number years cut, and I think it's gone too far. I think we've gone to a critical point. I think your statement sums that up.
You do talk about royalties, levies on devices, taxes on Internet service providers and so forth. Can you expand on any of them? Do you have any particular favourites?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I am not an expert, but I can certainly tell you that, when you have royalties, you are not dependent on funding or you don't have to beg the government, year after year, to renew your budget in the right amount. At least, royalties allow you to have stable and ongoing revenue, which can even go up when the royalties take the form of sales taxes on television or radio sets. Increasingly, I am thinking that we should extend this formula to digital tablets, iPads, iPods and anything that is part of the digital world, but that is another story.
Right now, I feel that the web giants, as I call them — Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Google — are developing a sort of ownership of all the digital content, but they are not giving anything back to consumers. They are not giving anything to various nations on the content that could be offered to their own people. It is as if we are at the stage where they could also impose a culture that disregards our own national cultures. They are also ignoring our quality of information. I think it is important for countries therefore to develop an approach that requires the web giants to reinvest in national broadcasters, and also in the transition to the digital world so that they are not the only ones who make money and profits.
As a little aside, let me just say that some of them do not even pay taxes in their own countries, but that is a different story. They could at least invest money that could help public broadcasters, as they should. So we are talking about royalties, but with the contribution of web giants as well. I think they should make a contribution to the societies that let them survive, after all. They need to give something back as well.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: My time is up. I'll go on the second round.
The Chair: I'm trying to be equal, even though there are many on one side. But he's the deputy chair. He has the privilege of being the deputy chair.
I've got you down for a second round.
[Translation]
Senator Housakos: Mr. Saulnier, thank you for your testimony and your contribution to this debate.
One of the themes in your book is about political interference. In your book, you claim that Hubert Lacroix succumbed to Minister Moore's political pressure, because Radio-Canada did not hire Gilles Duceppe. According to Hubert Lacroix, that is false, and the reason is that there was a conflict with the journalism policy that requires a two-year moratorium before hiring a defeated politician. In addition, Mr. Lacroix said that Mr. Duceppe was invited to join the program "Le club des ex'' in 2013, but he had to refuse the offer, because the parliamentary pension rules do not permit him to work for a crown corporation. Do you think Hubert Lacroix is lying?
You worked at Radio-Canada for 25 years. As a former executive, were you aware of that journalism policy?
Mr. Saulnier: Not only was I aware, but I was in charge of that rule. However, things got mixed up. We are talking about a contributor participating in a show on an occasional basis, every two weeks or every three weeks. The moratorium is for journalists employed by Radio-Canada, not for contributors.
First, let's take the example of "Le club des ex'' that we created for RDI a few years ago; the idea itself is to seek the expertise of former politicians and to have them comment on current affairs. I am not going to tell them to wait two years. I want to know what they know right away. So there is no moratorium; there is no such thing. I am not saying that he is lying: I am just saying that he did not read the policy very well. I am more familiar with it than he is, because I was looking after that policy as the executive director of news.
To come back to Gilles Duceppe, I had no problem with him appearing on a show to give his comments, as long as he was not there alone. If he has an opponent from another political party, you have a rich diversity of opinions. You have someone saying black, someone saying white, someone saying another colour. The idea is to add to the discussion. I have tremendous respect for politicians and, when they retire from politics, I also respect their opinion and I want to hear what they have to say about politics. We just need to find a way to have a diversity of opinions.
Senator Housakos: At one point — I took this from your book — there was talk about hiring Michael Fortier as a political commentator as well.
Mr. Saulnier: Yes.
Senator Housakos: He was a former government minister. I understand that you were against that idea. However, it seems that you were in favour of hiring Gilles Duceppe.
Mr. Saulnier: No.
Senator Housakos: My question is this: Why were you in favour of hiring one politician, but not the other? Frankly, a lot of people in Quebec think that Radio-Canada has become a mouthpiece for the sovereignist agenda. I am sure you have heard that a number of times.
Mr. Saulnier: Yes, yes.
Senator Housakos: There are many politicians and many Quebec federalists who see it this way.
Mr. Saulnier: Yes. In Michael Fortier's case, I would have to find the passage in my book because, unfortunately, I do not know it by heart. However, what I say in my book about Michael Fortier is that I was uncomfortable, and I explained that because I had important sources to write what I did in my book. I know very well that Michael Fortier, who was a senator at the time, was — one might say — the strong man of the Conservative Party in Quebec at that time. I know he played a vital role in ensuring that Hubert Lacroix become Radio-Canada's President and CEO. As information director, it made me a little uncomfortable to know that the benefactor of the one would have a place in the Information Service. I resisted as long as possible, quite honestly.
In the end, a proposal was made and it was Mr. Fortier who refused. It was not me, Alain Saulnier, but Mr. Fortier who refused. I am not saying that it was no to Michael Fortier, and yes to Gilles Duceppe. You will not make me say that. With all due respect, that is not what I say in my book, either.
Senator Housakos: No, that is fine. I was asking so that I could clarify that.
Mr. Saulnier: Certainly.
Senator Housakos: You said in your presentation that Radio-Canada plays a very important role for French-speaking minority communities in Canada outside Quebec, and certainly that is part of Radio-Canada's mandate.
Our committee has had the opportunity to meet with a number of francophone groups outside Quebec. One thing we heard many times was that Radio-Canada is very Montreal-centric, and that it is not representative enough and does not reflect their communities and their reality. What is your opinion on that?
Mr. Saulnier: I have had a number of discussions with francophones outside Quebec and Acadians, particularly with the Société nationale de l'Acadie. It is true that we are in a situation where Radio-Canada is basically focused more on French-speaking Quebec and, perhaps, overly Montreal-centric.
Having said that, as I told Senator Demers earlier, we are also in an unusual situation. At the same time, we still have to perform to obtain commercial revenue, and we must always live up to the expectations of our advertisers. Why? Because it is indispensable to have this commercial revenue to compensate for the lack of solid funding.
In a francophone market, we have private competitors, and we need to be able to find some market share in this francophone world in Quebec. That is where we sometimes have to make choices. I do not want to make judgments about the importance of one piece of news over another, but I can tell you one thing: that is what RDI does — and I can speak about this more independently and freely because I am no longer the boss. I knew very well that we sometimes got higher ratings because we were talking about spring floods in Quebec when there were floods elsewhere in Canada. I was not judging which floods were most important, but the fact remains that the francophone audience in Quebec is often more interested in that kind of situation.
If we did the opposite and always treated things equally, it would become tricky with getting commercial funding.
In an ideal world, if we were protected from these commercial pressures and these advertising revenues, I think we could have a much fairer base, not just for francophones in Quebec, but outside Quebec as well.
At the same time, I am not trying to completely excuse the mistakes that might have been made. That is farthest from my mind. I think that there were some and that we should do more for francophones outside Quebec because it is their only outlet to the world and the country, and because it is indispensable that we do it.
Senator Verner: Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: For you, you know you have as much time as you wish.
Senator Verner: Thank you, Mr. Saulnier. It is a pleasure to see you. My colleagues have already touched on a number of things, specifically the fact that Radio-Canada is doing much better than the CBC, but we know that. We also know that the French network of Radio-Canada has fewer competitors than the CBC, which may be helpful in the context.
I would also like to go into services for francophones outside Quebec. We had the pleasure of having Marie-Linda Lord appear here. You probably know her.
Mr. Saulnier: Yes, I have met her.
Senator Verner: With respect to francophones outside Quebec, she made a comment that was at odds with what was just mentioned, that the problem in Acadia was not getting information on Acadia, but rather information about the rest of Canada. I wanted to make that slight clarification.
To follow up on your comments about Radio-Canada's independence, I would like to come back to what my colleague, Senator Housakos, said. I will not hide the fact that, as a former elected official — Senator Eggleton and I are the only two on this committee. . . Oh! And, of course, the Chair. My apologies, Senator Dawson.
Mr. Saulnier: In the Quebec region.
Senator Verner: Surely, you are aware of the fact that, as elected officials, we often get the feeling that we are disliked by Radio-Canada. I want to make this point, even though you said in your presentation that public criticism is not taboo. In addition, you explain it by noting the tensions between the party in power and Radio-Canada.
I saw a lot of people over the holidays — friends and family. In particular, I spoke with a young student from Laval University who explained that young people these days do not get their information through traditional media, which is something that is even mentioned in her classes at Laval. Young people do not trust news provided through traditional media; we are seeing journalists across all positions lose their credibility. Does it seem that a high rate of people do not trust news published through traditional media? How do you interpret that? How can we remedy this lack of credibility?
Mr. Saulnier: I would like to highlight two points in response to your question: the concept of credibility and the new habits among young people.
As you know, I teach journalism at the Université de Montréal, and I always ask the young students the following questions at the start of the term: How you do get informed? What do you read? What do you listen to? I was shocked the first time I asked that question because in a class of 25 students, four did not have a television. I said, "Oh, good. And you want to be journalists?'' They told me, "Listen, we no longer need to have a television to be in journalism, to read and see what is going on in information. We do what everyone under 35 does; instead of watching "Enquête'' when it airs on Thursday night, we watch the program on Tou.tv or on Facebook. We build a small social network where everyone can find what they need.''
I think this is a good reflection of the new media consumption patterns. As I said, I am talking to future journalists; if they are not informed, we have a problem. That was the first point I wanted to raise.
Now, as for credibility, I was the president of the Fédération des journalistes du Québec for many years, and I remember that polls on journalistic credibility were done every 10 years or so. At one point, our popularity rating was very low, but we have seen an improvement in the past four years. Why? Because journalism of the future targets more specialized sectors, such as investigative journalism. Radio-Canada focuses on investigative journalism because professional journalists have to distinguish themselves online from anyone with a blog, a website, Facebook page and so on.
Personally, I do not believe that there is a crisis of journalistic credibility. Currently, these new consumption patterns are real, which means that journalists must reach people where they are and not wait for them to tune in to the most recent episode of "Enquête'' when it airs. Radio-Canada has long ensured that its reports are available through various platforms, including platforms like Twitter.
Honestly, I do not think that journalistic credibility has been sullied. Twenty years ago, perhaps, and I can tell you that because the FPJQ, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, did some polls at the time. It was worse than it is now.
Senator Verner: Even in a society where everyone is trying to make the front page?
Mr. Saulnier: The front page does not mean anything anymore. If you are familiar with La Presse+, you will know that there is no front page anymore. It does not feature the news of the day, but rather a specific feature on psychiatric patients in the streets, for example. There is no front page in the digital era. The front page is something you choose to go and find through your subscriptions, your Facebook network, your Twitter account. It is based on your interests.
The negative effect of this on society, however, is the disappearance of the togetherness that traditional media created, when everyone would gather at the same time to watch a show. That has disappeared. Now, everything has shattered. This cohesion does not exist in society anymore and, from a philosophical and a democratic point of view, we need to look at this issue.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Saulnier, thank you for being here. You're a very informed, active witness; it's a pleasure to have you here. I have a couple of questions.
You mentioned the importance of stable funding for transition and adaptation to a digital platform, digital media. Let's for the sake of argument say that you were still the head of operations and you had to deal with the present level of funding. If this was your priority, to adapt to this new digital platform, where would you take the funding from in order to put it into this?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I have to say, it is not my ambition to become the director of information again or to hold another position at Radio-Canada. I am very happy where I am now. Radio-Canada needs young people, young people who were born in the digital age and who have tamed it. I think we need to entrust the future of Radio-Canada to them. What is unfortunate, as I explained earlier, is that these people are being cast aside because of budget cuts. Unfortunately, they are the first to suffer the consequences and, by that very fact, the expertise of these young people is gone from one day to the next. It is tragic.
Now, you asked me where I would cut.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Transfer.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: Yes, but I wouldn't want to find myself in a situation where I had to make a choice between news and dramatic series on Radio-Canada. I am among those who believe that typical Radio-Canada dramatic series are extremely useful in a cultural sense. Something about them brings people together, as we discussed earlier. This is still the case, as 2 million people watch "Unité 9'' or "19-2,'' flagship Radio-Canada television series.
When I was reporting from abroad in the 1980s, I went to Egypt with my colleague Gilles Gougeon to tour the first Gulf War against Iraq. When we wanted to contact Montreal, we had to rent a satellite for thousands of dollars, and we could use barely use half an hour. We had to conclude an agreement with a television broadcaster to use its offices. Digital technologies help us save a lot of money, in a way. Nowadays, I can use an iPhone to broadcast directly from Tahrir Square, in Cairo. This helps save money. People may say that the digitization requires significant investments in hardware for managing content in order to make it accessible on the radio, on television, and so on. There is a lot of work to be done when it comes to in-house production methods. This issue will clearly have to be addressed.
Digital technologies provide amazing opportunities, but if we want to invest in them, our competitors on the francophone market are not TVA or the V network. Our real competitor right now is the entire planet. Entities that could provide global competition are big names such as Le Monde and The New York Times. Radio-Canada can be another competitor, but they need money to structure, develop and support that digitization.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I have a second question. You said public broadcasting is necessary to safeguard democracy, but wouldn't public broadcasting for Canadian content creation achieve this? Broadcasting is already accessible, democratic, becoming more egalitarian with things like YouTube, so is it public funding for our public broadcasting corporation that is vital, or is it alternative funding resources for artists who aren't forced to produce profit in order to get financing that is vital? I'm wondering if you could respond to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I don't think handouts are given to creators or artists when a public broadcaster exists. I think it is crucial to have a public broadcaster — and I am not trying to disparage the work done by private broadcasters, as I have a great deal of respect for them. However, I know full well — having been a journalist for 30 years and also the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec — that certain topics will not be covered by private broadcasters, but they will be covered by the public broadcaster. The interests of Bell, Rogers, Québecor and Gesca shareholders may sometimes influence content. The TVA network had a news report on Québecor's venture into the telephone world. I think that caused some concern. I'm not sure that is the right way to do things. I am not undermining their work, but I know that shareholders have a real influence.
This is why it's important, even in this world of YouTube and similar services, to seek out content. Major public broadcasters, including BBC and CBC, are free to consider any issue independently in the content they produce. That is your guarantee to people who pay for access to CBC. You provide independent cultural content that is free from any commercial pressure by shareholders, and by union and management lobbies. You provide independent and free programming. Even in a series such as Radio-Canada's "Bye Bye,'' you can make fun of politicians. I am not sure the same thing can be done in the private sector. People such as Louis Morissette and Véronique Cloutier could not work with the Québecor group for 10 years because they had made fun of Mr. Péladeau. The ability, freedom and independence to talk about any issue must exist. However, only a public broadcaster can do that. Even with the digital revolution in full swing, having a multitude of other resources does not provide us with a guarantee. We need a consistent and independent source that is free to discuss any topic, be it related to current events, culture or sports, among others.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: You mentioned that public broadcasters are more likely to cover subjects that private broadcasters may not. Outside of poking fun at the Pierre Péladeaus of this world or other people in private business, can you give us something that is more specific, something more substantive that public broadcasters might cover that private broadcasters might not?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I can give you the example of a series such as Radio-Canada's "Enquête,'' which could discuss any topic independently. This is also mentioned in my book. As head of news, I authorized a report on the in-laws of the then President and CEO of Radio-Canada. I authorized this report because I felt that we did not have to protect certain individuals. All issues should be covered fairly. We can afford to cover all topics independently and freely. As head of news, I knew that I could authorize that kind of a report. However, I did tell my team to do their job properly, without misplacing a single comma. That is also freedom and independence.
[English]
Senator Greene: You mentioned in your presentation that we need a new Broadcasting Act and we need a new mandate, et cetera. It's quite possible I agree with that. What should be in that new Broadcasting Act that is not in the one we have now?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I would like to be able to respond to all aspects of this new legislation, but I think that would be really premature. I had an opportunity to meet with Marcel Masse, former minister who spearheaded the Broadcasting Act in 1991. The entire process was discussed for a long time. That act was created in 1991, when we started hearing about the Internet. Back then, in 1995, CBC did not even have continuous news networks. They did not foresee that the Web would become the realm to which everyone would flock. The world has evolved tremendously since I began my career as a journalist at Radio-Canada — and I will even go further back, to a time when I delivered the La Presse newspaper. You have to wonder what the digital era will look like in the coming years. The CRTC has already stated that this was not its concern, but that's not true.
This is a matter of Canada's national and democratic culture. We must care about the Internet and about the fact that those giants are monopolizing Web management and controlling what goes into the pipe. This issue has to be discussed, as do the matters of stable funding, royalties or other alternatives. The same goes for the method used for appointing the president and board members.
Regardless of whether we are talking about the digital world or the traditional media era, the national broadcaster needs to provide a space for francophones from across this country. It has to be able to fulfil that mandate. This cannot be avoided. This is what Radio-Canada is all about. I am humbly telling you that this requires a lot of thinking. Some of my university colleagues and I have been considering this. We will likely have some suggestions to make when it's time to examine this new legislation. I can tell you that we have already created a working committee that is looking into this matter.
[English]
Senator Greene: We would be interested in a lot more information about that. Wouldn't you agree that the most important thing is the ability of Canadians, who provide a billion dollars a year to the CBC, to access information and stories about themselves? Whether it's Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the West or the North, they're interested in knowing more about their own country and in learning about their history, and to talk about their future and to understand each other. That's the primary reason for the CBC, I think.
Isn't there another way you could deliver the same thing and maybe even better, which is that instead of providing the billion dollars to the CBC, you provide it to content providers, producers who make the stories, and then you mandate through content regulations, or what have you, that private networks carry those stories, so you wouldn't then need a CBC? I just wonder how you would react.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: The issue you are raising contains two aspects. Someone can be a francophone or an anglophone. I will not talk about the anglophone side, and I will focus mostly on the francophone side. Francophones need to know what is happening outside Quebec and Acadia. They need cohesiveness to understand how the culture is developing. At the same time, it would go against the interest of francophone development not to provide that segment of the population with a view of what is happening globally. To understand terrorism now, we need to know what is happening elsewhere. Whether we are francophone, anglophone, American, French or Australian, we want to know what is happening and what types of developments are taking place.
A public broadcaster — with its foreign correspondents and people capable of obtaining information around the world — will shed light on these situations and draw comparisons. It's true that $1 billion is a lot of money. That amount is used for both entities — the English and the French. It is used for radio, television and Radio-Nord, as well as the website. The investment in the Internet is significant because of our competition.
Seeing what Google's website says is enough. I don't remember the exact wording, but they say they want to provide universal access to information. They have no journalists, but they want to give people universal access to information. Doing a search on Google will give you a glimpse of its mission.
I am arguing that you must be able to compete with Google to provide a service. We have to have our own broadcaster that is capable of keeping up with real competition in the global marketplace. I am not making excuses for the Radio-Canada or the CBC management. That is not my point. We could talk about this for a long time, but not here.
This investment is worthwhile because it enables us, as francophones, to develop, understand what is happening in the world and, at least, not be deprived when events take place like those that happened here, in Parliament, or more recently in France.
The Chair: I have two short questions. You talked about your working group on the Broadcasting Act. Beyond the Broadcasting Act, could you think about a potential piece of legislation on CBC/Radio-Canada? You talked about the process for appointing the president and board members. Instead of thinking about the Broadcasting Act as if it applied to everyone, wouldn't enabling legislation for CBC/Radio-Canada be a way to help you reach your group's objectives?
Mr. Saulnier: I talk about both entities in my book. I go as far as to say that those two entities cannot be treated equally.
Given how different Radio-Canada's francophone market is from CBC's anglophone market, it is also important to have two autonomous entities. I am not saying that resources should not be shared. However, a certain level of independence must exist to help develop strategies that are tailored to the market in question. The approach is not the same for an interested and loyal francophone market, such as the one Radio-Canada has in traditional television and the one being built among francophone Internet users.
Yes, we are starting to think about these issues. I also covered this in my book. I really talked about two entities. I am not saying that they should be totally independent of one another. However, there should be a real boundary between the two to help both of them operate more independently.
The Chair: Without commenting on what has been happening at CBC over the past few weeks in terms of external revenues for on-air staff, did Radio-Canada have a policy for income on-air reporters could have when they give conferences to organizations on topics they are likely to cover in news reports?
Mr. Saulnier: There is a policy on the CBC journalistic standards and practices. Those practices are actually the same in French and in English. Any request for outside intervention or collaboration by reporters had to be addressed to me, for authorization, or to their immediate supervisor. Did reporters ever omit to talk to me about this? Perhaps. I would have to go back in time. However, I can tell you that this was the policy in place. I was rather happy to see that my successor, Michel Cormier, made public a policy, last week, that highlights this aspect even more.
As a manager, I had a philosophy that hosts, in general, are fairly well paid. That is also a representation that can be made. I told them that they did not have to accept a payment offered to them. I will not name any names, but people would sometimes take the payment and immediately donate it to a charity. We would also receive many books that would be discussed on a TV show. I thought that we could donate those books to a municipal library. That was my philosophy, and I am fairly satisfied with how things have changed with the new rules.
[English]
The Chair: I have Senator Plett, Senator Eggleton and Senator Housakos on my list. Senator Plett has a question he would like to raise at the end of the meeting, and I think Senator Housakos also has a question.
Senator Plett: I will try to shorten my preamble. I want to talk a little more about the funding. It seems we have spent a lot of time in these studies talking about funding, lack of funding, CBC needs more funding. I'm not going to talk about the $440 million or $414 million that was cut by one government versus what the other government cut, although I have now mentioned it for the record.
That really isn't the issue here. Both governments have cut. Our government, I believe, has cut and told CBC you have to live within your means like all other Crown corporations, and so you're taking a certain haircut here.
You mentioned Google. You mentioned different digital devices. I have a BlackBerry here. The first cellular phone that I had was something called the "Brick,'' and I think I paid $1,500 for it. Computers were this big, and we paid thousands of dollars for them. Now we have this instead of a computer, and I'm not sure what that costs.
We were in Toronto and visited CBC. We visited their 10-storey building. I asked the person who was giving us the tour, "If you were to build that building today with the same needs you had back then, how big would that building be?'' He said, "Five storeys.''
We were in Halifax and they showed us a production studio. It cost $600,000, I believe, to set up. It's in the records, but I think that's what it was. They cut, I think, three staff to run the production studio, so clearly in a couple of years they would have made up that $600,000.
Things are less costly in this environment. The private sector is cutting back. They are cutting back on the number of reporters they send out. They send a cameraman who is also the reporter.
Given all of this, and with the government saying you're supposed to live within your means and we're cutting the same amount, I want you to tell me how you justify — and maybe you're not saying that. I gather you're saying the CBC needs to get more funding — and maybe you're just saying stable funding — when everything is actually coming down in cost. Could you answer that please?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I mostly want to point out that no planning can be done without stable funding provided over at least four or five years. I recall that, during a certain period — and this is covered in my book — the funding was almost spread out over a five-year period. I was not part of the organization at that time, but I know that a decision was made to have one-year funding. So the CBC had to ask the Canadian heritage minister for funding in anticipation of the digital transformation. I just wanted to emphasize this point. I am not saying CBC's budget should be increased by $250 million. It would be irresponsible of me to say something like that.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: The digital transformation requires planning and steady funding over at least five years. I also think that things were taken too far when it comes to CBC's current funding. At least a portion of the costs generated by the digitization should be absorbed. However, we are not equipped for that. The newspaper La Presse spent $40 million or $45 million on the implementation of iPad streaming. We are just talking about a newspaper here. The digital transformation involves significant costs.
[English]
Senator Plett: As Radio-Canada's director general for news information, how did you decide which reports would be featured? Were your editorial meetings subject to political interference and do you believe that they are subject to political interference today?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: No, there was no political interference. At some point during my time at Radio-Canada, I authorized a report on Guy Gendron concerning oil sands. The Prime Minister's Office submitted a complaint over that report. We dealt with the complaint by demonstrating that we did our job properly. No one calls Alain Saulnier or Michel Cormier to forbid them from making a report on any given topic. That's not happening. It's an exaggeration. What role is the head of news supposed to play? He is supposed to provide guidance. I want to focus on two things — journalistic investigations, as that is where journalists' future is, and international news, since that information would not exist without Radio-Canada. The firm Influence Communication said that Radio-Canada and La Presse alone accounted for 80 per cent or 85 per cent of international news. If Radio-Canada was to stop covering international news, there would be nothing left. This is the kind of leadership we look to provide. Of course, I have to withstand pressure. I have met people who asked me for things. I stayed away from that type of pressure as much as I could. Phone calls were always screened. I had a vice-president who was thoughtful enough to block out that kind of pressure. That is why Radio-Canada exists. The corporation's strength comes from not succumbing to those pressures and always staying the course.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I'm going to surprise Senator Plett and tell him I agree that the CBC needs to live within its means. The question is what are reasonable means? Regardless of size of cuts, it's this piling on that I think has gotten out of hand.
Let me move back to Internet service providers, including what are called the over-the-top television, OTT, providers of program content. The CRTC has shied away from regulation in this area. Do you think that needs to be revisited?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I honestly never understood why the CRTC made that decision. Maybe they are gurus or visionaries. Maybe there aren't enough of them or there are too many. Everyone saw the digital transformation coming, but never as strongly as now.
I think the CRTC made a mistake not to support this transformation. It's almost as if the commission said it was pulling out and that we could do whatever we wanted. That is what the Web giants are doing — whatever they want. As part of a new approach or plan, it is time for us, as a country, state, society and culture to establish guidelines and determine our priorities. Do we want broadcasters that are going to promote our culture? Do we want news that comes only from U.S. networks, or at least from French networks for francophones? That's not what we want. To ensure the promotion of our culture, we must go through the digital transformation. Less than five years ago, La Presse only had a print edition. Today, the newspaper is announcing that its print edition may cease to exist within two years. The newspaper is making television. They have a television studio at La Presse. Radio-Canada also publishes texts on the Web. The broadcaster is increasingly involved in what I call totally fragmented production with video, audio, and so on.
Every traditional media outlet is on a level playing field and playing the same game — the digital transformation. The situation has changed completely, and the CRTC has missed the boat.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I think you're right. That does need reviewing. Perhaps they didn't foresee the kinds of things you're talking about and that we understand today in the digital world.
One final question, and this deals with appointment to the board of the CBC, which I think, quite properly, you say should go through some vetting exercise, something a little different than what it has been. I'm not talking about people contributing to political parties. It's a matter of getting the right expertise on the board.
Let me ask you about the position of the President of the CBC, because some people think that you put the right people on the board, as you suggested, and they in turn should pick the president, pick somebody who has some extraordinary expertise as opposed to somebody that is a political appointment. Do you have any thoughts about that?
[Translation]
Mr. Saulnier: I won't venture into that. However, if the appointment process is transparent and criteria are established, I don't want to end up in a situation where the criteria are not set out somewhere. I would like to know on what grounds a particular individual was selected. I am not saying the person might not be the right one, but, simply put, it's normal to know why that individual was chosen. They may be of a Conservative or a Liberal persuasion, but that doesn't matter. However, if the criteria specify that qualifications, and familiarity with telecommunications and the digital world are determining factors, we would have a true criterion that would help us face the future. This way, regardless of which political party wins the next election, we would know that the criterion has been established and is a deciding factor in appointing an applicant who is to sit on the board of directors, as is the case for CBC/Radio-Canada's CEO. It's my pleasure to add that we should turn toward youth.
Senator Housakos: Mr. Saulnier, I have a question you may be able to answer. Or course, after 25 years at the head of Radio-Canada's news service, if anyone knows how things work, it's probably you. The President, Hubert Lacroix has been saying for months that a national debate needs to be held on CBC/Radio-Canada's future. He even said that the corporation is currently going through a crisis. Our committee has been working for over a year, and that is exactly what we have been doing. In our capacity as a parliamentary committee, we are holding a national debate on CBC/ Radio-Canada's future. We intend to publish a comprehensive report along with recommendations to Parliament on CBC/Radio-Canada's future. Can you explain why administrative leaders have said several times that we need a national debate, a public consultation across the country on the public broadcaster's future? Our committee has been working on the many challenges related to CBC/Radio-Canada's future for over a year and a half. It's difficult for us to obtain basic information from Hubert Lacroix and the administration.
Our committee has also not received any coverage from Radio-Canada or the CBC. Why has there been no coverage of our parliamentary committee, which has been involved in a national discussion for a year and a half? Have the CBC/Radio-Canada people not found our work to be interesting? This is my last question. It is fairly interesting.
The Chair: You have an opportunity to wrap things up at the same time. I see you smiling.
Mr. Saulnier: I am smiling because everyone wants everything to receive coverage. To be perfectly honest, and with all the respect I have for the work you do — I can see that you have done your homework, as you have prepared your questions very well — the public knows little about the work you do. People are wondering why the Senate is taking an interest in CBC. Isn't the CBC the concern of the Department of Canadian Heritage?
Senator Housakos: It is the parliamentary committee.
Mr. Saulnier: You know that. But does the entire Canadian public know it?
Senator Housakos: We need our public broadcasters to help us more than ever. That's what is important.
Mr. Saulnier: With all due respect, Senator Housakos, the public broadcaster does not provide coverage of the debates held in the House of Commons or the Senate. Perhaps you should inform the public on the work you do. At the same time, I am not trying to explain or excuse anything. Almost all parliamentarians feel that the public service does not provide sufficient coverage of their work or that they are not criticized appropriately. The Liberals criticized the way CBC/Radio-Canada was doing its work. Journalists were accused of being sovereignists. CBC people were accused of leftism. That is part of the world we work in, and we can gauge and balance all this out a bit. I do think that perhaps you need to explain this to us further. That is not a role CBC is supposed to play.
In closing, Mr. Chair, all I can wish for is that the work you are doing may help us take this discussion further. To my mind, there are some key issues here. I think stable funding is crucial because the digital transformation needs to be planned out. Clarifications need to be made when it comes to the appointment process for CBC's president and board of directors. People are currently wondering about this. When you look at the contributions to the Conservative Party, people may think they are perhaps immune to pressure, but the perception is not always the best in those circumstances. The Broadcasting Act should also be reviewed, perhaps by clarifying it and making it more specific, so as to limit its broadness. There is definitely a need to take a closer look at Radio-Canada and CBC. My opinion is that solid guidelines are needed now, in the digital era, more than ever. I say this with all due respect and humility, but it is the public broadcaster's role to provide us with those guidelines. There may be much criticism to be made, and I agree with that, but this is essential for our country's culture, democracy and its francophones. This is an urgent need. That concludes my remarks.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saulnier. Since we will not necessarily be covered by CBC, I want to repeat to those who are watching us on the Internet and CPAC that our proceedings are always broadcast. I normally post tweets on the witnesses who are scheduled to appear before our committee, but I forgot to do so this evening. I think it is important to increase our coverage, and we encourage you to follow us on the Internet over the next few weeks, as we are getting closer to presenting the report.
Thank you for your contribution. You will be able to sell a few books by the end of the evening. You call that a plug in your profession. On that note, I will ask you to leave, so that we can continue in camera.
[English]
We will go in camera because two senators want to bring up subjects. It will be a short meeting. Except for the staff, I would like all of our honourable visitors to please leave the meeting room.
(The committee continued in camera.)