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 21stcentury. 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 21st 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 1st. 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.