Official Languages Committee on June 22nd, 2006

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

But Montreal is a very well served region.

I find it unfortunate that RDI changed its programming and cancelled the program L'Atlantique en direct, which was on from 12:15 to 1 p.m. There have been a lot of complaints about that.

RDI is a national, not a regional, network and yet the newscast in the Atlantic region was interrupted so that people could hear the PQ Leader congratulating Stéphane Bergeron on his election. There have been elections in our area as well. Yet Radio-Canada has never interrupted newscasts in Quebec to congratulate a politician who had just been elected in New Brunswick or Manitoba. Still, the newscast in the Atlantic region was interrupted to let people hear Mr. Parizeau--with all due respect for him--congratulating Stephen Harper on his election.

Now that you've abandoned L'Atlantique en direct, I'm concerned that people won't dare complain for fear of their programs being cancelled.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I'm tempted to say that I agree with you.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Well, since you agree, I will go right to my second question.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I was the Director of Regional Production for a number of years. In Moncton, for instance, I often said that we had to find some way of resolving that problem.

At the same time, the demographics in French Canada are problematic. There are about three million people living in Montreal, and that's a fact. In Montreal, there is a large concentration of artists, actors, creators and independent production houses. That is part of the francophone demographic reality.

The public broadcaster's role is to share that wealth and redistribute the products of that creativity across the regions. Based on the numbers, we invest much more in the regions than their actual demographic weight would require. I'm not trying to suggest that we should be doing anything else. I'm simply saying that is what we do. And there is no doubt that leads to a lot of complexity that is very hard to manage.

When I go to Caraquet, people say that in Moncton, all they ever talk about is Moncton. And it's true that on Moncton radio programs, they tend to talk more often about Moncton than they do about Caraquet or Bathurst. In Nova Scotia, they say that people don't talk enough about them in New Brunswick. This is something that we are trying to manage. For example, we have increased the number of news stories from across the country that are part of our major radio newscasts. Over the last five years, there has been a big increase. On the television side, there are quite a few as well. Louis can probably provide figures in that regard.

However, I agree that we must improve our performance in that respect. At the same time, you have to recognize that French Canada has a particular characteristic, and that is that many Acadian actors live in Montreal and pursue a career there.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, that's all very well, but I already raised this point in committee when Mr. Rabinovitch was present.

At the Sommet de la Francophonie which took place in Moncton, 54 countries were in attendance, including two as observers. However, because Ms. Pagé decided to hold a press conference after being acquitted of stealing gloves from a store, you interrupted coverage of the Sommet de la Francophonie. That is completely unacceptable. People should be given a good slap on the wrist every time they go near that switch.

We're talking about Radio-Canada--not Radio-Montréal. We pay our taxes and this radio network belongs to the entire country. As francophones living outside of Montreal or Quebec City, and as francophones living in Canada, we feel insulted by the way our television network treats us.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

Louis went a lot further than just slapping people on the wrist. He has completely changed RDI's approach.

But this is a complicated matter. RDI is a breaking news channel and news has to be provided on a timely basis. Sometimes we have to decide whether we're going to broadcast the information quickly and interrupt regular programming in order to do that. Those are always difficult choices to make, even where international news is concerned.

[Louis Lalande]

I'd just like to talk about platforms and regional bases. Francophone listeners, whether they're in the Atlantic provinces or Western Canada, must receive proper services. That is the challenge for us, but I think we are on the right track. The action is not only occurring in one place or on a single channel. RDI is a national channel with ongoing coverage that operates without either time zones or regional distribution.

You're right. There have been cuts, and that's the reason why we have changed the way we operate. Programming on a network such as RDI cannot work the same way it does on the main network.

Let's take the example of a francophone listener waking up in the morning. He can listen to very high quality regional radio programming in every market across Canada. Let's move to the Maritimes now. If a listener decides to watch RDI, he will now have access--because this has already begun, we are in the middle of a transition--almost on a daily basis, to a reporter in Moncton or Halifax, because they are not one hour behind, but one hour ahead. So, from now on, rather than being limited to a 10:30 or 11 a.m. slot in the morning, the reporter will really be involved in talking about current events in the area. That is new, and it's an important change.

At noon, we broadcast an exclusively regional newscast on both radio and television. At 6 p.m., there are complete newscasts on the main network and on radio. Le téléjournal/Atlantique is the most self-contained newscast that best reflects current events for a full hour and in a comprehensive manner, at a time of the day when people are most interested in getting news. Then there is Le téléjournal. Those are peak listening and viewing times.

In the meantime, RDI covers current events wherever they are occurring and is able to do that with its people in various locations. It is a tremendous challenge, and the regional teams that we have been meeting with, who told us they felt stuck in a particular programming model and really wanted to explore other avenues, are encouraging us to meet this challenge.

When an event occurs in Moncton, it is important that it be covered at 7 a.m., 8 a.m., or 9 a.m., or as soon as it happens. It should be the same in Western Canada. That way, we can add to and complement the major newscasts, and continue to move forward.

We are moving forward, but we are in the middle of a transition. These platforms are new for me as well. Compared to the current service offer as a whole, I would say that what we're offering now is much improved. People like Radio-Canada and believe in it. We began with 17 regional sites on the web. What other media is currently investing as much in the regions to round out the regional news offer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Since Mr. Godin has no further questions, we will move on to Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Lafrance, Mr. Lalande and Ms. Leblanc, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I have one question for you, but I would like to make some brief comments first.

I am from the Quebec City area and, like my colleagues Mr. Murphy and Mr. Godin, it is my sense that you have made Radio-Canada more of a Montreal network. By way of explanation, I would like to address two points in particular.

First of all, you were incapable of covering a scandal that occurred in the Quebec City area. Indeed, a scandal involving prostitution lasted for some two years. But it was only when it was all over the news that Radio-Canada began covering it on radio and television. Yet the scandal lasted for two years.

I also want to say that there is one thing that irritates me about RDI. Some of your reporters only express one viewpoint. For example, if Joyce Napier is covering news out of Washington, her position is always anti-Bush. No other version of the facts is ever presented. If I want to hear another perspective, I have to listen to American stations. And if I switch to another channel and they're talking about Iraq, the bad guys are always the Americans. I never hear another perspective. That is starting to be really tiresome. You seem to think that we should accept your take on reality.

Quebec City has become a region. Mr. Murphy's and Mr. Godin's cities are in the same predicament. It's almost as though you want us to accept the ideas presented on your programs. I find it very irritating. I'm forced to listen to English stations in order to hear the other side of the story. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on that.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

First of all, as regards the prostitution affair in Quebec City, I'm surprised by your comments. I haven't always lived in Montreal, and I heard about it a lot. So, the media clearly were talking about it. I listen to Radio-Canada a great deal, and I believe that the very morning the first suspect was arrested, there was considerable radio and television coverage of these events in Montreal.

So, I'm rather surprised to hear you say that we provided no coverage for two years. I could speak at length about the prostitution scandal in Quebec City. I live in Montreal, and that's where I get my information. We even carried public affairs program, debates and call-in shows dealing with it. So, in my opinion, we provided extensive coverage.

As regards whether Radio-Canada is left-wing or right-wing, sovereignist or federalist, that is an issue that has been debated forever and a day. At the same time, every time there is any objective analysis of the situation, with due regard for all the opinions expressed over the airwaves, be it on radio or television, the conclusion is that Radio-Canada has an objective approach and that its reporters are extremely competent.

It could be said, if we're talking about suggestiveness, that certain positions are more left-leaning than right-leaning. Personally, I believe there are people with every kind of perspective at Radio-Canada. However, we have to ensure that on our network, the full spectrum of ideas is expressed, so that events can be covered in a comprehensive manner and the societal debates that need to happen, can. At Radio-Canada, few ideas are rejected. At least, no example comes to mind. I don't know whether a particular correspondent may have seemed anti-Bush to you. In any case, I believe that overall, the perspectives and debates presented on Radio-Canada are predicated on quality information. I would be very concerned if I believed otherwise.

Mr. Lalande may wish to add something.

[Louis Lalande]

I would just like to add that every time an objective study is carried out, that is indeed the conclusion that is reached. Of course, we live in an age of instant access to information and instant impressions, and that's always dangerous. In that respect, I believe we have to be on our guard.

I watch a lot of American television, and I can tell you one thing. When it comes to news, I'm particularly proud of what we do in Canada, on Radio-Canada, RDI and Première Chaîne. I have been working in television since 1976, and at that time, the reference where news was concerned was what the Americans were doing. I'm sorry, but that is no longer the case. Both the Americans and Europeans have been following the way we deal with the dynamic of instant news. They find that overall, we have a balanced and objective approach, which is never easy to achieve. At the same time, we are working tooth and nail to meet that daily challenge.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I would add, Mr. Petit, that Radio-Canada's journalistic policy is probably one of the most stringent and rigourous in the country. Across the world, that policy is generally considered to be an example of journalistic integrity. I truly believe that it is objectively a good policy. Much is made of the need to reflect a spectrum of opinion. Nowhere is that debate more lively than within Radio-Canada itself. When it comes to news, nothing is done lightly. Our reporters and editors-in-chief debate every one of the major issues. Every time there are important events occurring in Canada's democratic life--and I'm thinking in particular of federal or provincial elections--we have citizen committees, external auditing firms, and tabulating systems in place that demonstrate Radio-Canada's objectivity. Objectivity is part of Radio-Canada's DNA; it is its major strength. We are often criticized. Sovereignists accuse RDI of draping itself in the Canadian flag and federalists accuse RDI of being run by sovereignists. The truth is that every opinion is heard at RDI, on both our newscasts and in our debates. All our objective measurements clearly show that.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to ask one last question, Mr. Lafrance. I'd say the packaging is excellent; I'm not criticizing that. You represent the packaging. But I'm talking about the content. You don't represent the content; you are trying to present that content. Here is the challenge for you: turn off your television set and try and listen to Ms. Napier. You won't hear her. However, you can bet that she is saying something bad about Mr. Bush. Then, turn on your television set and that's exactly what you'll hear. That's why I contend that what you say is not completely accurate. I listen to your programs. I don't know whether you listen to your own television programming, but I do, and it's not quite right. As far as the packaging is concerned, yes, it's excellent, but the content is problematic. I feel as though I'm living in a region, just like Mr. Godin and Mr. Murphy. That's the problem. I'm not trying to be critical, but we are here to exchange views. You have a problem in that regard. I wanted to draw your attention to it.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I will be brief. You said that you have the feeling you're living in a region, when in fact you're in Quebec City. If you were living in Longueuil, you would probably also have the impression that people don't talk much about the place where you live. Some neighbourhoods in Montreal have 300,000 people living in them, and we don't talk very much about them either. Television is a medium that simply doesn't allow you to talk about every single area--even areas in Montreal or Longueuil. Do you hear people talking about Longueuil? Yet a lot of people live there. It's not a simple matter. I would like there to be some recognition of the efforts we're making to improve the situation and of the fact that this issue is not easily resolved.

Are we anti-Bush or not? I believe that we have an objective. The voices that have been heard on our network have generally reflected Canadian opinion on the subject. Radio-Canada is a Canadian corporation. I believe our employees have shown themselves to be objective and that everything we do is objective. It's my opinion that if people had the perception that Radio-Canada was opposed to Mr. Bush, it's because the voices being heard across Canada were opposed. We are only the reflection of what is occurring in Canada. We are nothing other than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Lafrance.

We have now completed the first round. Those were very interesting questions and answers.

We move to a second five-minute round now. We will begin with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by making one comment. It is clear to me that our Conservative friends are pro-Bush and that they're very happy with that idea. However, the fact is that Radio-Canada is a Canadian radio network and if we really want to show respect for Canadians, we certainly won't do so by defending George Bush.

Let's get back to Radio-Canada. Mr. Lafrance and Mr. Lalande, I believe that the situation you have described is fairly common. As I was saying earlier, I'm from New Brunswick. I know that you want to provide some flexibility and that there are three million francophones living in Montreal, but I think there has to be some logic, which can be difficult at times.

For example, it happens that right in the middle of Le téléjournal midi/Atlantique broadcast on RDI, the program is interrupted because there is flooding on Highway 40. For an hour, we hear about people trying to figure out why the storm sewers have backed up. Of course, this brings a smile to your face. But the reality is that even if they were to talk about it for 24 hours running, we would never learn anything more about the reason for the flooding. When the program airs in Atlantic Canada, it's 12 o'clock. Even if you waited 15 or 20 minutes to air special programming about the reason why the storm sewers on Highway 40 are backed up, it wouldn't change much. It's all well and good to want to keep people informed, but someone who is behind the wheel of his car will only know that there is a traffic jam on Highway 40 if he listens to the radio.

You may well be in the midst of making changes to increase your flexibility, but it's important to remember that there have been similar situations in the past. So, you need to understand that we have reservations and are wondering whether things are really going to improve. You say they are and that the process has already begun, but, as the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy.

As for newscasts, it's always a question of cost. It's always a matter of figuring out whether you have the necessary budget or not. When there is a news item out of the Atlantic, the event has already occurred. Why couldn't a news item from the Maritimes be included, from time to time, in the national newscast, so that we would see a reflection of ourselves? Francophones in Canada would have an opportunity to see what's going on in the Maritimes or in Manitoba. Even if it was only the occasional news item, people would have a much greater sense that RDI is also their network. I would be interested in your comments on that.

My last question has to do with radio. In my riding, there are still some areas where access is limited to the AM band. At the same time, there are other areas where they have access to FM. In areas that have access to AM, very often it is impossible to receive FM. Do your conduct reviews from time to time to see whether radio programming carried on Radio-Canada can be heard everywhere or whether there is a need to improve inefficient systems?

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I will give you a quick answer, and then maybe I'll turn it over to my colleagues to add their comments.

With reference to your “once bitten, twice shy” comment, Mr. D'Amours, your concern is a legitimate one. I realize that we have not always been perfect in that regard. It is perfectly normal for people to demand more of Radio-Canada in the regions, and I'm never upset by that. I'm happy when people want more from Radio-Canada. I was talking earlier about independent productions, which we have improved over the last five years. RDI's new structure will help in that regard, as well as the fact that the regions will figure more prominently now in radio newscasts. All of that proves that this is a concern for us. We are trying to find a solution--the proper balance that will mean that people everywhere will see themselves reflected in the programs we present.

As we were saying earlier, in radio, 100 per cent of peak listening hours are devoted to local programming. As a result, when the regions ask us to broadcast one of their programs nationally in peak listening hours, we must refuse, given that all the peak listening hours are devoted to local programming. If we carry a program from the Maritimes on the national network, we will automatically cut back the number of regional peak listening hours in the other regions. Radio is very deeply rooted in the regions. We also have to ensure that our services are somewhat complementary. Radio-Canada cannot be everything to everyone, unless it's operating on every single platform. However, we can be everything for quite a few people, because we are able to present many hours of programming on several different platforms in every region of the country. I consider people's concerns in that regard to be perfectly legitimate, and I am not offended at all by them.

As for the deficiencies you mentioned, I would say this: we have sometimes gone a little overboard with special programming, and we would be the first to admit that. Because it was fresh news, we felt that we should put it on quickly. Now I'm not saying that sewer pipes on Highway 40 were a matter of urgent national importance. Sometimes things go too far. But we are thinking about all these issues as we reposition RDI. Our people at RDI are aware of this and want time for reflection.

As regards radio and radio frequencies, we have made a great many improvements. In particular, Espace Musique is now available all across the country, as we mentioned earlier. Up until three years ago, Espace Musique was called la Chaîne culturelle and was only broadcast in part of Quebec and in the City of Toronto. Now Espace Musique is broadcast all across the country.

As regards la Première Chaîne, it is available to 98 per cent of Canadians. I believe that the vast majority of our transmitters are in good shape. If you're driving in your car one day and you see that there are problems, give me a call, and I'll be happy to look into it. There are still some problem areas, because of a lack of FM frequencies, but we are always trying to make improvements. We want it to be available to 100 per cent of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Lafrance.

Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You talked about repositioning RDI. I would like to know what the cost of that repositioning will be and what impact it may have on television networks in the region. Will this improve or have a negative impact on television production?

[Sylvain Lafrance]

I'm going to let Louis answer your question. I simply want to say that there is no cost in the sense that this is covered under our current news service budgets. We believe it will improve the situation. Louis can provide additional details as to how that will work and our overall regional presence.

[Louis Lalande]

As for the costs, this repositioning is being carried out using RDI's investment budget. It will lead to greater synergy with all of Radio-Canada's other resources in the regions, in both radio and television. It is important that we return to the kind of logic that was followed previously.

I am particularly sympathetic to the point raised by Mr. Godin, I believe, about our treating the regions like regions, and the networks, like networks. But in actual fact, that is not what we do. What distinguishes us from everyone else is that our network is made up of regions. How can we develop programming and a dynamic that will allow people to constantly evolve and be constantly in touch with the challenges of the day? Well, the dynamic can only be created by having an appropriate mix of news and programming that is of national interest, of regional interest, and both of regional interest and of national importance, and by ensuring that it has an impact on all the main platforms in radio, television, or on the web.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

What percentage of news items comes from Quebec and what percentage from the regions? I am a francophone, I live in Quebec City, and I was extremely disappointed to no longer have access to L'Atlantique en direct, because it allowed me to connect with the francophone reality in a province other than Quebec. There are francophone communities all across this country that we know little about, because we never hear anything about them. Mr. Simard is francophone, but I am less well connected because I get less news about his region. It would help francophones all across this country to better understand what's going on at home and among francophones outside Quebec.

[Sylvain Lafrance]

The reality is that the regions as a whole are part of the country. When something newsworthy happens in the Maritimes, we don't cover it at 1 p.m., 3 p.m. or 10 p.m., but when it's actually happening. RDI is a breaking news channel, and RDI's coverage has to include all the regions. In terms of the length of coverage, it will be the same thing, but when you watch RDI, you will know what is happening all across the country. We don't intend to divide the country into a lot of different chunks so that at such and such a time, we'll get news from the Maritimes, at some other time, we'll have news from out West, and so on. That to me is first and foremost a reflection of the nature of breaking news.

When Bernard Lord or another premier announces something, that happens at a specific moment in time, and not at a time when we decide to carry it. That is the logic of breaking news, and that seems to fit exactly with what I'm hearing.

[Louis Lalande]

We have every reason to believe that this will work because we've been rehearsing it on paper for some months now. We have concrete examples. When we quite appropriately cover the softwood issue, just as the news is breaking, that necessarily has an impact on what you're going to see on Le téléjournal. As we saw with Le téléjournal, when we find out that the softwood issue has been resolved, it's thank to coverage from Northern Ontario and Western Canada, because we have news crews on the ground able to provide information as developments occur. There is a complementarity there that I find very encouraging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Boucher and Mr. Lafrance.

Ms. Freeman.