HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 25, 2002

1335

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

1340

Mr. Darrel Reid (President, Focus on the Family)

1345

1350

1355

The Chair

1400

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Darrel Reid

1405

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Darrel Reid

1410

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

1415

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

1420

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

1425

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. McNally

Mr. Darrel Reid

1430

The Chair

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

1435

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Reid

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Reid

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

1440

Mr. Darrel Reid

The Chair

Ms. Lesia Voth (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies)

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Lesia Voth

The Chair

Ms. Robyn Smith (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies)

1445

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1450

The Chair

Ms. Robyn Smith

Ms. Kitana Nuttall (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies)

The Chair

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Ann Kujundzic (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies)

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

1455

Ms. Barbara Taylor (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies)

Ms. Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Taylor

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Robyn Smith

Ms. Ann Kujundzic

1500

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Taylor

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Ann Kujundzic

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Lesia Voth

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Lesia Voth

Ms. Lill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Lill

Ms. Barbara Taylor

Ms. Lill

1505

Ms. Robyn Smith

1510

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mr. McNally

Ms. Lesia Voth

Mr. McNally

Ms. Lesia Voth

1515

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Lesia Voth

Ms. Ann Kujundzic

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Taylor

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Ann Kujundzic

Mr. Harvard

Mrs. Hinton

1520

Ms. Robyn Smith

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Kitana Nuttall

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Lill

The Chair

Ms. Lill

The Chair

Ms. Prem Gill (Manager, Public Affairs, CKVU-TV, Vancouver)

1525

1530

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Abbott

1535

Ms. Prem Gill

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Prem Gill

Ms. Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

1540

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

Some hon. members

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

1545

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Ms. Prem Gill

Ms. Lill

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. McNally

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. McNally

1550

Ms. Prem Gill

Mr. McNally

Ms. Prem Gill

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Prem Gill

The Chair

Ms. Prem Gill

The Chair

Ms. Prem Gill

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 038

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1335)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): We'll resume our meeting and open the hearings for this afternoon, starting with the group Focus on the Family, represented by Mr. Darrel Reid, the president, and Mr. Michael Martens.

Mr. Reid, you know the format. We have a presentation for 10 or 15 minutes maximum to allow time for questions.

The floor is yours.

· (1340)

Mr. Darrel Reid (President, Focus on the Family): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I wasn't going to wear this tie today, but there was a significant event yesterday. Some of you may have heard of it; it was a hockey game. My staff insisted I wear it here as a demonstration of the fact that we've got lots of hockey fans.

I trust copies of my comments have been distributed. Have they? Okay. It's a privilege to be here. Thank you for the invitation.

Focus on the Family Canada has been in existence for almost 18 years. We are a charitable organization built on Christian principles, and our aim is to support, strengthen, and encourage the Canadian family through resources and education. We are also proud members of the Canadian broadcasting community. We provide a number of programs. We are on about 150 stations. We have a number of releases every day. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians listen to us on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. We are self-governed. We are a Canadian organization and we're very proud of that.

As the organization entrusted with regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications industries, you have a great deal on your plate. You're to be commended for taking your committee on the road to hear what grassroots Canadians and organizations like mine have to say.

I'd also like to observe that the Christian world view we hold forms an integral part of Canada's heritage, past and present. Even today, the vast majority of Canadians identify with some Christian denomination, and their world view remains heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas. What better reason is there for our speaking here to you today? I think it's totally appropriate.

I want to speak particularly about an aspect of broadcast regulation that has been delegated by the CRTC to the broadcast industry. I speak particularly of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. In its delegation, I note, the commission was very careful to assert that “increased reliance on self-regulation, however, does not imply that the commission is relinquishing its responsibilities”.

That's what I wish to speak about here this morning, because I believe that in some ways the trust that has been placed by this committee in the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has been ill-placed. I want to refer to our experience with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and maybe make some suggestions. Obviously we'd be happy to initiate some discussion.

From our submission to the standing committee, you may or may not be familiar with the particulars of our experience. It began with a broadcast on our weekend program on February 9 entitled Help for the Homosexual. A listener to Radio CKRD-AM in Red Deer complained to the station, and this triggered a whole set of responses that I'm going to talk about in my assertions and in my recommendations.

I hasten to add that it is not my intent here to debate the substance of the Prairie Regional Council of the CBSC's finding. We of course reject it in its entirety. We believe the decision that was made was wrong and without any basis in evidence. Further, we believe the reasoning behind the decision and the wording of the ruling itself were offensive, impugned the motives of Focus on the Family, and constitute a violation of our religious freedom and freedom of expression as guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I won't say any more about that in the interests of time for this committee.

But I would like to draw your attention to several points concerning the process. That is what I really wish to speak about here today. If our experience is any evidence, it is deeply flawed and prejudicial to the interests certainly of us, but if it was prejudicial to our interests as a Canadian broadcaster, I believe it may well be to others.

So I would like to make four or five main points. The first point is that the complaints process used by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is fundamentally flawed. In our case it was secretive and arbitrarily applied. Accordingly, it was unfair to the one complained against.

When you go to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council website you see a piece called “Making a Complaint”, which is sketched out for the interests of the person who is listening to a radio broadcast and wonders whether something they've heard should or should not be on the radio. It is very simple.

The situation with Focus on the Family, of course, was that the procedure cited anticipates that the complainant “see or hear something that concerns him or her”. I should note that even at such a rudimentary level, in our case this did not occur. The complainant did not listen to the actual broadcast that formed the basis of his complaint. What he heard was a summary broadcast of the Focus on the Family broadcast for the previous week. In fact the radio station that was cited did not even run the daily program that formed the basis for the complaints. The complainant then obtained from Focus on the Family complete transcripts of three programs aired during the week and proceeded to lay his complaint based on those transcripts and not on the broadcast. Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians heard the broadcast without complaint, all it took was one person who did not actually hear the broadcast to trigger this investigation.

In any event, and more importantly, the letter of complaint was not provided to Focus on the Family for response, presumably because the dispute resolution process does not make allowance for people who originate the broadcast. However, even a cursory perusal of the letter of complaint makes it quite clear that it was essentially aimed at Focus on the Family and not at the broadcaster.

The CBSC did go on to adjudicate the matter. As is apparent from the enclosed complaints procedure document--I didn't enclose it, actually, but I can make it available, and it is certainly on the website--there appear to be few if any rules applicable to such an adjudication.

Focus on the Family had no idea its broadcast was being investigated, was never asked for any input or justification for what was broadcast, was never informed that a decision had been rendered, and never even received the courtesy of a notice that an announcement would be made. Instead, on August 24, 1998, we began reading media reports that Focus on the Family had been “censured” by the CBSC. Coverage of this finding was then published extensively in media outlets throughout North America.

My first recommendation to this committee would be that a clear, comprehensive, transparent, and fair review process for media complaints be established. By fair, I mean that there are other parties beyond just the station and the listener who need to be involved in this process. Based on what we have seen and the experience we have had, we are not sure the CBSC, in its current mandate, is capable of doing that.

The second point I wish to make is that this process transgresses the fundamental principle of law that a person or organization affected by the decision of an adjudicative body have the right to be heard before that body. It is a basic precept of law that persons or corporate bodies affected by a legal or regulatory ruling must have a right to be heard.

In our case CBSC ruling 96/97-0155 has had and will continue to have a real and significant impact upon Focus on the Family. This charitable organization has had a long and honourable history of service to Canadian families. It also prides itself on providing carefully researched and responsible broadcasts. Yet on the basis of an arbitrary complaint, investigated in a subjective and opaque manner, Focus on the Family stood accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced--this without the barest minimum effort to ascertain whether the charges were true.

· (1345)

For a charitable organization that depends upon the goodwill and generosity of Canadians, this represents an outrageous and unmerited attack. It is also a most fundamental and basic breach of procedural justice and fair play.

Therefore, our second recommendation or suggestion is that any dispute resolution mechanism must take into account the interests of both the complainant and the complained against. Any party that might be affected by the outcome of the dispute resolution mechanism must be given the opportunity to be heard.

That does not happen now. We would like to see it happen.

Point three: the current process gives the CBSC immense power to harm but does not hold it accountable for its actions.

In terms of the harm to its reputation and good name, which is the currency of what we do, Focus on the Family was significantly harmed by the CBSC.

Since its beginning in Canadian radio broadcasting until now, Focus on the Family Canada has seen 896,961 program releases. That's almost a million program releases. Over this time, Focus on the Family Canada has built up an extremely loyal listenership. Yet one complaint from one person who did not actually hear the broadcast, one highly subjective ruling, and our reputation is besmirched across North America and around the world. There is no forum for redress or appeal.

In any business or personal environment, injured parties have recourse to remedial measures at law. Because the council exists in a regulatory netherworld--quasi-regulatory; I don't know what the latest phrase is--it doesn't really exist. It's a creature of the Canadian broadcasting community. What we found is that it's free to publish whatever findings it wishes--so-called findings--regardless of whatever material harm they may cause, regardless of the consequences to others. I don't believe this does Canadian broadcasting and the issue of fairness in broadcasting any benefit.

So our third recommendation is that power must be matched with accountability. This principle has been abused in the case of the CBSC, as we see it. The commission should reconsider the regulatory framework under which the CBSC has been allowed to operate, perhaps replacing it with a separate arm's-length agency to ensure its interests--that is, the commission's interests--in broadcasting fairness are met.

Point four: despite the fact that the CBSC felt free to impugn the motives of Focus on the Family before a national and international audience, no attempt whatsoever was made to determine, one, why Focus said what it said, and two, whether its statements had any basis in fact, whether through research or social reality.

I could spend a long time on this. There were two issues that particularly concerned the Prairie Regional Council. One was asserting that the homosexual, so-called “gay research” had a flimsy basis in research, particularly around issues like the gay gene and those sorts of things. The second was that there was a gay agenda in the schools.

I just want to point out that these issues and these contentions are made throughout our society and within the gay community itself, and if called upon we could have and would have been able to say this should be part of free and open debate in our country, as it is throughout our society, whether left or right or whatever perspective you want, and in the gay community itself. So we did not see it as being a major issue.

Now, the council ruling basically felt free to call our assessment of this into account, and I just draw your attention to the words in the middle of page 7, where it says:

Moreover, it has attributed to the gay movement a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, a so-called 'agenda', which, in the view of the Council, constitutes abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to the provisions of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

What is astonishing is that this highly hurtful and subjective finding is made without one piece of evidence to support it. Had Focus Canada been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations, it would have been able to demonstrate clearly, I believe, that in all cases--“gay science”, “flimsy foundation” and “agenda”--Focus Canada could have provided ample support for our assertion if we had only been given the opportunity to do so.

I'm not trying to convince you of that here today. What I am trying to convince you of is that this is suitable material for a debate in Canada, because it's already going on.

· (1350)

There is no evidence whatsoever of Focus on the Family attributing to the gay movement these things that were charged.

When I wrote to Mr. Ron Cohen, chair of the CBSC, asking on what basis this determination was made, his response was, in effect, that the comments were abusively discriminatory because the council had determined they were. In his letter to me he says:

Thus, whether the persons on the broadcast in question honestly believed the views expressed is not the issue. If the views were, in the opinion of the Council, abusively discriminatory, then the rights of the abused group, in a broadcast context, would supercede the speech rights of the abusers.

In effect, according to my understanding, if you are found to be abusively discriminatory, then that makes you so.

This of course begs the fundamental question: on what basis did the council render such a heavy-handed decision? We know it was not on the basis of any research by the council. They didn't see that as their job. It was not informed by any attempt to discover whether what had been said had any discernible basis in fact. Apparently that's not their job either. The only conclusion I can come to is that it was rendered in order to suppress and censor a legitimate point of view--in our view, empirically demonstrable.

You may say this is an unwarranted assertion, but I would say the assertion is bolstered and strengthened by the fact that Mr. Cohen felt free to take the CBSC's case to the media by further accusing Focus on the Family of making “homophobic comments” and “gross generalizations about homosexuals”. This goes beyond anything the council asserted and seems to indicate a political motive on the part of the chair. Whether this is the case or not, I hope you would agree that such vigorous activism on the part of a body that is supposed to be playing a regulatory function appears highly unseemly, arbitrary, and politically motivated. Is this what was intended when the CRTC devolved its authority for broadcasting fairness to the CAB and through them to the CBSC? I would hope not.

My fourth assertion, then, is that the commission should consider playing a more direct role in the selection, qualifications, and competence of CBSC members. Again, I'm not a regulator, but I would suggest that perhaps a separate arm's-length regulatory body in which the commission plays more of a role would be worthwhile.

In conclusion, again, as much as I might like to, I see no real reason to debate the substance of the issues here. My main concern is with the process. I believe every Canadian has a stake in seeing transparency and accountability from its broadcast regulators.

On behalf of Focus on the Family Canada, I want to thank you for having these hearings and for having us here. The point of my appearing is to urge you to pursue fairness and true diversity in Canadian broadcasting. When our case became public we received messages of support from people of differing faiths, of no faiths, and from all walks of life. There were two main themes to their comments: first, they recognized the shoddiness of the treatment we received; and second, they recognized clearly that they could be next to have their views pilloried in public.

At Focus on the Family, we wholeheartedly support the notion that Canada comprises a wide diversity of views, and we want to see discussion, debate, and mutual understanding flourish. This can only occur when people are willing to respect others' views. This does not mean that people won't disagree. A wise and fair regulator who sees this debate as the public's right and heritage will want to encourage this through objective, fair, and transparent regulations and processes. In our view, the current regulatory regime fails in meeting those ends. If the committee chooses to consider any of the recommendations we bring forth today, I believe we will have brought Canadians one step closer to truly reflecting the diversity we Canadians all share.

Thank you very much.

· (1355)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Reid.

Before I go on to opening the meeting to questions, I wanted to clarify a couple of points that I think are important because they can lead to misunderstandings.

On page 2 of your brief, I see in paragraph number two that you say:

As the organization entrusted with regulation of Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications industries, you have a great deal on your plate....

I don't know if you meant the committee.

Later, on page 3, in the first paragraph, line number three, you say, “the CRTC, under your authority....”

I wanted to mention that the CRTC operates under two acts of Parliament and is under the authority of the government through the two ministers entrusted with this task, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry.

We are a standing committee of the House of Commons. As such, we don't have authority over the CRTC. We don't have any direct authority at all. What we do in this present context is adopt a mandate. We are given powers to study the broadcasting system in Canada, and of course revisions, if we deem they are advisable, to the Broadcasting Act.

In effect, we have the mandate to study, and we make recommendations to the House of Commons, to which the government will have to respond within approximately 150 days, approximately six months. So we don't have any direct authority ourselves, and I wanted to make this clear so that there's no misunderstanding.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Darrel Reid: I appreciate that. I would point out, however, that the investigation of this and the thinking about it I think is what we wanted to contribute.

The Chair: Oh yes. This is really what our role is.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for your very concise and very compelling presentation.

This morning we had a presentation by the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians, VACC, and they, among other organizations in Canada, really take very strong positions in terms of anti-racism, discrimination, and so on. I think you are absolutely wise in your presentation, and I think we all would be wise to follow your recommendation, that we not get into the issue at hand or debate the issue whatsoever. Nonetheless, it's out there, and it is an issue that happens to be covered by the revised charter of rights in Canada.

How would you address people like the representatives from the VACC or others who take a very strong anti-discrimination position? How would you address them in this forum? I'd like to give you that opportunity, so that we manage to maintain a proper balance between what appears by your presentation to have been a wrong...but on the other side of the coin, how do we balance that out against the concerns of organizations like the VACC?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Well, I believe that our country does not flourish or develop when people's rights are trampled on or abused, and that applies not just to so-called disadvantaged groups, whether that be poor people or people of a particular sexual orientation, a particular political group or a political religious perspective. I do believe we live in a diverse society and we do need to understand each other's views, and there is great merit in the discussion of those.

I would hasten to add, however, that nobody's rights are served when, in a discussion or in a debate, one perspective or one side of that debate is ruled out of order. There are all sorts of reasons for people to bring forth their ideas. They should not be hateful. There are all kinds of grounds that regulate what we put on the airwaves and in the debate. However, I don't believe that picking sides before the discussion of the debate takes place serves anybody's interests, whether they are anti-discrimination groups or groups like ours that would have a perspective that would differ. I think Canada benefits from having a full and wholesome debate.

Again, we're not talking about the subject, but I would say that even on this subject, Canadians remain deeply divided in many different areas. I think we all have to live together. My plea really is for fairness. As I said in the submission, one basic area of fairness is that if you have a concern, as it is taken to a regulatory body, the person who is complained against should have the right to give the reasons for what they said. I don't think you get any more basic in principles of law than that.

If we get to the point where it is presumed that a person is guilty, with no opportunity to give any reason for what they've said, then we do not have broadcasting fairness any more; I believe we have tyranny.

¸ (1405)

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have read--and I can't say that I understand this necessarily to be true--that in front of human rights commissions, with respect to this question or others like it, whether something is true or not or based on fact or not is not a defence. The fact is, it cannot be spoken in public or debated in public.

But I'm not sure that's true. Have you heard the same thing?

Mr. Darrel Reid: I am not by any means an authority on human rights tribunals, but I am very much aware of places and issues where, for example, passages from the Holy Bible and from the scriptures have been ruled out of order. Now, I'm not sure that it's for the chairpeople of human rights commissions to rule the Bible out of order. I would certainly appeal to a higher authority.

I think you're probably right in the sense that it is often possible to be charged, judged, and convicted at times in those commissions without the right of actually having a fair opportunity to say what it is you're there for.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just in summary, if I understand correctly the reason you've come before us and made this submission, you're basically saying, look, although the CRTC has delegated this responsibility, they still have this responsibility, and therefore, whether it is a change to the mandate of the current broadcast regulator or whatever, there must be some kind of definition or some clarity for an organization such as yours, or for any other individual, to be able to understand what the process would be and to have an opportunity for due process. Is that your submission?

Mr. Darrel Reid: It is. And it's in nobody's interest to have a body that is entrusted with such immense power to regulate the Canadian broadcasting industry, particularly stations and what is said on the air.... It's in nobody's interest to have those committees and commissions and regional councils under the inference or perhaps suggestion that their views may be politically motivated as opposed to keeping the issue of broadcasting fairness and the issues of all parties uppermost in their minds.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): You are asking this committee to make recommendations to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, and you refer to a discriminatory aspect regarding a problem that you have encountered. We need more clarification on this.

Has the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council taken other decisions on other matters? Before coming to conclusions on what kind of support we could provide...I am not going to talk about the subject itself because I think it is quite debatable. I think that we have to be open, in our society, regarding the homosexual aspect. We need to have a good understanding of what is happening.

We would need references to other cases in which discriminatory decisions have been made; other cases where the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council would have discriminated against certain parties.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Reid: The first thing I'd like to say is that we have had two experiences, personally, as an organization, with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

On the one hand, in 1997, our reputation was besmirched, I suppose, across North America and around the world. On June 28, 2001, another ruling was made regarding the Focus on the Family broadcast, in which case another council, the Ontario council, ruled in favour of the broadcast and in favour of Focus on the Family.

The point I'm trying to make is that in both cases, Focus on the Family was unaware that this was taking place, was unaware of the process, and had no idea how we could contribute or have our perspective heard.

It could just as easily have been that both of those had gone against us, harming us as a responsible organization in Canadian broadcasting. My point is that we had no idea, and if you have no idea, what is the basis for the rulings that are going on?

We did an analysis of CBSC rulings, and we do have some concerns about rulings on such things as sex and violence. They rule on religious issues. In some cases they rule that people are free to speak about their deepest-held moral convictions, but there are also a number of issues...and I would be happy to forward those to the committee if you have an interest.

Take religious issues, for example. On February 3, 1999, there was a complaint about a Humble and Fred show called Danger Boy on a Cross. It was broadcast on CFNY-FM. CFNY announced its plans to put one of its radio personalties, named Danger Christ, on a cross downtown on Holy Thursday, and have an Easter bunny at the event collecting money. When the public reacted negatively, the hosts repeatedly responded with, “What is the big deal with this?”

The decision of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council happened to be in favour of the radio station. The ruling was that the stunt did not constitute--and I quote--“abusively discriminatory” content. A program is more likely to be found in violation of CBSC codes if it directs its negative comments at a person for his religion rather than at the religion as a whole, as happened in this program.

I'd be happy to provide other cases. However, in a country where nearly 85% of Canadians claim some affiliation with the Christian church, where people do tend to take their religious convictions seriously, and where it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion, I find it very hard to imagine why in one case, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, when it hits an issue that may or may not be on the side of political correctness, perhaps, or whatever the term would be, is prepared to rule against it. When it comes to the most deeply held religious views of others, though, it seems more prone to take a more tolerant, or perhaps indulgent, view of the kinds of pranks radio broadcasters can play with somebody else's religion.

My point is, we have no way of knowing whether we're going to fall afoul of or win the praise of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council based on anything we say, because the process seems to be completely arbitrary.

¸ (1410)

[Translation]

Mme Christiane Gagnon: If I understand correctly, you can't tell us how many organizations may have gone through what your organization has experienced. It exists, but you don't have a record on the organizations that raise religious issues, sexual or others, and you are not able to give us an overall perspective on how much discrimination the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has shown in its decisions.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Reid: It wasn't my awareness that this was the responsibility of the organization that's been treated this way. I think it's our responsibility to bring forward to you what we're experiencing. We are not a fly-by-night organization, and our views are held by a large number of Canadians. If people--

The Chair: Excuse me, but I think you misunderstood the gist of the question.

Mr. Darrel Reid: You're looking for a registry--

The Chair: I think Madam Gagnon was trying to convey, in terms of looking at this issue--which is obviously bothering you deeply--whether you had looked at the possibility that other organizations had been treated the same way and didn't have the right of appeal.

Mrs. Gagnon wanted to know whether this was just an isolated series of circumstances or broadly based, and whether you were aware. She wasn't impugning any motives at all to your organization in her question.

¸ (1415)

Mr. Darrel Reid: No, and if you took that from my comment, I apologize. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that.

Focus on the Family has done its assessment of rulings on the part of the CBSC, and I have a couple of synopses here of rulings. Some of them at times have been in favour of some particular religious group, but broadly speaking, the trend has been against people who would perhaps take seriously the Judeo-Christian view of morality, language, obscenity, and those sorts of things.

Do I have a registry of these things? We have done our own assessment. I think it would be very worthwhile to have some of the defined research talent you have here, or at the CRTC level, do an analysis of that. But if it would help this committee, we would certainly be happy to furnish for you what we have. We believe there are ample grounds for our contention.

The Chair: By all means, send the documentation to the clerk of the committee, and we'll make sure it's translated and distributed to the members.

Thank you.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid, I also think it would be wise to avoid the substance of the issue that prompted the complaint, lest we get sidetracked.

But I have a couple of questions. You say the CBSC censured you. What was the censure? What form did it take?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Basically, it wasn't censure as much as the media proclaiming it to be censure, which then became censure in the public mind, and was reported as Focus on the Family being censured across North America and around the world.

Mr. John Harvard: What did the CBSC say to cause the censure from other groups or other people?

Mr. Darrel Reid: I think the CBSC said Focus on the Family had a homophobic perspective, and what they said on this issue could not be trusted or held to be responsible or accountable.

Mr. John Harvard: Are you paraphrasing? Was that the substance of their rebuke?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Well, no--

Mr. John Harvard: I'm just trying to nail down exactly what they said that caused this umbrage on your part.

The Chair: Mr. Reid, if I could interject, perhaps you could tell us what kind of documentation came out. Was it in the form of some kind of judgment? Was it a letter to you? How was it structured?

Mr. Darrel Reid: It was far from a letter to us. The first time we heard of it was when it appeared on the CBSC website. There were detailed findings that were brought forward for each one of their rulings.

Mr. John Harvard: In your opinion, just in a few words, what was the essence of the finding?

Mr. Darrel Reid: It was that a couple of the assertions we made in our broadcast constituted abusive and discriminatory treatment of homosexuals in Canada.

Mr. John Harvard: Okay.

My second question is, how did that affect Focus on the Family? Were you then subjected to ridicule? What were the negative effects of it?

Mr. Darrel Reid: First of all, Focus on the Family, as a charitable organization, depends upon its good name, the reputation it has made, and the reputation it has for fairness and careful research in what it does. It believes its significant listenership across the country underlines that.

In law or in business, one's good name is very important, and I would argue that in the broadcasting world it's even more important. To have that good name called into question, without any forum for redress, was what we took particular umbrage to. I believe any organization on any side of the political spectrum, or in fact any business organization, would react the same way.

¸ (1420)

Mr. John Harvard: But was the fallout in any way tangible? Did your charitable support drop off for a while? Was there any diminution of your radio audience or anything like that?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Most of the stations we broadcast on are not part of the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, so we couldn't measure a discernable falling off of broadcasting listenership. There was an initial cost to us financially, I believe, in the short term. Needless to say, we also brought forward a fairly robust response, which from my understanding is fairly unheard of in Canada. It had the net effect, of course, of drawing people who agreed with us to support us, which made up for any shortfall.

Mr. John Harvard: Notwithstanding the pros and cons of the complaint process--and I've heard you loudly and clearly to the effect that it's not satisfactory to you--do you think there is a place, at all, for this kind of ruling by the standards council? Or when it comes to matters of this kind--call them faith, call them religion, or call them whatever--do you think they should just butt out?

Mr. Darrel Reid: No, I certainly believe there is room for regulation of the airwaves. There are a lot of voices out there that I personally, with my family and with my children, would not approve of them seeing. And it is very good to know that you have people who are tasked with the responsibility of making sure that certain standards are met. So the discussion about whether the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is fulfilling its obligation to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and through them to the CRTC, I think is very appropriate here.

The main point I'm trying to make, though, is that these rulings should not just come out the blue.

Mr. John Harvard: No, I understand that.

Mr. Darrel Reid: And that is my point. There is room, I believe, for people to be guardians and custodians of our airwaves, absolutely.

Mr. John Harvard: So there is a place for this kind of work.

Mr. Darrel Reid: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: If the standards council were to adopt a complaint process that you, Focus on the Family, could buy into, and if the standards council issued this kind of a ruling--that you were homophobic--would you accept it or...? To most people, I guess, homophobic is a pejorative term. Would you then accept the ruling, or what would you do?

Mr. Darrel Reid: We are in the business of broadcasting because we hold some views fairly strongly. I would be very disappointed if, after a hearing of the nature you're talking about, and giving us the opportunity to demonstrate that what we say is out there in the public square, that ruling would continue to be made. So I certainly would believe it would be in the public's interest to have the substance of that discussion and debate made public, and I don't see why an organization like the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council should have any objection to that.

Mr. John Harvard: On this sensitive issue of homosexuality, do you think that the standards council is biased, that you can't trust its judgment because of a certain predisposition?

Mr. Darrel Reid: If the actions of the chair are any indication, I think they are, yes. That is, not even content to leave that ruling speak for itself, he felt...and in his letter to me, when I responded to him, he made it very clear, I believe, that there is room for some perspectives in this country and not for others.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you think the CRTC should take back this responsibility? Do you think the devolution of this kind of responsibility onto a private group was wrong?

Mr. Darrel Reid: I can speak only on the basis of this organization, but if what went on with our organization is indicative, then I believe the CRTC should take another look at having devolved its responsibilities.

In the document creating the CBSC, it is noted that the CRTC is not devolving its overall responsibility for the airwaves. And I think it's a fair question to ask, has that authority been devolved wisely?

¸ (1425)

Mr. John Harvard: Sorry. I have just one more.

Do you really think the CBSC would go through this process the same way, given the fact that you have--perhaps rightly--kicked up a fuss?

I mean, do you think they would go through the process exactly the same way, that if they got another complaint of this kind, they wouldn't consult you, they would just make an arbitrary decision, as you allege they have?

Mr. Darrel Reid: I'm not quite sure if I understand the question.

Their nature is arbitrary. I mean, it's not a consultative process. So I'm not sure if I understood the question.

Mr. John Harvard: I'm just wondering whether they've learned anything from this lesson, or whether they would just leave the complaint process as is.

Mr. Darrel Reid: Well, I have seen no change whatsoever in the way...if the second ruling is any basis for it, we received no comment, no input, no request for information, and somehow I had the sense that perhaps we were expected to be grateful for a ruling that went on our behalf, or on behalf of the radio station. That point is, in a sense, immaterial. I think nothing has really changed.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I don't know whether you're aware of this, but the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council came before this committee in the fall. You may already have read the transcripts of what occurred at that meeting, but I think I'll just repeat a couple of things that I said there.

The main thing is that I think one of the reasons our committee is meeting and going across the country as we are is to try to figure out how the Canadian broadcasting system can better reflect the reality of Canadians. I would say there are millions of Canadians who do not feel their lives and their realities are being reflected. I would say that persons with disabilities feel incredibly excluded from their own life experience by what they see on TV. I would say that born-again Christians probably feel that way as well. I would say that Chinese Canadians probably feel that way, as well as gay and lesbian teenagers, Muslim women, and the list goes on. And poor people in this country do not see themselves being reflected in the thousands of hours of programming. So it's a challenge, there's no question. We take that challenge seriously and we will continue to work on it.

Mr. Darrel Reid: I certainly appreciate that and I resonate with it. I believe that Canada and Canadians are strengthened by the broadening of that discussion and debate. If you were to have asked people for their opinions on various issues 100 years ago, the outlook would have been very different. We have changed a great deal. I believe broadcasting needs to do that.

I want to commend your committee for going out and hearing those things, and I appreciate your comments on that. I think they're right.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We've heard from others, not only today but throughout our hearings, about processes--what's working well, what's not working well--and accountability measures. This seems to be another example of where perhaps there need to be some accountability measures built in, in terms of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

I asked a question to some folks earlier this morning about the whole process of accountability for the CRTC in their decisions. At the outcome of a decision, each commissioner would state whether they agreed or disagreed with it, so people knew that this was not being decided behind closed doors with the issue of a statement, as seems to have happened with this issue--although it is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Would you see that as a worthwhile thing to do? If this is to stay under the current structure, would you suggest...? First of all, you're suggesting there needs to be input from those who are being complained about. But would you also like to see individuals on the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council give reasons for their decisions so that this would not just come out in a press release somewhere, but would be out there as part of the public record, with a process for you or whoever to be involved in?

Mr. Darrel Reid: I believe there is a great deal of cynicism out there on the part of various groups, whether they are born-again Christians, evangelicals, or however you want to break it down. I think you could do that in many ways.

A significant part of that cynicism is the fact that they don't believe people are taking their views seriously. That perception is heightened by the fact that the regional councils for the CBSC are chosen--I believe the way the legislation puts it and the way the CBSC literature puts it--from eminent people with a broad background in broadcasting. I can't remember exactly; I'm paraphrasing. But they are completely free, beyond the lights of the cameras or the microphones, to render judgments. Based on what? We don't know; we have no idea.

I think it is totally appropriate to have more transparency, to have the people who are making the decisions known and the reasons known. That way we can respond to them and discuss them.

I think there are many groups, whether that would be the disabled or other groups, that would take some comfort in knowing there is more room for redress and more opportunity for input and personal accountability on these issues.

¸ (1430)

The Chair: Mrs. Hinton.

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. I always take things down to the common denominator. In this case the issue doesn't matter to me, but what matters to me is that you had no idea your broadcast was being investigated. You were never asked for any input or justification for what was broadcast. You were never informed that the decision had been rendered. You never received the courtesy of a notice that an announcement would be made.

It is very frightening to me that a process could take place without all parties being informed about what was happening. I think that's worth a really good hard look.

One of the other things you've said here is that there is no forum for redress or appeal. I find that very hard to believe as well. In the business world, the term “goodwill” has monetary value. If you can prove you have goodwill, you can sell your business for more money than you could if you had a bad reputation. So in your case it would be the same sort of thing.

Surely you could use a defamation charge, if you wanted to pursue this.

Mr. Darrel Reid: We did investigate that, you can imagine. The process of seeking redress in law to quasi-regulatory bodies is not at all clear in Canada. I suppose we could have taken the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to court for the body for which they are in control, but it is not really their responsibility. That has been devolved from the CRTC, so trying to find who is ultimately responsible for them is a huge task.

You may be able to understand that charitable organizations do not have huge pools of cash to initiate major legal action. So in our case, the level of the damage to our name and goodwill is massive and out of all proportion to whatever kind of redress we could seek.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I was speaking in general terms and not to this particular charge. I find it incomprehensible that if damage were done, you would have no recourse. It makes no sense at all.

I will add that I have absolutely no difficulty accepting recommendation one, that a clear, comprehensive, transparent, and fair review procedure for media complaints be established. I have no problem accepting recommendation two, that any dispute resolution mechanism must take into account the interests of both the complainant and the complained against. I think those sound like very reasonable resolutions to be looked at seriously. Thank you.

Mr. Darrel Reid: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Reid, I just want to understand the process, because that is what interests me on this issue, and we would have to study it.

You said the issue is not what we are about. I appreciate that.

If tomorrow someone makes a complaint to the police or the RCMP, they do an investigation and do it secretly. At the same time, in your case, the difference is if it leads to a charge, then the person accused has the right to defend himself or herself and the right of appeal.

If I understand you, in terms of the CBSC, you are looking for clear terms of reference and a mandate as to how they conduct their investigations.

¸ (1435)

Mr. Darrel Reid: Yes.

The Chair: If it is to be a private investigation, then you should have the right of a hearing at a certain point and a right of appeal.

As an alternative, do you think investigations, such as the one you were involved in, should be public? I mean it has to be one system or the other.

Mr. Darrel Reid: Yes. I personally think having a discussion about the assertions Focus on the Family made would be very worthwhile. There are reasons for what we said. Again, we're not getting into it.

There are going to be people who disagree and people who don't. We have nothing to hide on that basis. I can readily see there may be people in the process, whether they represent some group or another group, who may feel, whether they're historically disadvantaged groups or not, that having the details of the case discussed nationwide, or via the Internet worldwide, might be a problem. I think it is tricky.

My significant concern, and the point I want to raise in response to what you said, is there is a fundamental difference between being tried and convicted in the media and being tried and convicted in the courts. I have no objection to it being a public process. I think there may be those who would.

I think there should be consultation with the groups that have been maybe charged and convicted. I am using legal terms, but whatever the equivalent is in the quasi-regulatory structure. I think there is some real merit in asking them, finding out whether they think their views are being represented, and, furthermore, whether they're disadvantaged.

The Chair: Lastly, you produced the show. Did the broadcaster of your show object? They would have the right to appeal to the CRTC. Do you know if they did or didn't?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Did they object to the CRTC?

The Chair: No. I mean the decision of the CBSC, the broadcaster as such. You produce the content. Someone airs it.

Was this party, the broadcaster, also included in the ruling? If so, did the radio station or TV station that put it out appeal to the CRTC, as they had the right to do?

Mr. Darrel Reid: As far as I know, Radio CKRD did not appeal to the CRTC. I do know, however, it was made very clear to CKRD that non-compliance with the ruling would result in their licence being pulled.

I believe in an environment like that it is very difficult, when you exist within a community of broadcasters, to expect that a small radio station in a rural Alberta community is going to make a huge fuss about something. They can read a statement on the air, written by the CBSC, to get themselves out of the predicament.

The Chair: I have one last question. Do they still air your programs?

Mr. Darrel Reid: Yes, they do.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: On a point of order, I'm not clear. Mr. Reid has suggested the radio station, if it had not complied, would have had its licence pulled.

What constitutes compliance? What did the radio station have to do in the face of this censure, as you call it? What did the radio station have to do to comply?

Mr. Darrel Reid: It had to read a statement on the air a certain number of times. It basically announced the ruling of the CBSC that what we broadcast constituted abusively discriminatory content on the basis of sexual orientation. The station regretted this. I don't know the exact words. I could find them for you. It meant they would be good and would never do it again.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much. Certainly you've brought up a point of view that hasn't been aired before, so in that sense it will be really useful to us. Whatever information you can provide to us with regard to rulings and so forth will be quite interesting.

I thank you and your colleague very much for appearing, Mr. Reid. We appreciate your presence here.

¸ (1440)

Mr. Darrel Reid: Thank you for your indulgence and for the listening you did this afternoon.

The Chair: We now call on the Raging Grannies to entertain us.

Ms. Lesia Voth (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies): We want to thank you for the opportunity to give you our views on the CBC.

First of all, we'll give you a short song, and then Robyn Smith will deliver the message.

The Chair: Why don't you stand in the middle? That way everybody can see you better.

Mr. John Harvard: It's not often we have this kind of glamour.

The Chair: That's right.

Don't be shy.

Ms. Lesia Voth: All right.

Raging Grannies' singing presentation:

We love our Canadian radio
It's the only thing keeping us sane
The others are mostly noise stations
That don't do enough for our brain

As it Happens, Ideas and Opera and Almanac
News Stories, art plugs/Restore
The Sunday morning program

What is it that keeps us united
Informed and enlightened as well
Mess with our national media
And we'll tell you to go to...the States

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Your hats are very appropriate, I guess, because in B.C., I understand, spring comes very early, in February.

Welcome to you all. Thanks for the song and the harmony.

The floor is yours. I don't know who wants to start. Do you sing your presentation?

Ms. Robyn Smith (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies): Oh, no.

Good afternoon, members of the panel. We, the Vancouver Raging Grannies, wish to thank the heritage committee for this opportunity to participate in these hearings regarding Canadian broadcasting.

The Vancouver Raging Grannies is one of about 30 such groups across Canada who work, in our inimitable way, for the environment, peace, and social justice. Our advanced years mean we lived in the heyday of CBC broadcasting. Most were stay-at-home moms, and CBC was our lifeline to what was going on not only in Canada but also around the world. We felt connected to, rather than isolated from, those in Charlottetown and Grand Prairie.

We are an educated and well-informed gaggle of women who expect objectivity and well-researched information from our publicly funded CBC in order to have our presentations truthful. CBC has given us regional programs of inestimable value to give this country of vast size and great diversity a sense of cohesion. CBC has encouraged the arts--playwrights, writers, poets, singers, and musicians. No privately owned programs would have enough Canadian content to encourage and develop Canadian artists.

We all admit to searching out quality TV on Knowledge Network and PBS. It is healthy to have choices, and with little or no commercials. CBC TV does not speak to all, even though we enjoy such programs as Marketplace, The Nature of Things, etc.

It is unfortunate to have to comment on falling standards, particularly on TV. Maybe this reflects our age. But is it really necessary to show men talking to each other in front of a urinal? I am thinking of DaVinci's Inquest as a good example. Also, does the satire on This Hour Has 22 Minutes have to be quite so nasty? Examples of very bad manners abound. Perhaps this is small potatoes compared to the violence and sex on many American stations, but the influence on children is enormous.

We understand that you are thinking of gearing some programming to young people. As most of them are either in school or working during the day, we would expect daytime radio to stay much the same. However, the suggestion has been made that it would not be difficult, technologically speaking, to have another cable station designed for young people to give them a serious look at world events or real-life situations confronting them.

We all need to hear stories about outstanding Canadians and writers. All of this can stir in us a real Canadian identity and pride in more than just our flag.

Because funding to the CBC has been severely cut over the years, it is no longer possible to have enough of our own Canadian foreign correspondents on the spot reporting on events unfolding in far-off countries. We have to depend on reporters from Britain, the U.S., Australia, etc., to give us their version of what is transpiring, which may or may not reflect our slant.

Citizens must be informed about issues, like the abolition of nuclear weapons, so that they can understand Canadian initiatives. Many times it is interesting what is left out of the news rather than what is in it.

A point to be made here is that there should never be any interference with a reporter who is doing his job. Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Our government should have an arm's-length relationship with the CBC.

CBC Radio and TV are unique and invaluable to concerned citizens. We ask that the Government of Canada return to its past support and funding of CBC. It must survive. Funding must be restored so that advertising is not needed. CBC is a precious asset and part of our heritage. This nation needs this lifeline.

Thank you.

¸ (1445)

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now call for questions. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you very much for being with us today. This is the first time I have had the privilege of listening to your serenade. I find that I have a different opinion on many of the issues you mentioned. Notwithstanding that, I have the deepest respect for you because you have chosen a way of getting people's attention and you are doing it very responsibly. I commend you for it. I trust that you will take that as a very sincere compliment.

One of the interesting things that happens, though, when one is in public life is that we find we have some points where we agree and some points where we disagree.

I was interested in your reflection near the end of your presentation about interference with the reporter doing his job. I don't know if you were referring to the APEC inquiry, but that was one point where I think we were in full agreement that there certainly appeared to be interference on the part of the government with the independence of Terry Milewski. Perhaps our researchers could make note of the fact that we should take a look at ensuring there is that arm's-length arrangement between the CBC and the government. I know it is in legislation, but I'm not sure it is always there in practice.

I believe there is very little disagreement in Canada, certainly not on the part of the official opposition and not on my part, that CBC Radio One plays a really important part. It's excellent value for Canadians, and I think there's broad acceptance of CBC Radio by virtually all Canadians.

Taking a look at CBC, particularly CBC English television. I wonder if you could help us understand. Do you have a best guess? You ladies, like myself, are working in a vacuum of information, but if we were to double or triple the hundreds of millions of dollars that are presently going into CBC English television, what would we be attempting to achieve? How could we help CBC English television actually reach a point where people would aggressively volunteer to tune in?

As I say, I'm setting aside CBC Radio One because I think that's fine. Everybody's in agreement on that, so we don't need to discuss it. But with CBC English television, give us an idea of what you think needs to happen--not precisely how many more dollars--if it's going to become relevant again to Canadians.

¸ (1450)

The Chair: Mrs. Smith?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes, I'm thinking.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies): I have a question.

The Chair: That's fine.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: Why is it that here in Canada we can watch American channels but the Americans don't see any of our Canadian channels? They should be more international and go farther. There should be more satellite information about Canada.

I travel around the world, and when I go to New Zealand, Chile, or Argentina, I get disconnected from the television part. American television is very available throughout the world, but Canadian television is not that much. So I think it needs a longer arm, an extension. That's my suggestion. Thank you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I don't know if I have an adequate answer to that. I would suggest it's a case of choice. Australia, Chile, or even countries in Africa, or wherever, are making choices on what they think their viewers want to see.

Perhaps we have to make a stronger case, do a better sales job of our Canadian programming, so when we put it up on a satellite, they will choose to access it from the satellite.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: But they are available already.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, but I apologize, it's a qualified yes because there are many areas, particularly in the southern hemisphere, where they wouldn't necessarily be on the satellite.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: From Miami, they control what goes south and what is more available to the southern continents. They are sort of in control of this.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I really value the fact that you are, like a lot of us, ordinary Canadians making choices when you watch television. Everybody who watches television in Canada makes a choice as to what they're going to put on.

What things, in your judgment, would be appealing and create a bit of a stampede back to CBC English television?

Ms. Ann Kujundzic (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies): I know it's not possible at the moment, but not having advertising would appeal to people.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: Instead of cutting them off, maybe they could just turn the sound down when the advertising comes on, instead of putting it up. When you're watching television, you always have to go for the volume when the commercials start. That's too aggressive.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Do you think that the CBC should keep to programming that is more in line with its mandate and that of Radio-Canada? In my opinion, it's not by copying the American model that we are going to attract bigger audiences.

Therefore, Radio-Canada's programming should be closer to its mandate, that is, more cultural. What do you think about ratings? Should we get better ratings to ensure Radio-Canada's survival?

¸ (1455)

[English]

Ms. Barbara Taylor (Representative, Vancouver Raging Grannies): Yes. I really like the idea of the CBC reflecting the different parts of the country to each other. There has been a lot of regional programming in the past that has stayed within one region. But Canadians travel back and forth across the country. They move around and retain an interest in the other areas they're familiar with.

I would like to see more regional programming cross-fertilized, that the regional be made national, so we get to know more about what's happening in the other regions of the country.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: As for quality of information, I have received a suggestion from someone who is studying our public television system: instead of broadcasting news programs like those of the private broadcasters, there would be more in-depth news programs with special themes. Are you satisfied with the news carried by Radio-Canada or the CBC, which are similar to what can be found in the private sector, or would you prefer different programming for daily news?

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Taylor.

Ms. Barbara Taylor: I would like to see more emphasis on public affairs and less on what I would call the death and destruction news. There should be more emphasis on things such as this forum, which concerns all people and gives them information to become involved as citizens.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have one last question. In this case, would ratings objectives be something we impose upon Radio-Canada so that it can prove its effectiveness, or is it better not to impose ratings, so that Radio-Canada can work toward something that is closer to its mandate? Currently, I think that it is 7 or 9 percent. What would be the market share in this case? We should agree that the more specific and cultural we are in the domain of public affairs, the lower the ratings. Youths will go elsewhere and people are perhaps looking for something else. Would we be able to drop the requirement for ratings?

[English]

Ms. Robyn Smith: Maybe we don't have to apologize for sticking to our mandate. We realize that the ratings are down and the audience is more limited than it is for the private broadcasting stations, but I don't think we should give up our ideas.

Ms. Ann Kujundzic: The problem with ratings is that they feed into the whole thing of advertising again, and we have to try to break that cycle, from my perspective. I realize there are many issues around this that I probably don't have information about, but I think this tying of ratings, which I'm sure has to be for advertising purposes mainly, is not a good way.

¹ (1500)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I appreciate your support for public broadcasting, because I'm a supporter of public broadcasting as well. But let me ask you a couple of questions.

In your third last paragraph here--let me put my glasses on so I can read it--you say: “A point to be made here is that there should never be any interference with a reporter who is doing his job.” Then you go on to mention why. Why did you include that? It just seems to have come out of the blue. Why did you include that paragraph?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Well, that's really interesting because--

Mr. John Harvard: That's why I asked.

Ms. Robyn Smith: --four years ago, not this particular group but another group I was with made a submission to the CRTC hearings, and this paragraph was inserted there. I thought it sounded pretty good, so I put it in this one. There has been research done, so I thought, well, it must be okay.

The Chair: Mrs. Taylor, do you want to add something?

Ms. Barbara Taylor: It's quite simply a question of being at arm's length from the government. It's so important to have publicly funded and adequately funded public radio, but it's also important that it be independent from--not be a spokesperson for--whatever party is in power; that it have that independence.

Mr. John Harvard: I agree. We're supposed to have a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. I would hope the CBC is not seen as a state broadcaster, and while I know the world is not perfect, I would hope there would be very little interference with the CBC. I'm talking at the program level. We'll always have some money interference, because the money has to come from public coffers. I happen to believe there is very little interference in the CBC.

Let me go on, because you talk about wanting no ads. I agree with you. In my dream world I'd love to have no ads. I don't know whether we can ever get back to that, though, because it comes down to a question of money again. To me, no ads is part of a larger picture, the larger picture being seeing the CBC as an alternative broadcaster--something very different from the commercial networks.

Do you think, for example, if we were to follow that sort of alternative model for the CBC, we should just eschew and avoid American programming almost exclusively; have no American programming; just have Canadian programming? What do you think?

Ms. Robyn Smith: I think there are some very good American programs.

Mr. John Harvard: So you would want some.

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: But would you want less under the kind of model that perhaps you idealize?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you think we have too much American programming now?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: On CBC, or on every channel, every network?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Everywhere on the tube, even on the CBC.

Mr. John Harvard: More regional broadcasting strikes us as somewhat like motherhood. That's fine; I'd like to see more regional programming as well. But one of the problems the CBC has is it's really expensive. It's really, really expensive if you're going to do it well.

For example, if the CBC--radio or television--were going to cover this meeting, and it would be nice to have that done, if they were to do it properly it would cost some money, because you can't just put a microphone here and carry it live or in the raw. To do a program properly requires editing, polishing, finishing--that's part of broadcasting. But, man, that costs a lot of money. Are you prepared to pay for it?

Ms. Robyn Smith: How many years ago was it that we did pay a fee?

Mr. John Harvard: Are you talking about a licence fee?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: It was when you and I were little boys and girls. I mean, I can remember it when I was on a prairie farm many long years ago.

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes. Is that a possible way to do it?

Mr. John Harvard: I don't know. I don't think there's much political will for it. I just don't think so.

Would you like to see it go that way? Would you see a licence fee on a voluntary basis or on a compulsory basis?

Ms. Robyn Smith: Well, I think it would have to be compulsory.

Mr. John Harvard: Compulsory.

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Kujundzic.

Mr. John Harvard: You wanted to say something.

Ms. Ann Kujundzic: We're paying enormous amounts for cable right now for which there is very little return. When I pay my cable bill every month I would love to be paying that to CBC, instead of....

Mr. John Harvard: Lesia.

Ms. Lesia Voth: Since we're discussing money, remember the heyday of CBC radio drama. It seems to me we have far less of that. That covers the question from this side about what we want; to have that returned would be wonderful.

Also, could we not sell it--to PBS, to similar stations in the United States? Because we did and can do, I think, wonderful drama, and this seems to be what people want. I'm talking television too.

Mr. John Harvard: Well, you could, but then you get into the whole question of tailoring it for somebody else's market.

There is no doubt that if you want to sell it to Europe or PBS or whomever, then you're going to have to reshape it to make it more marketable in those areas.

Ms. Lesia Voth: I'm thinking mostly of the American market.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here. I would like to say to the member for Kootenay--Columbia that it's an outrage to admit he's never seen the Raging Grannies in person. You're going to have to get up there and start a chapter.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just what I need.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think you have said some very interesting things. At lunch today a group of us were sitting talking about Canadian content. It's something we talk about all the time in this committee.

You've said here:

We all need to hear stories of outstanding Canadians and writers. All of this can stir in us a real Canadian identity and pride in more than just our flag.

I think those are really very central ideas for us to deal with.

Another part of your presentation says:

Reflecting on what has happened all day today, we have heard from many people who have said their concerns, their communities, their neighbourhoods, their ethnicities are not being represented on TV and radio, nor are big issues such as the environment, peace, women's health, poverty--all of these things. These are all central issues of our lives that are in fact being left out as opposed to being in.

I know you are concerned about these issues, because it is your document I am quoting from. I would like to know if you could speak to the impact of cuts to regional programming at the CBC level. You are here in Vancouver, so you get the full program with Ian Hanomansing; the whole thing is happening here. But in fact you have had reduced, within the last year, by at least one half hour your regional programming--which I imagine would be covering these hearings if it still existed. So maybe you can comment on the cuts to regional programming.

Ms. Barbara Taylor: I'm concerned about the cuts across the board that have been reflected in the level of programming, the level of reportage, and just the general quality right across the whole national spectrum.

Regionally, I think there is a lot of scope for cross-fertilization. For instance, Land and Sea, was such a popular program in the Maritimes. I think people would be interested in seeing that here. Conversely, people in other parts of the country would like to see the programs from here. I think that would both be cost-saving in terms of programming and also reflect us to each other.

A big thrust of the whole thing is the “support for”--to restore that support and maintain the quality.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak to the cuts to regional programming?

¹ (1505)

Ms. Robyn Smith: I think it's obvious that we are unhappy with these cuts because we don't get as much information. For instance, about three months ago on a Saturday, 5,000 of us marched across Burrard Bridge with our anti-war placards, etc., and there wasn't a peep in the paper. I don't remember hearing about it on CBC. It was unfortunate that we didn't work up a bit of violence, you know. You can get pretty cynical.

¹ (1510)

Mr. John Harvard: You could carry your own pepper spray.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes. I said it was interesting what was often left out of the news. It's really quite interesting from our perspective, being activists.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, I agree with the advertising side of it. I have four young children, and we spent five or six hours watching CBC yesterday, the hockey game and also the closing ceremonies of the Olympics. There were four ads that came on over and over again. Our youngest guy is five. We had to grab for the remote. There was advertising for the Men with Brooms movie, with a bunch of naked guys jumping into a lake in one clip, and the beer commercials, of course. There was some other CBC program called Tom Stone or something that's just starting out, and there's a guy dropping his pants in that commercial. Then there was some biker show that's coming up on CBC too.

Those four ads just kept going through that loop over and over again. We wanted to watch the Olympics and the hockey game, but we didn't necessarily want to watch those advertisements. I agree CBC finds itself in a bit of a dilemma now. There certainly is a place for CBC.

One of the questions that's coming up over and over before the committee is what the role and the mandate of the CBC should be and how it should be funded. The big question we have--well, I'll talk specifically about myself--is on the funding side of it. Of course, every tax dollar that goes to pay for the CBC is a dollar held in trust. When the CBC is looking more and more like just another private broadcaster in many regards, can we strongly make the argument that we should be doling out close to $1 billion when there's a strong argument to be made that it's lost its way in many regards?

I throw that out for you, and I'll end with one other question or comment. One of you made the point that perhaps we should be looking at raising some money by selling programming to other countries. I disagree with Mr. Harvard that we have to change it to meet another market. We've developed excellent programs and there's a market for them in other places. Mr. Harvard's comments are aptly taken in one sense. It's a debatable point. Would you see that as a way to increase revenues?

There's also the notion of individual contributions from Canadian citizens and some of the things we see with public broadcasters in other countries, where they're doing almost a telethon kind of thing to raise money. Maybe that's actually not a good thing to do.

Do you see other ways of getting revenue into the system besides just allocating money from government? And there's that other question about whether we should be doing that when it looks in many regards like the CBC is another private broadcaster.

Ms. Lesia Voth: I'd like to speak to that. Would it be considered terribly undemocratic to bring a licence fee back? They do that in Europe; they do that in England. It must pay for a lot, just by sheer numbers. Do you think the citizenry of Canada would rise up in arms and say no?

Ms. Barbara Taylor: But the poor would be excluded again.

Ms. Lesia Voth: Well, it's not a big fee.

Mr. Grant McNally: There may be an appetite for it if it weren't on top of the dollars already going to the CBC, if that were a replacement process. If the CBC were to get $1 billion plus money from a licensing fee, then I think we'd all be running for cover in our constituency offices.

Of course, we can't determine whether a licensing fee should be brought back or not. Is that your suggestion?

Ms. Lesia Voth: Yes. I can't speak to the numbers, but it's a possibility, because it seems to sustain itself in other countries. That's my point.

¹ (1515)

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a quick question.

If you were to eliminate the advertising on CBC, it would create a shortfall in the general vicinity of half a billion dollars annually. That would amount to approximately $30 per taxpayer in Canada every year. If you consider that women in particular, since they live longer than us guys--maybe we eat too much red meat--are at a point now, in an older age group, where they have new health care costs, pharmacare costs, and all those costs that haven't been anticipated to this point, do you think this half a billion dollars should come out of taxpayers' pockets? You are looking at a cost on average of about $30 per taxpayer.

Ms. Lesia Voth: I know this would not be a popular move, but I don't know what the answer is.

Ms. Ann Kujundzic: I think we have to tap other resources. I don't think it's just a matter of having more taxpayer money coming out per se. I think we have to look at a whole lot of structures in our society to see where money is being diverted, or not collected in tax from some of the major corporations, whatever. I think we have to be incredibly imaginative to come up with some other way of bringing money into the CBC.

I don't think making appeals for money or imposing a tax are necessarily the answers. But I think we need some creative thinking around this, and it's very hard to suddenly come up with creative thinking on it. But I think we can come up with creative thinking if people begin to talk about it and bring up their ideas. Then maybe we'll come up with something. There have to be ways of doing it. We're wasting immense amounts of money in our country now on things that many of us feel are not very appropriate.

The Chair: I...sorry, go ahead.

Ms. Barbara Taylor: I just want to make one particular point.

I rely on CBC Radio as my primary source of information. Last month I had reason to visit the United States, and I tuned in to National Public Radio. It was their fundraising week, and I received very little information about what was happening. So to me it's very important. The radio, for me, is primary, and to have it publicly funded is very important.

Ms. Betty Hinton: Welcome, ladies. It was a pleasure to hear your presentation today. You weren't here earlier when there was another discussion going on, and I'm not sure if you're aware of what taxpayers spend on television now. Do you know the number? It's just shy of $1 billion annually. That's in subsidy, and it's across the board.

Ms. Ann Kujundzic: Is that television or radio?

A voice: Everything.

Ms. Betty Hinton: Anyway, where I live, the softwood lumber issue is major. People are losing jobs, and the prospect of paying more in taxes is certainly not palatable. And with the health care issue in this country, it's the same thing--it's simply not palatable.

We talked earlier about not having ads, and I agree. Mr. McNally's not alone. He's in the same position as many families who have to watch very carefully when the commercials come on. My husband turns the television off when the commercials come on.

So I guess the simple answer to that is, if you don't want any ads, it has to be a pay-per-view kind of system. That way, if you're paying for the programming and you're subscribing to what it is you want to watch, the ads would be gone. I don't know if it's practical in this country to do that, but that is one way to avoid the ads.

The other part that I agree with--and we've heard this several times throughout the day--is that it is very important that different parts of Canada get to see other parts of Canada so we can relate to one another. There have been discussions about going back and forth. You're saying, Ms. Taylor, that there is little travel within the country.

For most people, travelling from one end of the country to the other is prohibitive. It is not affordable.

In order for us to get to know one another, we are going to have to do it via television. Otherwise, we are never going to get to know each other. We are always going to be parted. We are always going to be strangers. We are going to have this east-west division forever.

Yes, I agree it has to happen. I need to find out how to make it happen, and make it happen in an affordable way. It is part of what we are here to listen to. If you have any ideas, I would really love to hear them.

¹ (1520)

Ms. Robyn Smith: I think most of us pay every year for the Knowledge Network programming and PBS.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It is voluntary.

Ms. Robyn Smith: Yes, that's the thing. It is voluntary.

When you get to $30 and $40 a year, would that do the trick?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I don't know if that would do the trick.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: My idea is not to have no commercials at all. Can we be more graceful in choosing which commercials are more harmonious for the spirit of whomever is listening or watching, instead of having no commercials at all, having all commercials, or having commercials where some guy is taking his pants down? We can have better choice in commercials and commercials on nature.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I agree with you in part. I guess when you enter into that discussion it becomes a question of what offends you may not offend me and what offends me may not offend her.

Ms. Kitana Nuttall: There are things that don't offend anyone. It is possible to have great drama and beautiful movies without having the macabre or horrible deaths and violence.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: You and I are in complete agreement. I would imagine there is a great deal of study that goes into putting a commercial together. They're appealing to the masses. Unfortunately, we may not fall into the category and like to see that kind of thing. I guess it appeals to the masses.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification.

The Chair: Time is running out. You have asked me for an additional question. If you're prepared to stay longer tonight, it's fine with me.

Ms. Wendy Lill: First of all, I don't think it is really appropriate for us to be asking you how to fund the public broadcaster. It doesn't seem appropriate at all. I think we have to adequately fund the public broadcaster.

I did want to say, according to the president of the CBC, CBC TV costs $300 million a year, not a half a billion and not a billion. It's quite a difference. If we are going to believe him, its $300 million.

The Chair: I am sorry. If we start discussing figures, we will never end.

Mrs. Smith, we would like to thank you and your colleagues very much for a presentation that was heartfelt.

Maybe you didn't know the statistical answers. I don't think we expected you to. I think you summed it up very well in saying you don't have to apologize for your beliefs. I think you carried your message very clearly to us. You want a public broadcaster that is independent and strong, that reflects the ideas of Canadians, and that is publicly funded. From there on, it is for us to find out how this is done and whether it should be done that way.

We really appreciate your message and your presence here. Thank you very much for coming.

Our last witness is Mrs. Prem Gill, manager of public affairs at CKVU of Vancouver.

Mrs. Gill, usually the broadcasting stations come with a whole battery of support staff. It is very impressive that you have come by yourself with all the answers.

Mrs. Gill, the floor is yours.

Ms. Prem Gill (Manager, Public Affairs, CKVU-TV, Vancouver) My name is Prem Gill. I am manager of public affairs for CKVU television here in Vancouver, and on behalf of CKVU-TV and CHUM Television, I thank you for the opportunity to provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with an overview of our plans for CKVU-TV here in Vancouver.

On October 31, 2001, CHUM Limited proudly announced the completion of its purchase of CKVU-TV in Vancouver. For CHUM this is an opportunity for us to extend our unique brand of local programming to the greater Vancouver area.

Over the next year, CKVU will become a more visual, urban, movie-based station reflecting the cultural diversity of Vancouver and the lower mainland. CKVU will offer viewers a distinctive, original, and creative programming mix, featuring an intensely local orientation.

Building on the fundamental programming philosophy for truly local television created by CHUM's Citytv Toronto over 30 years ago, CKVU will be every bit a Vancouver station, a station reflecting the real Vancouver, situated squarely within Vancouver's multicultural and new urban reality.

This opportunity to create a distinctive vision of local broadcasting in the Vancouver market comes at a pivotal moment, given that local programming is at risk across the broadcasting system in Canada. Now more than ever Vancouver needs a station that reflects the changing needs and diverse makeup of our cosmopolitan city. CKVU's rebirth as an independent station with a fierce local emphasis will fill the void left by existing stations and reintroduce strong local programming to Vancouverites.

How will CHUM achieve this? CHUM is dedicated to returning CKVU to its roots as a local, independent station founded on a philosophy of distinctive programming and strong local reflections, but with an updated, up-to-the-minute approach reflecting the new reality of multicultural, multilingual, and multiracial Vancouver.

We will increase our local news commitment from 10 hours and 57 minutes per week to a minimum of 15.5 hours per week.

We will introduce a minimum six hours per week of locally produced non-news programming focusing on the local entertainment and leisure scene and local issues. No such programming currently exists in Vancouver.

We will introduce six hours per week of quality, distinctive, original, local, multicultural programming, representing a new genre of programming at CKVU.

CHUM will invest at least $7 million over seven years for the pre-licensing of B.C.-produced theatrical feature films and feature-length documentaries. And in an effort to establish relationships with new voices representing diverse approaches and to help build bridges within the filmmaking community, we will invest $800,000 in the support of short drama from visible minorities and first nations filmmakers. We call this program Vancouver's Other Stories. This initiative will support at least 10 short fiction films for prime time broadcast on CKVU over our licence term.

In addition to our programming and filmmaking initiatives, CKVU will also be involved in local culture, social policy, and talent development by supporting media literacy teacher training programs, underwriting scholarships and awards with the British Columbia Institute of Technology to encourage and recognize excellence in visible minority and aboriginal students.

We will contribute $140,000 to support the undertaking of a major research project that will examine the current reflection of racial minorities in Canadian news and entertainment programming. And to further CHUM's aim of encouraging innovative and culturally diverse filmmaking in British Columbia, we will establish a multicultural development program with the Praxis Centre for Screenwriters. Praxis is based out of Simon Fraser University's department of contemporary arts.

CHUM will also support and celebrate excellence in western Canadian filmmaking by creating an annual Vancouver Film Festival award.

CKVU, like all CHUM television stations, will strive to reflect the multicultural, multiracial, and multilingual needs of the various communities we serve. Our philosophy of inclusion, reflection, acceptance, equality, and understanding is reflected in our corporate statement of cultural diversity best practices.

The CHUM Television cultural diversity best practices was an industry first and reflects our commitment to ensuring all Canadians have the opportunity to see themselves reflected on their television screens and hear their diverse stories that come from the cultural mosaic that is Canadian society.

These guidelines bring together policies and strategies for equitable hiring and on-air reflection as well as guidelines for handling controversial programming and programming acquisitions and commissions.

With the acquisition of CKVU, CHUM Television is now poised to become a true national alternative station group. As an emerging player, CHUM Television is focused on areas that set it apart but are complementary to other Canadian broadcasters. We are specialists in local programming, cultural diversity, long form and serial drama, music and entertainment, and reflecting Canada's urban lifestyle. And now we have the opportunity to deliver our unique brand of programming to the Vancouver marketplace.

¹ (1525)

The standing committee's study of the present and future state of broadcasting in Canada is a timely undertaking. On behalf of CHUM Television, I thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this process.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Thank you very much for your concise, clear, and well-put presentation.

We'll open up the meeting for questions. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is an excellent presentation.

I presume that a model that would be driving the kind of expense and revenue side that you are looking at for CKVU is currently in place or you have some history with it in Toronto.

Ms. Prem Gill: Citytv is similar.

But we're also doing some groundbreaking things for CHUM here in Vancouver, especially with our scholarship programs and our programs with practice where we're specifically targeting visible minority and aboriginal filmmakers.

A year ago we held a national forum to discuss cultural diversity in the media, which we broadcast on Canadian Learning Television, CPAC, APTN, and Vision TV. One of the issues that came out of that was the need for training for visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians, which doesn't currently exist. This is training not just in terms of work in front of the camera but behind the camera, specifically in feature film. We are drawing on a lot of those recommendations, some of which will be implemented across our network of channels. Because CKVU is the newest channel in the group, it has given us the opportunity to start some of this stuff from scratch. So there are some models at Citytv in Toronto and our other stations, but there's also some new stuff we're doing here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is there any concern that you might not be able to do this because of financial constraints?

Ms. Prem Gill: No, we're fully committed to this. In our application to the CRTC we gave our financial breakdown and we have funds committed to all of these programs.

Mr. Jim Abbott: As an example, within the larger Chinese community you would have Cantonese and Mandarin. Is your programming going to be primarily in English?

Ms. Prem Gill: Our news programming will be primarily in English. With regard to our 12 hours of non-news programming, six of which will be multicultural, a lot of it will be in English because of our approach as a more urban, youth-oriented television station. When we say that we don't just mean by demographic age, but by the way people think. My family comes from India, and when you come from India, you usually speak the national language, which is Hindi; your regional language; and English, because that's what is taught in school. I believe that English is a bridge-building language. If we do programming in third languages, whether it's Cantonese, Punjabi, or Mandarin, when possible we'll have subtitles as well.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What time of day would that more exceptional programming be taking place?

Ms. Prem Gill: We're still working on our programming schedule. We've been at CKVU for about three months now, and we'll be announcing our schedule probably in May or June. But it won't be blocked. It will just be on the weekends, as multicultural programming traditionally is.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You mentioned that your family came from India. Does the conflict between India and Pakistan have the potential to create a challenge for the station?

Ms. Prem Gill: I don't think so. I think it's an issue that concerns a lot of Canadians regardless of their background.

You're probably aware that recently there was another television station licence for a multilingual station, which will be focused and will have the opportunity to do programming in third languages targeting specific community groups. I certainly hope to incorporate a lot of current affairs programming, especially into our multicultural programming, where there will be opportunities for people to discuss issues of international and local concern. I don't expect it to be a barrier, though, to anything we do here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm wondering if it would have the potential to be a barrier on the entertainment side.

Ms. Prem Gill: I don't think so.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just thinking of global conflict and how it could focus itself on the one station.

Ms. Prem Gill: I can't really speak to that. Personally, I don't think so. I think that when it comes to entertainment programming, it doesn't come from a political place. The conflict in India is in India.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm not just keying on the India-Pakistan thing. I just cite that as one example.

Really, I'm out of questions. I'm very positively impressed with your presentation. I wish you all the best. I think it will be something for all of us Canadians, whether on a committee like this or not, to take a look at. We wish you well, and that as you run into difficulties you'll have the wherewithal to overcome those difficulties and to see a pattern that could be duplicated elsewhere. Congratulations.

¹ (1535)

Ms. Prem Gill: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You say that you wish to reflect the multicultural communities, and the various languages and races in Vancouver. How will you be able to reflect the various communities, such as the local francophone community? Will you have specific programming for these communities? More specifically, how are you going to establish programming based on the various communities?

[English]

Ms. Prem Gill: Well, our multicultural programming will be specifically focused on visible minority and aboriginal groups. The idea of having that programming in English is to build bridges and to have more of that cross-fertilization between the anglophone community, the francophone community, the Chinese community, the Punjabi community. I am focusing specifically on the Chinese and Punjabi communities because they do make up the largest third-language population in the greater Vancouver area.

We won't have programming specifically focused toward the francophone community. However, we strive at all of our CHUM stations to be reflective of the communities behind the scenes as much as we are in front of the cameras. As a visible minority person who works for a mainstream broadcaster, I don't see enough faces like my own at any of the stations. We've inherited CKVU, and there will be lots of changes there in the next year, two years, three years, seven years. The francophone community is a part of that, reflecting it back to itself in terms of who are the people in the various departments, not just in terms of who's reading the news to you.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have no further questions. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Gill.

Are you convinced that there is enough economic information available to assure us that this kind of programming will work and that you won't have to backtrack on the pledges you made before the CRTC? Can you fulfill this kind of mandate that you've made for yourself?

Ms. Prem Gill: Absolutely. I'm certain of it.

I was born and have grown up in this community. I've seen the opportunities that other broadcasters and other media are missing. I think the fact that the commission has actually licensed a multicultural television station is an indication that there is a viable market for not just the multicultural programming but all of our stuff.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you derive some of that certainty from the success of Citytv in Toronto, or is the Vancouver market quite different, in your opinion?

Ms. Prem Gill: I think the Vancouver market is quite unique. The area of advertising dollars isn't my space of specialty, but there have been a lot of changes in this market and there have been studies. I'm sure I could get back to you on that answer. I don't know the exact numbers, but just being a person who watches television in this community, who has been a part of the media and also on the other side of it, I feel there is....

Mr. John Harvard: You say CKVU will become a more visual, urban, movie-based station. Could you just put a little flesh on that for me?

Ms. Prem Gill: Sure. It's going to be built on the principles at Citytv. When we talk about being more visual, we mean being more visual in the communities where we operate our stations as well, not just on television.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you mean that in other words, you'll have a considerable number of remote broadcasts?

Ms. Prem Gill: One of the most successful things at Citytv in Toronto is our Speakers Corner.

We'll have similar units set up all over Vancouver, and our teams will be at community events. Hopefully, they'll be there when our Raging Grannies friends are marching across the Burrard Bridge. These are things we have the ability to cover because we'll be out there a little more. And we'll also be addressing issues that are more urban lifestyle, downtown, city-oriented issues that seep into the suburbs, because each community like Surrey or Richmond has its own little urban thing going on there. It's not just a downtown Vancouver thing.

In terms of our movies, at Citytv we run movies every night, and that's similar to what we'll be doing at CKVU, where every night we'll have a long film, whether it's a Canadian film that we funded through one of our development programs or anything, like Men in Black, instead of serials like you see on the other stations like ER or NYPD Blue, that kind of stuff.

¹ (1540)

Mr. John Harvard: You're suggesting that your purchase is somewhat timely because you say that, and I quote you, “local programming is at risk across the broadcasting system.”

What did you mean by “at risk”?

Ms. Prem Gill: I'm going to refer to my notes because I thought you'd ask me that question.

There isn't a station in Vancouver that reflects the changing needs of this city. The big three broadcasters have created more of an emphasis on national programming. We have Global Television here. They now have a national newscast. They still have a lot of local news, but they don't do anything other than news programming locally. The CTV affiliate, which was an independent, is now fully part of CTV. The CBC is also pulling back from local coverage. They are becoming more national as well.

So that leaves an opportunity for somebody to come and fill a local programming niche that nobody else is doing. And that's where we feel our timing is right for CHUM, a television station that specializes in local and original programming, to come into this market and produce new programming.

Mr. John Harvard: So in other words, without your purchase things would be really bad at a local programming level?

Ms. Prem Gill: They are bad.

Mr. John Harvard: You also mention increasing the local news commitment from 10 hours and 57 minutes to 15.5 hours per week, and you'll also introduce a minimum of six hours per week of locally produced non-news programming. I think you did suggest that this programming would not be on the weekends, it would be some other time during the broadcast schedule.

Ms. Prem Gill: Those 12 hours of programming will be throughout our broadcasting schedule.

Mr. John Harvard: Will any of it be in prime time?

Ms. Prem Gill: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: A smidgen of it or a considerable amount of it?

Ms. Prem Gill: I don't want to say yet because we're still working on it for competitive reasons as well, but probably half of it.

Mr. John Harvard: In prime time?

Ms. Prem Gill: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Is that prime time from seven to 11?

Ms. Prem Gill: Yes, Monday through Sunday, the whole week.

Mr. John Harvard: You will be catering to visible minorities, in particular, I gather, Chinese and East Indians. Would some of that programming, especially in the foreign languages, be foreign produced or all locally produced? Would you ever have programming from, say, India or Pakistan?

Ms. Prem Gill: I hope we don't. The form that it might take is if we have a music program we may show music videos that aren't necessarily produced by Canadian artists. There is a guy named Talvin Singh in the U.K. who does what we call fusion music using electronica and Indian tablas, and that's a video that might be relevant to one of our youth-oriented programs.

But we won't be showing movies from India or serials from Hong Kong. I think there's a big community out there that watches that programming, but we have a Chinese broadcaster in Vancouver, we have a multicultural channel, and now we have another multicultural channel where I suspect a lot of this stuff will appear.

Mr. John Harvard: I have one more question.

Some hon. members: Cut him off.

Mr. John Harvard: No, these are all good questions. This is from the government side.

Anyway, you are going to invest $7 million over seven years in theatrical feature films, feature length documentaries, and also $800,000 to support short-form drama from visible minority and first nation filmmakers. So the question is, is this mostly your money?

Ms. Prem Gill: It's all CHUM money.

¹ (1545)

Mr. John Harvard: None of it is from the television fund, none of it from Telefilm--it's your money?

Ms. Prem Gill: People who apply to our independent production fund may also apply for money from Telefilm or from other broadcasters. Our Vancouver Other Stories is specific programming where we would pre-license ten short dramas. They may appear somewhere else, but the idea is to take a filmmaker who hasn't had the opportunity to produce a feature because they're being told they're not ready, somebody who has a script for a short-form drama, and they'll get to work with some experienced people and make their first short feature. It would appear during prime time on CKVU for sure, and maybe even on some of our other channels, depending on the nature of the product.

Mr. John Harvard: Good luck.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you for coming before us.

I'm interested in the statement that you will introduce a minimum of six hours per week of locally produced, non-news programming. You say no such programming currently exists in Vancouver. That's an astounding fact if it's true, because of how many people live in this city. The fact that there is no local programming speaks volumes on what we are talking about throughout this entire hearing.

I'm interested in the economics of the station. Obviously, CHUM thinks it does have economic viability. It's a movie-based station. What do you mean by that? What percentage of the hours on air are movies? What percentage are Canadian and what percentage are foreign? What's the deal there?

Ms. Prem Gill: I don't have those percentages, but I can certainly get back to you on that, in writing.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

Ms. Prem Gill: We run movies every night, and in the afternoons as well. That's an average of about four hours a day. We have a commitment to Canadian as well, but I'm not sure about the percentages.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was born in Vancouver and grew up in the suburbs in Coquitlam, as I mentioned earlier. I grew up with CKVU when it was an independent station.

It sounds very much as if it's going to go back to its roots. In my view, it became just another television station for many years.

For the benefit of my colleagues, there's been a big transformation in Vancouver, with local stations switching all over the place. It's hard to even keep up with who's where now. As you mentioned, we have BCTV, which was the CTV affiliate, but is now owned by Global, which we're going to tomorrow. The CTV affiliate is now called, I believe, BC CTV. And I think CKVU was owned by Global and then was purchased by CHUM. So there's still a big adjustment going on in the local market here.

I'm a big fan of CKVU, or was for many years, with a lot of the local programming that went on, with theVancouver Show, which we mentioned. One of our colleagues in the Senate, Laurier Lapierre, was the co-host. Some other programs sprung up there. I don't know whether you still have Sports Page or if that went with one of the other--

Ms. Prem Gill: Global took it with them.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's too bad. I'm a big sports fan as well, and that was always a big part of CKVU.

Could you tell us about the culture of the organization? When we visited Citytv, it seemed to be a very dynamic and fun place to be. There seemed to be a culture of...when I say culture, I'm talking about the culture of the company itself, the station. When we were there the people were happy to be there. There seemed to be a positive vibe going on there.

CHUM started out small, and is medium-sized to big now--on its way to bigger--yet it still seems to be able to keep this almost little-guy attitude in terms of independence of individual stations.

Some have argued throughout our hearings that as a company becomes big, becomes a conglomerate that owns radio stations, newspapers, and television stations--I know CHUM owns many radio and television stations--the independence of the editorial commentary disappears. In other words, it becomes imposed by head office.

Would you agree with that, or disagree? Or how does, in your view, CKVU either fall into that mould or differ from it?

¹ (1550)

Ms. Prem Gill: I've been with CHUM for the last two years here in Vancouver working on the television side--working to get a television station, amongst other special projects. I had the opportunity to be involved when we launched a station in Victoria, in October--The New VI. I had the opportunity to be involved over there in their launch and then to come over to CKVU, where we inherited a building and people who work there, and a culture of people who have worked there for a long time.

At VI, we started from scratch. I was there from the day they bought the building to renovating it, from when they had two staff people to where there are now, I think, over 120. In VI they've had the opportunity to build on the core CHUM television philosophies of creativity and originality, and that buzz you felt when you were in the Citytv building, because everybody coming there was new....

At CKVU, it's a little different. I'm the person who came from CHUM, and there are a couple of us around now. What I'm most impressed with by most of the staff there is their openness and relief that it was CHUM who's coming in here and not another broadcaster. As you said, our image of being this edgier, more urban, newer-style way of doing television--even though we've been doing it for 30 years at Citytv, we're still considered cutting-edge--is known across the country. And even though we've never had a physical presence in Vancouver--we've never had a television station here--people there kind of “get it” already and they're ready to go.

They can't wait for things to happen fast enough, because they know we specialize in local television. We're committed to the communities we live in and work in. As part of what we do at all our stations, such as The NewRO and the one in Barrie, Ontario, there are people from those communities who work there, who are the general managers, who run the programming departments, who work in the news departments. CKVU is unique because we're a small station. We have about 140 employees, including full-time and part-time people, so we have the opportunity to create a whole new culture and buzz, building on the core philosophies you experienced and saw at the CHUM City building in Toronto. It's going to be interesting to see how it evolves.

So far, it's been very positive. I was a little nervous going in, as I was a person coming from the big company. But it's been nothing but a positive experience for the few of us who went in there, because they are so ready to do something. They remember what it was like to produce local programming. From the Vancouver Show, when they were called UTV, they had a show called Your Town, and they were the local community station. They were the people representing and showcasing local talent and entertainment. They're ready to go back to that.

Most of those people are still there. They've seen this station go through its different stages and now they're more than excited that it will go back. I feel the same energy I do when I go to Toronto. Although our building isn't downtown--and there are other cultural things--that comes also from the people in the building, I think.

Mr. Grant McNally: I appreciated the fact that you stated you're bringing that understanding of the differences between the communities in the lower mainland. Vancouver has distinct differences from Richmond, from Surrey, from Coquitlam, from Langley, from communities in the valley and in my riding. To be able to balance that, I think, is going to bode well for you, because people want that kind of programming, and there has certainly been a lack of it in this market for a fairly long time.

Ms. Prem Gill: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Hinton, do you have one other question?

Ms. Betty Hinton: I don't have a question; I'll just make a comment.

I just want to tell you how much I enjoyed your presentation. You seem to have covered a lot of the areas that have been of concern to this committee in some of the things you've talked about doing and some of the things you've talked about meshing together. I'm going to watch with interest as this develops. Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Prem Gill: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms. Gill, we visited CHUM in Toronto, as you know. They told us about the accent on local broadcasting. I remember some of us asking them how they reconciled the paradox of some local stations, owned by various broadcasters, being shut down or reduced in scope, when CHUM was going into this in a bigger way.

Do you see your station becoming some kind of a special pilot project that will be seen as the future?

Ms. Prem Gill When Mr. McNally asked about that sort of buzz, I said that at Citytv we'd been doing it for 30 years. Sometimes I find it amusing that 30 years ago at Citytv we were putting people with disabilities and visible minorities on television, and we were considered edgy then. We are still considered sort of ahead of our time, and I hope we will be here in Vancouver as well.

I hope everybody rises up and does more local programming, because there's lots of it and there are opportunities for all the broadcasters to do it. I hope we set a new standard here for quality local broadcasting.

The Chair: As a professional broadcaster, maybe this is a hard question for you to answer because you are not there, but do you see a distinction between a local station in Toronto or Vancouver, with markets that can support the population base, and say a local station in northern Ontario or P.E.I., where the big problem is population base? Will that make a big difference, eventually, in how local programming can reach across the country?

Ms. Prem Gill: It is a difficult question for me to answer, but I think population will make a difference. Our programming in Vancouver will be targeted to specific multicultural communities, such as the Asian community and the South Asian community, because they are the larger communities here. It will be different in Winnipeg and in Calgary.

But it has to sort of grow with the times. As communities change and people change, you hope that broadcasters like CHUM will change with the times. I think we have in Toronto, and I hope we'll be able to do the same here in Vancouver.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate your coming this afternoon.

Tomorrow we'll be meeting at 9:30 a.m. in the lobby. A bus will take us to our first destination. We'll be leaving from the lobby at 9:30 and going to BCTV-Global. We'll have lunch there and then go by bus to CBC. After that we'll go to the airport and leave for Edmonton at 4:15 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned, with thanks.