Colleagues, I rise today to participate in Senator Cardozo’s inquiry on the future of CBC/Radio-Canada.

In May, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pascale St-Onge, announced the creation of a new advisory committee on the future of the public broadcaster. The committee will discuss questions dealing with funding, governance and mandate.

However, CBC/Radio-Canada has a very simple three-point mission in the existing legislation: to inform, enlighten and entertain. That is an eminently logical mission for a public radio or television broadcaster, and I don’t see how it could be changed.

Today, I’m only going to talk about Radio-Canada, where I myself spent three decades working as a journalist, eventually taking on the role of ombudsman and publicly addressing complaints about journalists submitted by members of the public. As such, I firmly believe in the need for a transparent, accountable public broadcaster that serves the public.

Radio-Canada is an essential media outlet because it is a vector for francophone culture. A significant proportion of Quebecers still watch or listen to the public broadcaster, although young people don’t tune in as much. Radio-Canada has 23.3% of the prime time market, compared to 26.8% for TVA, its main rival, but TV news audiences are declining, which is also the case for other traditional media.

First, I have to say that I was very disappointed with how slowly Radio-Canada and its all-news channel, RDI, reacted to the assassination attempt on the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, on July 13. Since I couldn’t find any news in French, I turned to American networks like NBC and ABC, which were obviously broadcasting long live specials. Given that it has a larger budget than any of its private competitors, Radio-Canada needs to have sharper, faster reflexes when unexpected events happen.

When it was first created in 1995, RDI was broadcasting live news bulletins 24 hours a day. Even in the middle of the night, journalists, news anchors and hosts were talking about the news of the hour.

Needless to say, those days are long gone, and it’s not for lack of resources. The July 13 attack took place in the early evening, at a time when news coverage should have been available almost immediately. Instead, we got to watch an excellent special feature 24 hours later.

In my opinion, this anecdotal situation reflects a sad reality, which is that for the past 20 years or so, Radio-Canada has been focusing almost all of its efforts and investments on entertainment rather than on news.

Every year, or rather every season, Radio-Canada introduces new dramas, sitcoms and variety shows. However, it is worth noting that the Radio-Canada TV station has not created any new public affairs programs since the investigative program Enquête premiered 18 years ago in 2006.

On January 30, while being questioned by members of Parliament about the anticipated $125 million in cuts and the elimination of 800 positions shared equally between Radio-Canada and CBC, Radio-Canada vice-president Dany Meloul made that painfully clear when she stated: “We chose to make fewer cuts in independent production.”

At Radio-Canada, independent production always falls under the entertainment umbrella: drama, comedy and variety. The only TV programming still being produced in-house at Radio-Canada is news. In other words, Ms. Meloul and her management team have chosen to primarily cut news programming and protect entertainment.

Yet with all the conflicts and crises raging around the world, we could really use a weekly international news program or a show on social issues like immigration, domestic violence or the harms of social media for young people. Speaking of young adults, why not create a program by and for young people about the environment and the future of the planet they will be living on?

To enlighten us, why not create shows that are less superficial, featuring experts, academics, and big names from the world of business or politics who could encourage us to take a closer look at the world around us? The only major public television program is Tout le monde en parle, an entertainment program.

In short, the mission of Radio-Canada has to remain the same, but that’s not enough. We also need to make sure Radio-Canada’s management develops programming in keeping with that mission. Obviously, programs that educate or enlighten may get lower ratings than entertainment programs, but Radio-Canada’s mission is not to chase ratings. By focusing less on entertainment, Radio-Canada would give private networks more room to breathe and a larger share of advertising revenues, which they are calling for. In my opinion, it would work to everyone’s advantage, since advertising revenues account for a very small portion of Radio-Canada’s revenues anyway. A little while ago, the head of a French-language newspaper in Manitoba told me how much of the meagre advertising revenues in the region were being siphoned off by Radio-Canada’s regional website.

Worse yet, our news businesses have been in financial free fall for years. Since Radio-Canada is guaranteed taxpayer funding, not only does it have nothing to complain about, but it should also be more generous to others. For example, Radio-Canada is the only French-language channel with its own network of foreign correspondents. Those foreign posts are paid for by every Canadian taxpayer, not just those who watch Radio-Canada. Why shouldn’t reports from correspondents in Paris, Istanbul or Asia be offered to the private networks for free? They wouldn’t be required to broadcast them, of course, but why deny their viewers a Canadian perspective on what’s happening around the world?

Radio-Canada now even has journalists just to write content for its website. This is quite remarkable for an institution that should, according to its own mandate, be devoted solely to radio and television. Of course, Radio-Canada should put any radio or TV content it wishes to broadcast on its site, but Radio-Canada now has large teams of editors and even reporters just to write for the site, in direct competition with our struggling newspapers. Why not offer these articles free of charge to French-language newspapers? Once again, this material was paid for by every Canadian taxpayer, so why shouldn’t they have the right to read those articles in their daily or regional newspapers?

I would also like to point out the vital importance, in my view, of preserving and even increasing the ability of Radio-Canada, the French-language network, to act and make decisions independently of the CBC, in a context where centralization is perceived as a way of saving money and protecting the public network from budget cuts. Having worked at that institution for more than 25 years, I’ve seen that Radio-Canada and CBC have very different ways of doing things, and the success of the French network depends on that.

To sum up, I want to emphasize two things. First, Radio-Canada’s mission has to remain the same, but its executives have to respect that mission and offer programming that reflects it. Second, I want Radio-Canada to keep getting the resources it needs to fulfill its mission, but since its content is funded by all Canadians, Radio-Canada should offer to share that content with privately owned newspapers and radio and TV stations, because in this day and age, in the world we live in, Canadians have never been in greater need of information and enlightenment. Thank you.

Will the senator take a question?

Of course, senator.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, thank you for your very interesting speech. Can you elaborate on your idea about sharing content with other broadcasters or newspapers?

Well, I’ve been talking about it for the past few minutes, but the thing is, all taxpayers fund CBC/Radio-Canada’s content. Naturally, since the CBC and Radio-Canada are competing with other privately owned media outlets, they keep everything they produce for themselves. I’m thinking of international news in particular, since it’s the most costly TV content to produce. It’s extremely expensive.

In Quebec, for example, we have three television networks. Why couldn’t this news content be offered to the other media outlets? The goal is to deliver the news to Quebecers and Canadians. In this case, international news is funded almost entirely by taxpayers because there’s no advertising. International news isn’t a money-maker.

People want new ideas. This is a new idea. Why not share? Maybe TVA wouldn’t want to open its newscast with a report from Radio-Canada, maybe that wouldn’t be possible, but smaller regional stations might be interested.

I’m in favour of sharing. I worked at Radio-Canada. We have far more funds than anyone else. The idea is to share. The same applies to written web content. I’m not making up anything new. Newspapers are complaining about unfair competition from Radio-Canada, whose original mandate was radio and television.

It’s true that things have changed, but there are people writing articles. There are journalists producing news that does not necessarily get broadcast on radio or TV.

In this case, given the number of regional newspapers in Canada that are struggling, I think sharing would be an act of generosity on Radio-Canada’s part. It should be even more generous considering the huge gap between its resources and the resources available to all the other print, TV and radio media.

I would like to ask a question in French, but it will take a bit longer. When I was a young producer at CBC in Edmonton, I got to know my colleagues who worked for Radio-Canada. It was really difficult for them, because there were no resources for small stations in Edmonton like there were in Montreal.

Could you tell me how you think Radio-Canada should share resources? There are a lot of resources for Quebec, but it’s absolutely vital for small communities like Edmonton, Bathurst or St. Boniface to have something in French as well.

I will give a short answer because there are other questions. Personally, I am in favour of Radio-Canada being more generous toward francophones living outside Quebec.

It’s true that a lot more money in Quebec is devoted to international news. Obviously, there’s the matter of the percentage of francophone populations, and there are more listeners and more people in Quebec, but, in keeping with Radio-Canada’s specific mandate, it is very important to serve the public and hire francophones who come from these regions. I have said that many times. It’s important to have French, but especially the French that’s spoken in Manitoba, Alberta and Acadia.

Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, your speaking time is up. Would senators agree to give the senator two more minutes so that she can answer the question?

Leave is granted.

Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, I think that the fact that Radio-Canada is also tapping into the dwindling pool of advertising revenue makes it harder for privately owned media outlets to compete. That is wreaking havoc on Quebec television, particularly in the private sector. I think that Radio-Canada should forgo advertising, but that would require compensation from the government. It is clear that broadcasters are finding it very hard to compete with Radio-Canada, which is already subsidized.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, I listened with interest to your speech. There is no doubt that you support Radio-Canada and its importance for the francophone community in Canada. I completely agree with you, but you didn’t talk much about CBC, the English network. You left that out.

In my opinion, the best way to assess how important a media platform is and what its abilities are is to look at the ratings. Radio-Canada has very high ratings, while CBC’s ratings are shameful. They have been dropping for years. At the same time, the English network is the one getting the bulk of the budget and tax dollars. It makes more sense to put more money into a platform like Radio-Canada, which obviously meets a need. We need to limit the tax dollars that are going to the English network, which is becoming less and less useful for Canadians.

Thanks for the question, which I am certain is not meant to trip me up. I focused on Radio-Canada because that’s the side I know best. What you say about CBC is true: Its ratings aren’t as high as Radio-Canada’s. That said, that is not the only aspect worth looking at. Canadian culture must also be considered. English-speaking Canadians can’t rely solely on the American media for information, because they do so at the expense of Canadian media. I find that hard to imagine.

I know this has been talked about on the Conservative side, but I also find it a little hard to imagine a country abolishing CBC and keeping Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada serves francophones and CBC serves anglophones. I am totally opposed to your proposal. I don’t think you can measure the importance of an institution by ratings alone.

What other ways are there to measure it? There’s obviously a Canadian culture that shows up all the time on every platform out there. There are a lot of English-language options, and Canada’s anglophone community is less and less likely to watch shows on CBC, which costs taxpayers $1.4 billion.

On the other hand, we have Radio-Canada. I’m sorry, but I see them as two very distinct entities, one that serves the francophone community and the other that serves anglophone communities. Anglophone communities want nothing to do with CBC, and francophone communities across Canada are increasingly embracing this product. I think it makes perfect sense to eliminate one and leave taxpayers the other, because that’s what they want.

Do you really think Canadians would be okay with Radio-Canada, which serves the francophone minority, continuing to exist and getting full funding while the government shuts down CBC? I can’t even picture that. In this country, we have two official languages, and both are supposed to be served. We’ll see what happens, but I have to say I’m strongly opposed to that idea.