Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the 56th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

I must say we're very pleased to have our witnesses here this morning. The agenda has our witnesses split this morning, but what we're going to do is have both presentations, and then I think we can ask questions of either group. That might give us a little more time, because we have only 45 minutes for each. This way we'll have an hour and a half to ask those questions.

I welcome this morning, from the Centre d'études sur les médias, Florian Sauvageau. We also have Renaud Gilbert, former ombudsman, French services, Radio-Canada.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Sauvageau first, please.

[Florian Sauvageau, Director, Centre d'études sur les médias]

Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman.

I will be making my presentation in French.

I'll be happy to answer questions in English if you wish.

It is quite a challenge that you face, to define the role of a public broadcaster in the 21^st century, in the world that is completely different from the one we have known until now, and above all, in a world in which the public broadcaster was not designed. It was designed for a period that did not have the wealth of choices that we are experiencing now.

That image is a good illustration for the theme I wish to develop. I was told that I should be brief, and that you prefer to ask questions rather than listen to a long speech. In fact, that is more or less what the world is becoming, for professors as well as for journalists. Formal lectures are being replaced by seminars because students do not like long speeches anymore. I am not implying that you are students, but I think that that image defines clearly what the public broadcaster should be now, in my opinion. It is the blue fish in an aquarium of red fish. The title of this book—I have the English version but it exists in French as well—is Making a Difference: The Blue Fish Among the Red Ones.

This is what the public broadcaster should be in the 21st century--the blue fish, the different broadcaster.

Why? Because a great many of the missions that the public broadcaster had in the 21^st century, of the roles it was trying to play in the last century, are now fulfilled by specialized broadcasters, sometimes public, sometimes private. In this way, some of the general ideas that we have about the public broadcaster... Furthermore, it remains part of the legislation. I am not saying that we need to change the act. However, when the latter says, for example, that the public broadcaster should contribute to shared national consciousness and identity, the principle is no doubt still valid.

And yet, when a network has only a 5 or 6% audience share, as is the case for the English network of the CBC, it is difficult for it to share this national consciousness; it is difficult for it to be what certain researchers call the “social link”; it is difficult for it to build a nation. We have long said that the CBC should be the nation builder. But 5% of the audience—I am speaking mainly about television today—does not add up to a lot of viewers to build a national consciousness.

In the 21^st century, we must see the public broadcaster within the context of fragmentation. We conceived of our public broadcaster in the same way as we conceived of our broadcasting system during an era when we talked about broadcasting. I use the English terms, because in this case, the English says much more clearly what it is I am trying to say. Broad means big. We spoke of broadcasting and we continue to do so. But now, we live in a world that is one of narrowcasting. Narrow as opposed to broad.

All of this unfolded over a long, 20-year period. In 1985-1986, when my colleague Jerry Caplan and I wrote the report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, the Groupe de travail sur la politique de la radiodiffusion, specialized channels were just coming into being. It was the beginning of this fragmentation. At the time, there were a few specialized channels, including several in English. It was also the beginnings of French-language specialized channels. Now, there is an infinite number of channels.

It is very clear that we can no longer conceive of the television role of the CBC and Radio-Canada in the same way we did 20 years ago. It is not possible. In the same way that the main stream private networks have financial problems because they survive on advertizing—on a commercial basis—because of fragmentation. The public broadcaster is also experiencing problems and must review its role in the current context, and much more, as this fragmentation will continue to increase because of the Internet and other new media.

We must therefore see the public broadcaster within the general context of this fragmentation. That does not mean—I particularly do not wish to be misunderstood—that the public broadcaster is no longer important. The public broadcaster is just as important as in the past, but in my opinion, the main principle that should now be guiding its activities... The public broadcaster was founded, was built up over the years on a certain number of principles: universality, that is to say servicing all the regions and all social groups, etc., diversity and independence. During the 1990s, a new principle developed: that of particularity, of specificity. This is what we must bank on for the future of the public broadcasting. Radio is playing this role very well.

What does specificity mean, concretely? When a viewer turns on his television and he is on the public broadcaster's channel, he must realize right away, very quickly, that he is on the public broadcaster's network. This is not always the case. Sometimes it is, but that is far from always being the case for television; for radio, on the other hand, this is always true.

When you turn on your radio and Radio-Canada is on the dial, you know immediately that you are not on a private channel. There is a difference. That is Making a difference. There is a specificity there. Public television must manage to do the same thing that has been done on the radio, that is to allow us to distinguish it from the private sector. We can come back to this issue, if you would like to speak about it in more depth during the question period.

What is the main reason for our being able to tell right away, to recognize the radio service as distinct whereas this is not the case for television? It is the absence of advertising on the radio. On television, it is the advertising that makes the difference. The more advertising there is, the less we recognize the distinctive character of public television. I am fully aware that the economics of television are not the same as the economics of radio. The distinction must be made. Perhaps we do need some advertising to finance television. However, the more advertising plays a part in the overall financing of television, the less we will be able to see the distinctiveness of public television.

I do not want to delve into the subject of programming, because I do not believe it is the role of analysts of public television to take themselves for television programmers. Therefore, I do not want to begin to discuss which programs correspond to what public television should be and which do not. I will however give you two or three examples of programs.

Another thing I would like to emphasize is that I would really not want to leave you with the impression that public television should be an elitist television. That's not the intention of distinctive television. Distinctive television must speak to the general public, because all taxpayers pay for this television. Therefore, there must be something in it for everyone. All kinds of programming must be present on public television: variety shows as much as current affairs, dramas as much as sports. On the other hand, what is important, is that each genre should be treated differently when it is on public television. We should not create variety programs in the same way on public television as is done on private television. Sports coverage should not be done in the same way on public television as it is on private television. Indeed, it is interesting to note that there is a difference. On the French network, since sports coverage of, say hockey for example, moved over to the Réseau des sports—Réseau des sports is the equivalent of the Sports Network—the way in which hockey games are covered is not the same as when the Canadiens matches were broadcast by Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster.

Nor is it true that when the public broadcaster does more difficult things, it does not attract viewers. Currently, there is an example in terms of information. There is a science show called Découverte which is always broadcast on Sundays at 6:30 p.m., and it is currently attracting many viewers because it is presenting excellent BBC programs in a French version.

The legislation and the spirit of the Canadian television system emphasizes canadianization before and above all else. We must not vilify foreign programs. There are foreign-made programs that can be of the highest quality. There are even American shows that can be of a very high quality. The BBC program that is reviewed by the Découverte team has drawn, I am told, up to one million viewers over the month of April. This is a dry program, a difficult program.

I will give you another example. It will be the last, because I am far from being the programmer. There is a program called L'épicerie, and it is the perfect illustration of what I am trying to explain: doing things differently. There are food shows on all the networks. On the private networks, what are the food shows? They are interesting, but they are cooking shows.

So on the difference between what we see on the French television regarding food, this is an explanation. This is real journalism about food, whereas we don't see anything like that on the private networks. On the private networks we see programs on cooking, and I feel this is a very good example of what I'm saying. In public television there should be all sorts of programming, but it should be different from the private sector. Journalism about food is different from making a program about cooking. This is the same area, but the journalistic treatment on public television makes the difference.

According to the data, L'épicerie has had an audience of over 700,000 people over the month of March, at 7:30 on Wednesday evenings.

This is not 3 million or 2 million people. We do not get 3 million people anymore. That era of 3 million people watching the same show is over. French-language television, which is exceptional, sometimes has an audience of 2 million people. Seven hundred thousand people is not 2 million, but for an information show like this, which is doing excellent work on a very specific subject, that is very, very good.

What does public television do differently? International news.

This morning in the Ottawa Citizen there is an article on the editorial page comparing Justin Trudeau and René Mailhot. René Mailhot died over the weekend. He had been doing foreign affairs for the French network, both radio and television, for I think 30 years.

René Mailhot explained foreign affairs very simply. He made things understandable to the audience. This is precisely another example of what public television should do and what does not exist on private radio or television. No one on private radio would spend 10 minutes explaining the geography of an international problem. That is the role of public television.

The public broadcasters must be present, as they are in fact, and CBC and Radio-Canada are doing good work on the Internet. In the current context and given the rise of the Internet, some analysts would like to do away with the traditional network, and see the public broadcaster become an agency that produces or has programs or other content produced that would be broadcast on various platforms, choosing the best platform in light of the program or the content. There would therefore no longer be a network. Programs would be produced by the public broadcaster and broadcast here and there, largely on the Internet.

It is an interesting idea, but I believe it is only a medium-term solution. The risk that not only the public broadcaster but the media in general are running today is that they prepare for the long term while forgetting about the short term, forgetting about tomorrow morning.

Traditional media like newspapers are in decline, and the Internet is rising, albeit slowly. There is never a revolution in the media world. History has shown that there is no revolution, but a slow evolution. The danger is to be getting ready for the long term by going forward only with solutions like those that I have suggested, that is to say abandoning the networks and producing programs that would be distributed across the country, and forgetting about the short term. Television is still a powerful medium.

In conclusion, I will read you the last three sentences of the short text that I sent you:

We must be careful, it is wrongheaded to prepare for the long-term future while ignoring the immediate future. Television is still a powerful medium. The vast majority of people still watch television for their information and entertainment needs. Announcing its imminent decline is premature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Gilbert.

[Renaud Gilbert, former Ombudsman, French Services, Radio-Canada, As an Individual]

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for hearing me within the context of its investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21^stcentury. I consider it a privilege.

I will start with a few words, because I am not as well known as my illustrious friend, to tell you that I am originally from Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, Maxime Bernier's riding. I worked at Radio-Canada for 30 years, first of all as a reporter, but mainly as a manager. Before assuming the position of ombudsman, I contributed to the development of the Réseau de l'information project. Between 1995 and 2000, I headed the Réseau de l'information.

There are a thousand and one ways of addressing the issue which is the subject of your deliberations. Some may say it is an inexhaustible subject. One way of looking at the issue is to examine the needs of Canadians when it comes to having a public broadcaster. In my opinion, the need for quality information will remain in the 21^st century.

I'd like to address a more specific issue, the role an ombudsman may play in terms of quality information. I will do so in two parts. I will first briefly describe the position of Radio-Canada's ombudsman, and then I will explain how the Broadcasting Act may support this role.

The role of the Office of the Ombudsman, created in 1992, is two-fold. Namely: to help maintain the high quality of CBC/Radio-Canada journalism; and to give the public the opportunity to refer complaints to an impartial and independent authority.

What exactly does the ombudsman do? The ombudsman determines whether the journalistic process or the broadcast involved in a complaint, relating to the radio, television or the Internet, does in fact violate the corporation's journalistic policies.

The corporation's journalistic policies is known as the Journalistic Standards and Practices. It is a small booklet I have here with me. In fact, it is a series of rules, like a code of ethics, which are provided for Radio-Canada's newscasters, and upon which Radio-Canada agrees to be assessed. If you would like to challenge or analyze Radio-Canada news, you can use this guide, which is based on three main principles: accuracy, integrity and fairness. You can assess the news on Radio-Canada. Generally speaking, Radio-Canada should agree to hear your suggestions and comments.

The ombudsman assesses your complaint in terms of this journalistic policy. It is up to management to address complaints when they first arise. The Office of the Ombudsman intervenes only when a complainant is not satisfied with the response from management. It is an appeal authority. What then happens? The ombudsman determines whether or not the complaint is well founded, in full or in part. The authority of the ombudsman is a moral authority, a power of influence, the power to make recommendations. The ombudsman may recommend a change to a journalistic policy and may also recommend an on-air follow-up or, in other words, some corrective action, if he believes that the journalistic conduct or the information that was broadcast violated journalistic policy.

Every year, the ombudsman submits an annual report to the board of directors. This report is available on the Radio-Canada website. The president and CEO advise board members as to the type of follow-up that will be made to the ombudsman's recommendations or what type of follow-up was made during the previous year.

In my seven years as ombudsman, I made approximately 30 recommendations, and most led to the outcome I had hoped for. For statistical purposes, each year, the office handles 1,500 complaints, or communications from the public. Of the complaints pertaining to information programs, more than half involve the principle of fairness.

How can the Broadcasting Act support the role of the ombudsman? First off, the legislation could specify that Radio-Canada may create the position of ombudsman. I do not think it would be advisable to say "must create", because Radio-Canada is a media outlet. The freedom of the press exists, so does that of Radio-Canada. I do not think it would be wise to have a coercive approach, but the fact of setting out in legislation that Radio-Canada may create such a position is obviously an incentive.

Second, and more importantly, are the conditions under which this role was exercised. On the one hand, legislation could grant the ombudsman immunity. What do I mean by immunity? Essentially, immunity would allow for the free and full expression of the ombudsman's opinion on the cases submitted to the office and would prevent the threat of a lawsuit being held over the ombudsman's head like a sword of Damocles. If you read the Official Languages Act or the Access to Information Act you will note that commissioners are granted immunity in the performance of their duties.

A second important condition concerns the application of the Access to Information Act. As you know, CBC/Radio-Canada will be subject to the Access to Information Act as of September 1^st. Some information is explicitly excluded from the application of this Act, such as information relating to journalistic activities, creation or programming, with the exception of information relating to the administration of these activities.

So there are three pillars to the performance of the ombudsman's duties, impartiality, independence and confidentiality. Ombudsman's offices are not courts and do not have the power to compel testimony. There is no Crown prosecutor nor counsel. It is not an adversary process. The ombudsman must gain the trust of those with whom he works. To gain this trust, confidentiality is an important factor.

When you meet with people, if they know the information they share with you may become public at some point because people will file access to information requests, then all of the documentation which the ombudsman has, transcripts, notices, etc., all of this could call the ombudsman's role into question, in a worst case scenario.

Given the fact that the ombudsman's activities are a direct extension of journalistic duties at Radio-Canada, one could logically infer that the ombudsman's activities are excluded from the application of the Access to Information Act, but it would be wiser to have that stated in legislation. It would avoid the courts being asked to make that decision, sooner or later.

I will stop here; I would like simply to close by saying that I continue to believe that Radio-Canada, as the public broadcaster can play a significant role in enhancing democratic principles in the news and information sector by helping people understand the world around them, by helping citizens understand one another and live in society.

I am now prepared to answer your questions.

I'll try to answer some in English if I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for those presentations.

We'll move to Ms. Keeper to ask the first questions.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both gentlemen for your presentations. They were very informative.

Mr. Sauvageau, you made a really interesting statement. You said we're not broadcasting any more, we're narrow-casting. You talked about audience fragmentation. That is part of the reason for this review, and it's certainly the challenge we face with all the stations, and now with the new platforms.

On the public broadcaster, you said that the viewer must recognize instantly where they are, and you made a comment that there must be no advertising. You said you didn't want to talk too much about appropriate programming for a public broadcaster. But when you continued that conversation you talked about the type of quality programming. You referred to the journalistic style of reporting on a food show, or an excellent foreign project being shown.

Do you have any sense of what would be required of a public broadcaster in this new age of narrow-casting? Could you elaborate on that a bit?

[Florian Sauvageau]

Do you mean a broadcaster like CBC?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Yes, I'm talking about a public broadcaster in this narrow-casting day and age.

[Florian Sauvageau]

If you look at the BBC, in a sense it is a model because there is no advertising. But I didn't say there shouldn't be any advertising at all.

Everybody in Canada has something to say about the CBC and Radio-Canada, so other people might be as competent as I am on those matters, but making cuts in the eighties and nineties instead of trying to manage with less money was the wrong decision by the CBC.

I will continue in French because this is a very sensitive issue. I would not want to translate my own comments and do a bad job of it. I trust the interpreters to accurately do that.

At the time, CBC/Radio-Canada had a decision to make: work with a smaller budget or increase advertising to maintain a similar budget. In the 1980s, advertising's share in the total budget grew. I believe 20% is not enough to have an effect on programming. However, when 30%, 35% or 40% of the budget depends on advertising, things change. The greater the share of advertising revenue, the greater the spirit of competition. You want to draw viewers in, who in turn draw advertisers in, and public television increasingly starts resembling private television.

Since 1991 it has been clearly stated in legislation that the issues and solutions are not the same for English-language television and French-language television. CBC's ratings are so low that some may feel, at some point, that it is a marginal network.

I sent you a document, but I do not know if you have it. In fact, I sent two versions of this text, because the first version was incomplete. Second version which includes a quote, is better.

I will quote from two European authors, who say the following:

If public service broadcasting tries to compete more directly with its commercial rivals, it risks losing its niche. That is the problem with the French network.

Radio-Canada television is directly competing with private television. In may cases, TVA and Radio-Canada are identical when it comes to news. My apologies to the ombudsman. That is the problem with the French network. What I will now read describes the situation on the English side:

If it fails to go for a broader audience it risks losing its relevance to the general public.

The problems are not the same on the English and the French sides. CBC's share fluctuates around 5%. Radio-Canada's share remains at 13% or 14%. I believe the French network is nostalgic about the days when its viewership stood at 20% or 25%. It misses those days, which will never come again. This nostalgia, compounded by competition with private broadcasters for advertising revenue, explains why the French network is so different.

I could give you many other examples. As I stated, I have been looking at these issues for 20 years. I've always tried to look at the framework within which the public broadcaster should evolve and I've tried to make suggestions for the improvement of this framework, not to improve programming. I think the same should apply to legislators. I would find it regrettable for legislators to want to program Radio-Canada. It makes no sense.

Legislators must ensure that those who create programs are working within the best possible framework to express themselves. Legislators should define the framework. It is then up to those who design programs, and not legislators or analysts like myself to make these programs. If they can't manage that, they should be fired and someone else should be hired, but we should not be trying to do the job in their place.

One of the problems for Radio-Canada, in fact, is that there are too many cooks. There are too many people trying to find the perfect recipe for Radio-Canada. Let's give these people a framework and let them find their recipe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Sauvageau, I thank you for your contributions which will serve the committee in preparing to issue its recommendations. My question is for both of you. I will use the term "public broadcaster" to designate CBC/Radio-Canada.

History has shown that political and economic interests can turn the public broadcaster away from its mandate and alter its identity. How can we guarantee independence for the public broadcaster given these economic and political considerations?

[Renaud Gilbert]

That is not an easy question. At the moment, several things work to enhance CBC/Radio-Canada's independence from a political standpoint: the fact that the president is appointed for a given term, that the corporation is accountable to Parliament, and CBC/Radio-Canada has its own board of directors, the fact that there is a journalistic policy, that the company has chosen impartiality, imposed it on its journalists and attempts to impose it on the information programming services. There is a desire for independence, but I think it is very difficult to set that out in legislation. There are mechanisms in place to ensure a fair amount of independence from political powers. That is what I saw on the inside.

Economic independence is a very complex issue. I was the director of the Réseau de l'information. Our revenue was limited in that we only had eight minutes of advertising at the time. When I left, it had increased to 12 minutes. I had established an eight-minute limit for advertising, but the ever-growing thirst for revenue caused that jump.

Obviously, if there were less advertising... There are some universal needs. When I prepared my first brief, I dealt with the issue of advertising because it is very annoying to viewers and Internet users. I received complaints in my office regarding advertising on the Radio-Canada website. Increasingly, people are offended by this advertising which they find aggressive. Some people say there should not be any advertising on a public broadcaster's Internet site. I was told that the largest growth in advertising revenue is on the Internet.

There is no easy answer to your question on economic independence. There is no model available. I am one of those who believe that, in a way, advertising is information which cannot be excluded. Totally excluding advertising on television may not necessarily be the right approach. I think that there is a place for advertising because people want to have information. I do not know if you recall the La Presse incident. La Presse is a Montreal daily which published a regional edition devoid of advertising for Montreal department stores and other companies. People wanted the Montreal edition because they wanted to see that advertising. So, it depends.

I commented on what Florian said as an ombudsman. Obviously advertising affects content. The less there is, the better. For my part, I made a specific recommendation to exclude advertising in news stories. If you watch the Fifth Estate, which you all know, Enjeux or Zone libre and you see advertising in the middle of the program, there will necessarily be an affect on content and the small ads for the program itself. Say what you will, something needs to be done in those cases.

[Florian Sauvageau]

To reply, I could come back to what I told the member earlier when I began to talk about the BBC and I stopped. The BBC remains a model of public television because it does not have any advertising. Let's compare France and Great Britain. In France, ads appear on public television. Frequent criticism of French public television is similar to criticism of Canadian television, in other words, French public television is overly similar to private French television.

In Great Britain, the BBC is completely different. Other than the will to have public television, one of the main reasons for this difference is the absence of advertising. There is an interesting document from 2004, published by the BBC, regarding the notion of public value. This document explains, just as private television stations must ensure an economic return for shareholders, how to define the notion of public value as a foundation of public television.

Clearly, if public television is not providing different choices or doing something that private television is not, what is the point of having a publicly-funded commercial television station? There is no point. We could better use these funds if it makes no difference. It has to provide an alternative.

Before answering your question regarding policy, I want to add my comments to what Renaud said about Internet advertising. It is true that advertising is quickly moving to the Internet, which could cause a serious crisis for newspapers. They are the main source of information, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. As a result, if there's a sharp drop in the number of newspapers, caused by the quick movement of advertising to the Internet—I don't know; no one does—newspapers would no longer be able to play the informational role they currently do. The Canadian Press could no longer play the informational role that it currently plays in Canada. Perhaps the CBC or the State should pick up the slack here, but that is another problem.

We have long said that public broadcasters should have an Internet presence to prevent the Internet from becoming completely commercial. However, if the CBC has as many Internet ads as private media sites, the same logic holds true. What is the point of CBC having a web presence if ultimately the results are identical to what La Presse or the Toronto Star or I don't know who else is doing?

With regard to the policy part of your question, our Task Force on Broadcasting Policy had suggested in 1986 that the board appoint the CEO of CBC, to ensure, at the very least, a separation between the political branch and those managing the corporation on a daily basis. Clearly, this is not the panacea.

What else? Again, at the BBC, there is a 10-year charter. Renaud mentioned it too, when you are appointed for five years, you feel as if you have a bit more freedom. I think that the political branch, no matter who's in power, would not like this solution, but should Parliament not play a more important role with regard to the appointment, as is the case with the Quebec ombudsman, for example? The entire National Assembly must approve that individual's appointment. With regard to the President of CBC, one can imagine that this is such an important appointment that it should be approved not only by the Prime Minister, but by Parliament as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

[Florian Sauvageau]

I'm sorry I went on too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm trying to give everyone an opportunity, so try to keep your answers just a little shorter. But it's very interesting.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for your presentation this morning. I represent a region with Franco-Ontarian communities that rely on Radio-Canada. I always hear it said that radio plays an essential role in the development of northern communities.

During this study, we have noted that francophone communities throughout Canada believed that Radio-Canada had abandoned them in relation to its duty to reflect the reality of and current events in francophone communities.

Particularly, I often hear that we never hear the accents of the region on SRC, or we don't hear the cultural development stories. We hear Montreal. As ombudsman, is this a complaint you've heard?

[Renaud Gilbert]

In fact, I have heard this complaint before and shared it with management, because it did not concern journalistic behaviour or information broadcast on the air.

I must tell you that Radio-Canada currently provides French services to 34 cities in Canada, including 16 in Quebec and 18 outside Quebec. There are reporters in 18 cities outside Quebec. These reporters have the mission to cover not only current events in local francophone communities, but news throughout the region.

I understand that some members of the local francophone community aren't happy at times because they believe that their community is not sufficiently reflected on the national station. In my opinion, these communities get a disproportionate amount of air time. If you calculate the relative weight of francophone communities outside Quebec, the percentage of francophones living outside Quebec and the percentage of information broadcast on these francophone communities, you will see that the percentage of information is higher than the weight of francophone communities outside Quebec.

Regional communities in Quebec also bear this criticism. People living in the regions in Quebec feel that there is too much Montreal content on Radio-Canada television. Others feel that CBC television is

much too orientated to what's going on in Toronto.

This is a problem.

If you watch The National, maybe 30% of the information you're going to see is international information. You have to know what's going on in the world. It's exactly the same thing in French. So it's a delicate balance. You have only a certain amount of time and you have to deal with all the communities. I know it's not very easy, but I think, inside the corporation, inside the French services, people are trying very hard to make the information of those francophone communities available to all the Canadians.

One other thing is that when you go to Montreal, many people come from those regions, so we can make sure that what's going on in their communities of origin is taken into consideration when people are building

Le téléjournal or other news shows.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'd like to follow up on the role of ombudsman.

In another life, I was a part-time stringer for CBC, and I often ran afoul of that little book. I never saw the book, but I was always told, “Well this is not how we do things here. There are certain things we don't cover the way the private broadcasters do.” For example, there was a poll that was released by a politician on a very controversial issue. I wanted to run the story, and they said “This isn't a scientific poll. We will not run this.” And I said “This is a big story in the region. The private broadcasters are on there, and we're sitting on the sidelines.” They said “We have a standard that we meet.”

So I'm interested in this standard, because we often hear about how the CBC polices itself. I'll give you an example. Last summer, during the Lebanese invasion, on two consecutive days I received e-mails, one from someone who said that the coverage of CBC was outrageously pro-Israeli, and wanted me to check out a news show. The next day I got an e-mail that said it was outrageously anti-Israeli, and they wanted me to check out a news show.

News is fluid. It's moving all the time. In a controversial issue, how do you pinpoint one broadcast and say whether this one piece was over the line or not? When you're looking at an objective standard to see if someone has breached their role in terms of impartiality, do you look at it in the particular news clip? Do you look at it in a cycle? How is this done in order to maintain a sense of journalistic balance?

[Renaud Gilbert]

During the first three years I was ombudsman, the subject that was most often complained about was the coverage of the Israeli and Palestinian situation. We especially heard very much about the use of the T-word--terrorist. Are these people terrorists or militants or...? There's no easy answer to your question.

For an ombudsman, the main task is to make sure that each of the reports is accurate. If what's said by the journalist is accurate, well, okay--that's fine. The other thing is whether it's impartial. I think we can see if someone is biased, but it's a question many times of the integrity of the journalist. So you have to watch, and you have to take a look at many reports. Most of the time the management, since they have the right to answer first, look at many reports.

One of the things is that there are complaints about reports on newscasts. These are short reports, and most of the time they talk about only what has happened within the last 24 hours. So if you didn't watch the report the day before, or the day before that, and when management answers those questions about

biased reports on the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the conflict in the Middle East... Whenever anyone looks at series of reports, they ultimately have an opinion on the degree of partiality or impartiality of a particular story. That's how it works. There are never any easy answers, because quite often, people who complain have an opinion to start with, and we won't necessarily be able to convince them that the story was

accurate and fair. So there's no easy answer to that kind of question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming in this morning. We appreciate your testimony and your insight into the whole issue of the CBC.

As you said, Mr. Sauvageau, we're embarking on a venture that I'm sure is a lot bigger than we'll ever get through in terms of finding how we're going to deal with some of the challenges the CBC has come into in the last number of years.

You broached the issue of Canada having the CBC and Radio-Canada and the broadcaster playing a role of being a nation builder, being a significant part of what holds us together, reflecting our national consciousness from one end of the country to the other. Then you went further and talked about the fact that viewership is down to 5% in some regions and fewer people were watching it than ever in terms of percentages of the population.

I'm wondering how you see the CBC still playing an important role as a nation builder or a reflection of the nation in this changing world. I think it is a noble and important part of the CBC's role, to keep us informed of our country, and I think it's probably one of the more important discussions that we're going to have in terms of the future of the CBC.

So what are your thoughts on the challenge, and specifically on the issue of the CBC being a nation builder?

[Florian Sauvageau]

This is, as you've said, a big challenge, but it has to be seen, I feel, in terms of democratic choice of pluralism and diversity and all those components of democracy.

This is different from the glue holding the country together. What I was saying is that I frankly believe that it doesn't make sense any more to ask a network that has so little audience to be the glue holding the country together. But that doesn't mean--on the contrary--that this network doesn't have a democratic choice.

Let me take this example. In terms of foreign affairs and Canadian foreign policy, what other television network, except the CBC, can keep us informed on the role of Canada abroad? Only the CBC has many correspondents around the world. I know that what I'm saying has been said by many people before, but in the context of your question I think this is important to repeat.

If we want to have our own foreign policy, we need to have our eyes abroad explaining to us in terms of relevance for Canadians what is going on abroad.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, and it may have been said before, but I'll tell you that it hasn't been said in the context of the hearings that we have been holding. So I appreciate that, and maybe I'm just an idealist in believing that the CBC has an important role in terms of holding the country together.

I think specifically on the issue of foreign affairs or having an independent and totally objective view on some of these things, as you've identified, if opinion leaders and people who understand the issues had a platform that was totally free from other influences, maybe we would have something of significant value. So maybe Canadians wouldn't tune in to the CBC every day, but on an issue-by-issue basis there may be even more reason for Canadians to be drawn to this broadcaster.

My concern is that we have certain segments of the population that are never turning to the CBC. I guess my hope would be that we have a broadcaster maybe that not everybody watches every day but that everybody eventually watches at some point.

Foreign affairs obviously is something that you've identified as a thing we could discuss on this. Are there any other areas that you think would be important? I don't want to define for the CBC what they put forward or what not, but I do want to be able to provide some direction, I guess.

[Florian Sauvageau]

I'll just add something, for a second, and then I'll go back to your question.

Of course it is elitist to say that the leaders of opinion are listening to or watching CBC. I know this is elitist. But it is very important in every country in the world to have what are called “quality” newspapers--usually it's the newspapers that play this role--like the New York Times, or Le Monde in France, or the Guardian in Great Britain. Political leaders, civil servants, business leaders are kept informed through those quality papers.

In English Canada, hopefully, there's one, the Globe and Mail. On the French side, there are good papers, but not something similar to the Globe and Mail, which is a world-quality newspaper. I've always felt that CBC radio on the French side is playing this role of quality media.

To go back to your question, when we are talking about 5%, this is the audience share. There is another matter to look at in terms of audience. It's what we call reach--how many people over a week listen to the CBC? Of course, I use the figure of 5% or 6%, and this is not much. But if you look at the general population, which is your preoccupation, how many? I don't have the figures with me, but how many people are listening to CBC radio or watching CBC television once or twice a week ? That would be a better approach for evaluating public radio or public television.