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

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

0915

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

Ms. Marie Cadieux (Board member, Canadian Conference of the Arts)

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams (National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts)

The Chair

Ms. Marie Cadieux

0920

Ms. Megan Williams

0925

0930

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Megan Williams

0935

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Marie Cadieux

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mme Marie Cadieux

0940

Mme Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Megan Williams

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Marie Cadieux

0945

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Megan Williams

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

0950

Ms. Megan Williams

Ms. Marie Cadieux

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

0955

Ms. Marie Cadieux

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Megan Williams

Ms. Marie Cadieux

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Megan Williams

1000

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Marie Cadieux

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Megan Williams

Ms. Marie Cadieux

1005

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

Ms. Megan Williams

The Chair

1010

Mr. Raj Rasalingam (President, Communications and Diversity Network)

The Chair

Mr. Raj Rasalingam

1015

Professor Lionel Lumb (Member, Communications and Diversity Network)

1020

Mr. Reuben Friedman (Member, Communications and Diversity Network)

1025

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Bestall (President, Christian Communications Consultants)

1030

Mr. Don Brooks (Consultant, Christian Communications Consultants)

1035

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada)

1040

1045

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Mock

1055

1100

The Chair

Ms. Karen Mock

1105

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Reuben Friedman

1110

Mr. Raj Rasalingam

Mr. Reuben Friedman

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Karen Mock

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1115

Mr. Don Brooks

Mr. Patrick Bestall

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Clemenger

1120

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Karen Mock

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Raj Rasalingam

1125

Prof. Lionel Lumb

Ms. Wendy Lill

1130

Ms. Karen Mock

Prof. Lionel Lumb

Mr. Raj Rasalingam

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.)

1135

Prof. Lionel Lumb

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Prof. Lionel Lumb

1140

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Prof. Lionel Lumb

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Karen Mock

1145

The Chair

Mr. Joe Clark (Individual Presentation)

1150

1155

1200

The Chair

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald (Vice-President and Legal Counsel, Congrès Iberoaméricain)

1205

1210

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Joe Clark

1215

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Joe Clark

Ms. Wendy Lill

1220

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Joe Clark

1225

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1230

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 053

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is meeting to continue its study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We are pleased to welcome, on behalf of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, Mrs. Megan Williams, its national director,

[Translation]

and Mrs. Marie Cadieux, Board member.

Ms. Marie Cadieux (Board member, Canadian Conference of the Arts): Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

The Chair: I'll give the floor to Mrs. Williams to make your presentation, after which there will be questions by members.

Mrs. Williams.

Ms. Megan Williams (National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts): Madam Cadieux, who is a member of the board of directors of the CCA, will begin our presentation.

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

Ms. Marie Cadieux: I want to thank the committee for having us today. I am an independent film producer. Although I was not born in 1945, which is the year the Canadian conference of the Arts was founded, I nevertheless believe I can adequately represent the 250,000 members of the conference. The conference include groups such as professional associations, groups interested in education, professional artists, as well as people from the cultural industry at large. Its role is to promote art and culture to the Canadian public and to facilitate the accessibility of Canadians artists of any origin to show their talent and works of art to the Canadian public at large.

As a volunteer on the administration board, I think I can speak on behalf of a good portion of our members who promote arts and culture actively by volunteering their time and by getting involved in financing campaigns.

The Canadian conference of the Arts has prepared a report. It consists of recommendations on broadcasting. The industry is critical for scores of cultural workers who make a living from it. Broadcasting, on top of being the livelihood for many professionals, also adds value to consumers and citizens through television and radio programming, albeit the viewers are not always knowledgeable. Most artists from the TV and radio industry are active citizens that contribute to society through volunteer work and by getting involved in associations such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts in the education sector among others.

Today, I speak as a professional creator and as a volunteer of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. Also, to discuss the association’s position and thinking, I would like to introduce Megan Williams, our director general.

¿ (0920)

[English]

Ms. Megan Williams: Thank you. I am very pleased to be here this morning speaking on behalf of the Canadian Conference of the Arts membership.

I want to point out to you that there has been a bit of confusion with our submission. The submission that's dated September 2001 is not the one we are making to you. The one that's dated December 2001 is the one I'll be speaking from. I believe it will be distributed to committee members after it has been translated. There was a mix-up when we sent it in, I believe.

I think that today it might be more appropriate to be talking about writers and publishers, since it's Canada's Book Day. We should at least acknowledge this morning that Carol Shields just won the Charles Taylor non-fiction prize and Michael Ondaatje won CBC's Canada Reads contest for In the Skin of a Lion. We are celebrating that today.

The broadcast industry is of tremendous importance to the CCA. A significant number of Canadian artists are included among the 30,000 people who work directly in the industry, and many more work independently. Whether their involvement is direct or indirect, Canadian artists are at the heart of the broadcast industry, from writers to actors, from stage directors to designers. Artists are present at every stage of the continuum of production. As the country's national arts advocacy organization, the CCA seeks to speak on behalf of artists within this industry and to promote their interests within the act and within the standing committee's study.

As Marie Cadieux said earlier, we're here to speak to large principles. We're an organization that regroups both labour organizations and producers, actors, and so on. We cover a large area of interest. We're here speaking in support of the Broadcasting Act and the lofty goals that it sets out for itself, not the least of which is the title of our submission, “Safeguard, Enrich and Strengthen”. The part we didn't quote in our title goes on to say “the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada”. We believe that the cultural threads are an essential part of this fabric, if I can extend the metaphor.

The act is eloquent. It's precise and has very clear goals. We believe that, with some slight amendments, it can serve as the principal tool of public policy in the area of broadcasting. It was, after all, redrafted only a decade ago. In the words of the act, it can “actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression”. We believe that is really the central point of the act.

We think that the announcement of the review of Canadian content is very timely. I think that information that's being gathered and organized by this committee will probably feed very nicely into that review, and inform it.

The three pillars of cultural policy are content, ownership, and subsidy. All three of these must remain in dynamic balance for the system to work. And it is your challenge, with the help of interveners like ourselves, to determine what constitutes that balance. Giving in to pressure to erode any one of these three pillars would be a mistake.

I am going to go quickly through our list of recommendations. I hope we have time to discuss some of these with you.

We think that a strong ongoing role is essential for the CRTC in monitoring and supervising participants in the broadcast system and in enforcing the Broadcasting Act. In previous studies and presentations that we've made for the CRTC, we have found on many occasions that the CRTC has only enforced the minimum content rules, and that it is reluctant to enforce licence conditions on large broadcasters.

We have noted that spending on Canadian content has declined by 5%, while spending on foreign content, which would be U.S. content in most cases, has increased by 56%. We think these figures are indicative of a trend and that the CRTC really needs to use the legislative muscle it has to enforce its own terms of licence.

We also believe that the act could be amended to insert a provision for national non-profit organizations to have input into the CRTC's hearings by providing funds so that these organizations can prepare submissions on matters of interest to their members.

We feel that the CRTC hearings are very costly and formal and that the commercial broadcasters who make their presentations there have a very clear advantage over groups like ourselves and the other interveners here this morning, who have a significant input to make to this public policy process but are often prevented for financial reasons.

The CRTC must really ensure that there is no erosion in Canadian content levels on television or radio and that spending and exhibition levels increase slowly over a period of five years. We also think it would be useful to publish and conduct research to assess what kind of access and diversity is available within the broadcast system.

¿ (0925)

We also are here in support of CBC, Canada's public broadcaster, and all public broadcasting. We think public broadcasting is essential to the system. We would encourage that the CBC have stable, ongoing commitments from Parliament over a period of years. We would also like to see the Broadcast Act amended so that the CBC board of directors would be able to choose its own president. We think that the board is sometimes compromised by not being able to select its own president.

We applaud the success of the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada in increasing the number and quality of Canadian programming and films that are available, and we encourage stable, ongoing funding for those two organizations. FACTOR and Musique action have also had a profound effect on developing the Canadian music industry, and we support stable, ongoing funding for them.

We think the CRTC was premature in its decision to back away from its study of the Internet. We think it should keep a watching brief on how things are developing there and ensure that there is plenty of Canadian content on the Internet. We're not suggesting that the CRTC can regulate the Internet, but we think we can find ways to ensure that Canadian content is always there in both official languages.

We support the modernization of the Copyright Act. We've made a presentation to Industry Canada and Heritage Canada's review of digital copyright. We agree with the position of SarTec and UDA, which made a presentation to this committee some weeks ago underlining the importance of copyright in digital media. Copyright income for artists is an essential part of their income stream, and we need to find ways of ensuring that money flows back to artists.

We believe that smaller independent voices, including unaffiliated independent producers, must continue to have access to the Canadian broadcasting system. That goes back to what I said earlier about taking a look at and doing some research on how independent producers are accessing the broadcast system.

I mentioned in the three pillars of cultural policy that ownership is one of the central ones. We believe there is a lot of controversy swirling around about foreign ownership in Canadian media, particularly in the broadcasters, and we urge the committee to take a very strong stand on the ownership rules that we now have in place.

Finally, we believe that Canada's cultural priorities must be safeguarded in international trade negotiations. We know that Canada is under constant pressure in these negotiations to compromise on its domestic cultural policy.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts has spent a lot of time over the past two years building an international organization called the International Network for Cultural Diversity. That group now has in hand a convention on cultural diversity, which it will be seeking to launch in an international forum in South Africa this fall. We urge committee members to keep in touch with these developments. It's partly an initiative of our heritage minister, Sheila Copps, who works in a ministerial network parallel to our NGO network. We hope to make some progress with that convention this fall.

¿ (0930)

Keeping an eye on what Canada is doing in international trade negotiations will be very important for the preservation of the integrity of our Broadcast Act.

Those are the recommendations from the Canadian Conference of the Arts. I leave these with you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Williams, you've been able, in just a few minutes, to highlight the key issues facing us, which is quite a feat. We really appreciate the way you've put it across. It is concise, yet very clear. All the key questions of Canadian content, the role of the CRTC, public broadcasting, foreign ownership, and the international question of culture versus trade are really the very key issues that face us and are being brought back by many witnesses. Certainly your recommendations are extremely important and you can be sure we'll consider them very seriously.

I'd like to open the floor to questions. Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Thank you very much.

You have talked about financing the costs of organizations making a presentation at CRTC hearings. We are currently evaluating Bill S-7, coming from the senate, and presented by a Liberal MP. We hesitate to give our final approval since the criteria are not established yet and it would be the CRTC’s responsibility to do so. What would be the costs for the smaller broadcasters? What would be the framework for such a Bill? On principle we agree with covering the costs of such activities, but how would we ensure the right groups benefit from the initiative? It seems we are trying to transpose what is written in the Telecommunications Act… Could you make recommendations on further criteria to be included? It would help the committee bring forth amendments to the Bill before it is voted in the House.

[English]

Ms. Megan Williams: I understand that it will be difficult to designate which organizations have a legitimate role in accessing these funds when they go before the CRTC. In the case of arts organizations like ourselves, we have a special designation that's given to us by the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are a national arts service organization, and as such we are a deemed charity under the Income Tax Act. There are about 14 organizations to whom the Department of Canadian Heritage gives that designation. It's not a large group, and the criteria are quite stringent.

Perhaps that model could be used to provide parameters for a designated group of national organizations that are really public interest organizations and can establish that they operate with membership criteria and proper board structure and that sort of thing, and that they are in fact charitable, or at least eligible for charitable status. That could be a model that could be enlarged for the purposes of eligibility to funds from the CRTC.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. Moving to another issue, I would like to discuss Canadian Content with respect to the Broadcasting Act. We are aware that the Minister is currently in consultation on this Canadian Content issue in parallel to this committee’s work. Will you be forwarding recommendations to this committee? What do you think of the comments of the President of Telefilm Canada with respect to the avenues for support that could be granted to Canadian Hollywood type movies? Do you feel it would hurt Canadian productions in general and in particular the francophone productions from Quebec and outside Quebec?

Ms. Marie Cadieux: I can attempt to answer the question. I think the comments made by the President of Telefilm were later put in context. These comments were made with enthusiasm and to accompany a nomination. There is currently a committee looking at the future of movie making. This consultation has people from the UDA, screen writers, etc. They are precisely trying, as much as possible, to make recommendations on how to protect Canadian cinema from such erosion.

These notions are difficult and we must be careful. I am referring for instance to the idea that American stardom will contribute to sell movies. It is not necessarily the case since we know that stars that will make it big at the box office in fact cost as much as the total budget of a Canadian production. The key, in fact, is that we get adequate marketing budgets.

We have seen in Quebec and in English Canada how television builds stardom. When we produce good series and movies on TV, people want to see these English or French Canadian actors in movie theatres, whether they are featured in CBC productions or featured in independent productions. But there needs to be enough money for the marketing campaign. The success really comes from promoting our talent. This money is well invested as it stays in the country.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a comment Mr. Chairman. It is clearly the case in Quebec with the productions and series. Our actors are well recognized and we have successful productions. With English Canadian production, we often hear the argument about it being more costly since they have to rival what is done in the Untied States. They are in search of an identity that would differentiate their productions. Maybe that goes along what you were saying. They would need to build their own stars much the same way Quebec has done. Still, our markets differ not only from the historical efforts made to develop them but also by the type of productions that have been made in each market.

Mme Marie Cadieux: I think this is happening in English Canada. I am thinking about productions such as Road to Avonlea, Due South, etc; the challenge is to get the English public to embrace these shows. All Canadian I think, are proud of the success of Anne of Green Gables, Road to Avonlea and other shows that have made it at the international level. But we need more of these and they usually owe their success to public funding. In fact, all of them were built with public funding and CBC’s expertise. That is why it is critical to have public broadcasters that value and promote cultural development.

¿ (0940)

Mme Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Williams.

Ms. Megan Williams: I would like to answer the first part of your question. Certainly we have been in touch with the content review committee, and we will be making a detailed presentation to that committee.

The Chair: Ms. Lill

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here today. I must say that I did read the first submission you made and I really appreciated it. I thought it was extremely clear, and this one is as well.

I'm interested in the fact that you have expressed in both documents a huge disappointment with the regulator--the CRTC--and their role in implementing and administering the act. I would like it if you could give us some examples of how you've come to that very stark position, that the CRTC has not been really protecting the spirit of the Broadcasting Act, which is to safeguard, enrich, and strengthen our Canadian content and culture.

Ms. Megan Williams: We've done some extensive research into the CRTC's own files, primarily when we were making a submission on Global's and CTV's licence renewals. I would like to take some time and send you some examples of this.

It's easy to conclude statistically what has happened. It's true that expenditures on Canadian content have eroded by 5% over the period of years that statistics are available for. It's also true that spending on foreign content has increased dramatically.

Giving specific examples is something I'd like to take a little bit of time on. It's something that is worth doing, especially in light of the upcoming content review process.

The Chair: Will you please send this information to the clerk so that it can go to all the members? Thank you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think one of the things we have identified is that the CRTC does not have its own research arm to do the work that is required. We've heard that from groups across the country, that there are no independent facts, and how are we able to judge in fact how well the act is being carried out?

Ms. Megan Williams: We did a very costly piece of research into the CRTC. Just pulling the files from the archives, you have to plan ahead and do very careful research. We discovered that they had shredded all their records previous to 15 years. There are trends that have been established since the CRTC was established, and access to that information is now gone. So in one of our presentations to the CRTC, we recommended some ways they could provide information in a more accessible manner and that they should stop shredding their records.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have a question about Canadian content, Marie, as a filmmaker yourself. And I'm very happy to have you two here, because you are representing, as you say, the writers, the creators, the people this Canadian content is all about.

We have been to different production sites, and we've talked to different broadcasters and producers in the country, who talk a lot about the fact that industrial Canadian content is becoming what is now demanded out there in the marketplace and that as we try to be more international in our scope we're seeing less Canadian and more generic focus. I'd be interested in knowing what that looks like to writers and creators. How is your ability to say things that are coming out of your imagination about your country, about your neighbourhood, and about your neighbours being affected by the demand for generic industrial content?

Ms. Marie Cadieux: Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but it seems to me that we will never compete on the level of special effects. Our special effects is storytelling. If you look at any other film industry anywhere else in the world, other than the American film industry, when they have box-office success, when they have films that circulate, it is because of storytelling and the way it is done, not necessarily because of budget, and then enthusiastic programming and enthusiastic distributors who take risks and governments that help them take risks. Then we see these films. There are all kinds of stories like that all over. They may not be the things on our newspapers' front line, but they are certainly there.

One of the things we are worried about--and this is just a parenthesis--in terms of Canadian content, in terms of critics and art coverage in our newspapers today, with the conglomerates happening and so on, is that we now have fewer full-time devoted cultural reporters in our newspapers than we used to have, while at the same time the body of work is growing all the time.

Now, to go back to the film industry as such, I think when we leave the creators the space to tell indigenous stories in an interesting fashion, it will find an audience. It does happen. Many of us are making a living with this. We might not be household names because of the way the structure of the vedettariat is happening, but we are there and we are making it.

I think generic will go a certain pace, and then people will want something different. Why are so many people turning to the Internet and to alternative multimedia access and entertainment? It's because they want to see other things.

So it is a bit of a problem, but not so much. I think Canadian artists are saying “Let us tell the stories. It might not be happening around something very specifically Canadian. I can possibly tell a story about something that's happening partly in France, but it is my story and I'm a Canadian artist.”

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll add my words of welcome to the witnesses for taking time to appear here today as we go down this road of information gathering.

We have heard from many witnesses during this committee's review of the Broadcasting Act. Among the groups and individuals, we had representatives from the Canadian Television Fund. If you could help me here, I was just wondering about something. In your opinion, does the mandate of this funding group and the rules regarding the provisions of funding adequately meet the needs of the producers? Tying in with that, should they be more restrictive or more lenient?

Ms. Megan Williams: As we said in our recommendations, we certainly support the fund and its broad principles. The amount of funding it does have obviously has a salutary effect on film and television production. I'm not a very close observer of the fund because it's the people who are applying to the fund who have the stories about the details of how it works. I believe the fund is still trying to find the proper balance and the proper way of assessing applications. In the last round there was a bit of a kerfuffle because the regulations were changed during the application process and a lot of the more marginal producers, if I can call them that, ended up not getting funded.

I think probably everybody saw the article about Niv Fichman and Atom Egoyan in last weekend's National Post and how some very important works were turned down for funding. I also know that APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, has had difficulty getting access to funds.

We know diversity is the answer to many problems in our world today, and making sure that diverse voices have access to that fund is very important. So I do think their regulations need some fine-tuning.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm just wondering about Canadian content, which obviously we've heard much about. That seems to be the gist of everything we come down to. Where is the onus, in your opinion? I'm new on this committee, and I was wondering about your opinion. Should there be more direction on Canadian content coming from the funding providers, or should this be left up to the creation of the producers?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Megan Williams: There needs to be regulation about what constitutes Canadian content. Otherwise it will just disappear as a concept. But obviously there are anomalies. Niv Fichman is trying to get funding for Elizabeth Rex, a play written by a Canadian and performed by Canadians, but it doesn't meet the Canadian content requirements because it's about a queen in England. Well, something is wrong there. It's something that needs constant fine-tuning and constant understanding.

To me, the really important thing about Canadian content is that it's made by Canadians. That's the thing. It's not whether there are a suitable number of Canadian icons appearing in the film or whether it's a subject that takes place in Canada. Michael Ignatieff's work on the war in the former Yugoslavia was very important to Canadians. We saw something through his eyes. That's Canadian content; that was made for us. So it's the centrality of Canadians in the creative end and the production end that is really central, in my opinion.

Ms. Marie Cadieux: I would add to that.

[Translation]

The main principles governing Canadian Content and Canadian ownership need to be imbedded in the recommendations.

The Canadian Television fund has been successful, to certain extent, in helping small independent producers to gain a footing in the industry and continue to produce. These independent productions are far more numerous than 10 years ago. That makes us very happy and creators certainly benefit from it. But it is important to realize that producers are business people working with public funds and that as a business it is in their nature to try to maximize profits.

It appears to me that the concept of public funding in Canada is based on bettering the well being of the population as opposed to financing private companies. For that reason it is important that the Canadian Television fund, Telefilm Canada and the CRTC always uphold the directives on Canadian Content.

Obviously, as Mrs Megan said earlier, Canadian Content does not necessarily imply a story happening on Parliament Hill, but simply a story told by Canadians for Canadians.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

[English]

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also welcome our guests this morning and thank them for their clear, concise presentation.

Just following up on some of the questions that you have just been asked, when we talk about Canadian content, I agree that perhaps the rules are not clear at all, because there are many ways, I guess, to determine true Canadian content. But if it's produced in Canada, written in Canada, starring Canadians, despite the fact that the topic relates to some other part of the world, to me it's Canadian. Canadians are the main beneficiaries here. I think that's probably the bottom line--who are the real beneficiaries of the product.

There is an old Canadian show, of course, we're all very familiar with, Front Page Challenge, where you had Pierre Berton and Betty Davis, and I'm going to ask a Gordon Sinclair type of question. In order for us to be able to have adequate, quality Canadian content, the people who create that content--the writer, the artist--have to be able to make a living at it. If not, then we're not going to get this good type of creation. In light of the number of steps that material must go through from the pen to the screen or the stage or the radio or TV, can our basic artists make money enough, under our present rules and regulations and bureaucracies, to make it worthwhile to work in Canada?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Marie Cadieux: Not to be simplistic, but I have a car and a house.

Yes, we can. The problem there is more of a security nature. We have no pension; we have no access to dental care, etc. If you are upcoming or working in the middle range, these can be very onerous. That is where we have often said, as creators, that the Canadian artists are the greatest funders of our culture, because for the same amount of money you're actually fronting the financial security of your family and of your own eventual retrait.

But yes, you can. There are some things, perhaps, but this is not the place for it, where we would like to see some changes in the law. However, these laws are not of your concern at this point. The Canadian Conference of the Arts will address some of these questions at different places. But it is possible. It is more of a worry for perhaps the younger people who are coming up now. A good, strong Canadian content with diverse producers, not just two or three.... Because the moment you have only two or three broadcasters, then the push for generic production happens, as you were saying, Madame Lill. But the more you have different levels of production, then you have people making a living.

Thank you for the question; it's very important.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you.

One of the things mentioned was that expenditure on Canadian content has eroded by 5%. I'm not exactly clear. Are you saying we are spending 5% less now than we did some time ago, or is it in a relative way? The reason I think that's not the case is that you're saying spending on foreign content has increased tremendously. If there's only a 5% differential, then of course foreign expenditure would have increased by only 5%. But I think what you're saying is we are spending 5% less now than we did way back. Is that the case?

Ms. Megan Williams: Yes.

Ms. Marie Cadieux: Yes.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: If that is the case, in real dollars, that is a terrible reflection, I think, on what's happening in our industry.

Did you want to comment on that?

Ms. Megan Williams: Yes. I think it's really worth delving into that and getting a clear fix on what that means in terms of dollars to producers.

I just wanted to go back for a second to your question about the role of artists in these industries and the way they make their money. I think if you look at the community of Newfoundland artists, you'll see some stunning successes. Everybody in Canada knows about the work that Newfoundland artists do on stage, on film, and on television. Those artists are surviving. They're at the bottom of the income scale, all of them, and they lack security, but they are there, they are working, and they are leading satisfying lives.

One of the things we mentioned in our recommendations is the importance of copyright income to people. If you look at the music industry.... In the film industry, you stand to make a lot of money if one of your films.... If Rare Birds is made into a film, Ed Rich might get rich--maybe not really rich, but.... However, when you're talking about the recording industry, artists stand to make so little from the sale of each CD. When CDs are being downloaded for free from the Internet, and when people.... Our children don't understand why we object to them downloading for free, that we're making sure a few cents from each recording goes to the artist. It's really important to buckle that down, to make sure people understand the meaning of taking things off the Internet for free, and to find a way of providing income for those artists whose work is out there and being taken by people off the Internet.

À (1000)

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have one short little snapper, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say you're right about the Newfoundland artists. In another life I had the opportunity to work with some of them, and hopefully helped them along a little.

You mentioned that the chair of the CBC perhaps should be elected--or selected--by the board, rather than appointed by government. Personally, I think that bears merit. There may be other reasons not to, but in order to be able to do that job properly, you certainly need somebody who knows the whole of the industry and the complications involved.

I'd like to know, quickly, your reasons for recommending that.

Ms. Megan Williams: Let me be clear. The chair of the CBC board is appointed by the Prime Minister, as is the president. It's the president I'm talking about, not the chair, and it's because I believe the public broadcaster has an important status and has to be at some distance from government. The board appointments are always very high-profile people with a lot of knowledge, and if I were a member of that board, I would want to be responsible for choosing the president who suited our board.

That board is just as likely to find a suitable president as the Prime Minister's Office is, and would be less conflicted about political agendas when they did so. I think having a president who was not conflicted by political agendas would be very important for our public broadcaster.

The Chair: Are there any more questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon, please keep it brief.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to revisit the issue of the Canadian Television Fund. One of the comments made earlier concerned the flexibility of the types of… Documentary producers have a vision for movies produced about Canada but they also want to portrait the rest of the world. In such instances they lose points since it is not produced and filmed in Canada. They also face the problem of hiring Canadian personnel. They feel that documentaries should benefit from a bit more flexibility and that irritates them.

Do you agree with my statement?

Ms. Marie Cadieux: Documentaries are a special case. Canadian documentaries enjoy a strong reputation but at the same time they are in a precarious situation. Television contributes to the problem by accepting few documentaries and by requiring specific formats. Still, many documentaries are produced today, thank god, as I believe all the groups working in the culture industry such as creators, artists and technicians want Canadian hires for Canadian productions.

With respect with subjects chosen by producers—we also discussed it in terms of fiction—, Canadians are peace keepers all over the world. I don’t see why we could not also become film makers all over the world. If a Canadian goes to Bosnia with his camera he does not suddenly cease to be a Canadian. These stories need to be told as well.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a question about the Internet. I might be mistaken but did you say that we should not regulate the internet or that it would be difficult to do so? Some say we should regulate it while other say it is impossible. I would like to have your opinion. I was under the impression you thought it would be difficult to regulate the internet.

[English]

Ms. Megan Williams: I think it's impossible to regulate the Internet, because it's not under Canadian control, but it is possible for Canada to have incentives for Canadian content on the Internet and to ensure that there are proper Canadian search engines and lots of information for Canadians about what is on the Internet. I believe that with the new Canadian content online initiative, which was announced by the Department of Canadian Heritage, we'll see a lot more quality Canadian content available.

Ms. Marie Cadieux: We did recommend that the CRTC revise its policy from 1999 in terms of the Internet. Even though it is difficult, I think we can address the issue. Exactly how is a whole can of worms, for sure.

À (1005)

[Translation]

In fact we are saying we should do it but that it is very difficult.

[English]

The Chair: Before we close this session, I want to go back to your recommendation about the appointment of the president of the CBC by the board. Several interveners have referred to the appointment of board members at the CBC and the CRTC. In your case you suggested that the CBC president be appointed by the board of the CBC, which itself is appointed. Isn't that an extension of appointments anyway? If the board is appointed and they appoint somebody from their own ranks, they're all appointees anyway.

Ms. Megan Williams: Perhaps I wasn't perfectly clear. What I meant was that the board would engage the president, not that they would appoint one. They would review applications and hire a president.

The Chair: Oh, I see, from outside.

Ms. Megan Williams: That way it would be one step removed from the appointment process.

The Chair: I understand.

Some people have suggested we look at the method the BBC uses. The selection process is very broad in scope. It reaches into the grassroots and represents a very broad cross-section of society. It's sort of a blue ribbon selection process, which eventually recommends a group of people. Then they themselves appoint a president from among those.

Others have suggested that there should be a different selection process for the CRTC, that they shouldn't be appointed but should be selected on a different basis from what they are at present, very much the way the BBC works. What are your thoughts on that?

Ms. Megan Williams: I was not aware of the process used to select the president of the BBC, but that sounds like the kind of process we would advocate, where they take a very broad look at all the eligible contenders for such a position.

In our submission we stopped short of making the same type of recommendation about the CRTC. I think I just thought it was an impossible hill to climb. But I think that, generally speaking, searching for appropriate candidates from among the Canadian population is a better way of finding the kind of public-spirited, open-minded people we would want as CRTC commissioners than is the case through the appointment process, which, as we all know, is open to patronage. So I would certainly support the same type of process for finding the CRTC commissioners.

The Chair: I'm really surprised that the Conference of the Arts would find hills too steep to climb. You climb mountains, usually. Anyway, we really appreciate your presence here. Thank you very much for your recommendations and your thoughts.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for being here today.

[English]

We'll now call on the second panel. We're going to spend the next hour and a half on one panel, including the Communications and Diversity Network, the Christian Communications Consultants, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

We'll allow the panel a few moments to come to the table.

The Communications and Diversity Network is represented by Mr. Raj Rasalingam, the president; Professor Lionel Lumb, member of the board; and Mr. Reuben Friedman, member of the board. The Christian Communications Consultants is represented by Mr. Patrick Bestall, the president, and Mr. Don Brooks, the secretary, from Woodham Communications Inc. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is represented by Mr. Bruce Clemenger, the director of the Centre for Faith and Public Life. Finally, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation is represented by Ms. Karen Mock, the executive director.

We'll start with the Communications and Diversity Network, Mr. Raj Rasalingam.

À (1010)

Mr. Raj Rasalingam (President, Communications and Diversity Network): Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present before your committee. My name is Raj Rasalingam. I'm here before you in my capacity as president of the Pearson-Shoyama Institute, which is a think-tank on public policy issues.

The Communications and Diversity Network housed under the institute is a national leader on the issues of reflection of diversity in the media. With me are two members of the network, Professor Lionel Lumb, professor of communications at the University of Carleton, and Reuben Friedman, who until recently was national communications director for the Canadian Jewish Congress.

The Communications and Diversity Network aims to modernize the portrayal of ethnic minorities in mainstream programming. In pursuit of its mission, the network shares expertise, resources, and models of good practice in an effort to assist broadcasters to respond to the changing demographics and consumer markets in programming and employment policies.

The network has appeared on numerous occasions before the CRTC. The network, in 2000, developed a unique plan called the Reflecting Canada Plan. It includes nine key initiatives that will make major strides to accomplish the goal of telling a Canadian story that is truly reflective of the Canada of today and tomorrow.

Key research initiatives under the plan receive support and funding from Bell Globalmedia, Rogers Broadcasting, CHUM Limited, and Standard Broadcasting. Under the plan, Bell Globalmedia has funded round tables on critical issues the CDN has identified in previous research.

The last round table, held in Toronto, focused on the impact of international news coverage on Canada's ethnic communities and generated a great deal of interest, including the participation of senior journalists from CTV, The Globe and Mail, TVO, and the Washington Post correspondent for Canada.

The Chair: Could you go a little slower for our translators?

Mr. Raj Rasalingam: Sorry. Okay.

The Chair: They have to pick up the translation.

Mr. Raj Rasalingam: Okay, I'll do so.

With Rogers, the CDN is producing 20 half-hour talk shows on prime-time television to deal with national policy issues that have an impact on Canada's ethnic communities. This is currently the only program of its kind in Canada. Show topics that aired include racial profiling, the debate around multiculturalism, twenty years of the Canadian charter, etc.

Commencing May 1, the CDN will partner with CHUM Television to compile a databank of subject experts from minority backgrounds to assist the media in reflecting diversity in their respective arenas.

The CDN continues to believe the tasks we are undertaking in this arena are fundamental in building social cohesion in Canada.

I now turn it over to Professor Lumb.

À (1015)

Professor Lionel Lumb (Member, Communications and Diversity Network): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on a topic at the very heart of what it is to be Canadian in this remarkable, exciting, revolving society.

It's a pleasure to know that we don't have to go abroad to experience the richness of other cultures, because we have so many right here. Ordinary daily conversation in a society so varied becomes extraordinary daily education. With so many cultures rubbing shoulders constantly, there are bound to be some irritants and tensions. These are generally minor and easily fixed with a dose of that famous Canadian tolerance and a little human understanding. One of the great tools to build that understanding is television, the medium that reaches into people's homes and becomes part of their lives, powerful enough to influence their views of distant lands and the folks next door.

We commend the CRTC's increasing advocacy of diversity in broadcasting. It has rightly encouraged broadcasters to develop plans to increase diversity within their organizations and in their on-air portrayal of society. It is vital that Canadians see on their television screens the Canada that exists in our schools, workplaces, hospitals, shopping malls, cultural centres, and next door.

The immigrants of thirty and twenty years ago who changed the look of Canada are now part of the mainstream of life here, and they have every right to see themselves reflected on mainstream television programs. But television is not changing as fast as the cultural make-up of the country. There are some encouraging signs. Broadcasters are committing, with unprecedented vigour, to diversity. They've set down this commitment in diversity codes recently, in the last few months, that spell out what they want to achieve in both internal management as well as on-air portrayal. Indeed, even earlier, some mainstream stations had shown impressive gains in one area, news and information programming. Reporters, news anchors, and staff commentators represent a respectable cross-section of Canadian society.

Those who were hired in the 1980s were the talented pioneers whose presence encouraged the recent draft of talented on-air newcomers from diverse cultures. Journalism schools--I teach at one--are enrolling students from a far wider mix of cultural backgrounds than ever before, the principle being hire some, more will come.

Broadcasters admit they're not as successful behind the scenes in management, where it's been harder for the fresh winds of change to carry new seed. But at least they know they must bring change to senior jobs as well, and are acknowledging this. They also know they must seek out a greater range of on-air experts and panelists from the general public, so they can give air time to fresh faces, minds, and different perspectives.

The black hole of invisibility that remains is in the area of television drama and entertainment. Here, the ethnic media certainly provide their viewers with specialty programming that satisfies those who look for the comfort of familiar language and customs, but it is the mainstream media that have the ability, the reach, and the spending power to explain ourselves to one another, to provide that understanding of many cultures that makes being Canadian so unique.

Broadcasters are simply not doing enough to develop programming that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people, the many different cultures that now make up the incredibly exciting cosmopolitan mix of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, wherever you want to go.

Private broadcasters should take a serious look at whether their Canadian drama and entertainment programs reflect society. I can tell them, they don't.

As for the public broadcaster, there is some progress to report. When the CBC's flagship drama series, Da Vinci's Inquest, debuted--I think it was four years ago--the only visible minorities on it were, as one observer said, aboriginal prostitutes. That's no longer true. The series has added subsidiary continuing characters who better illustrate or reflect the multicultural nature of Vancouver.

The CBC also recently aired a one-off two-hour special called Jenna, with a crime-fighting south Asian journalist as the main character. That was a breakthrough. It was different, fresh, lively, and entertaining and had the potential to grow into a series. Instead, the CBC went with a more traditional police drama called Tom Stone. It, too, is lively and entertaining, but it's also far more predictable, more traditional than Jenna, and nowhere near as good a reflection of Canadian society today.

In the United States and Britain, two countries from which Canadian channels import many series, television drama and entertainment are the driving force of indigenous programming. In the output of both, the multicultural nature of those nations is highly visible. Their programs, enjoyed by many Canadians, clearly show how far Canada lags behind.

À (1020)

The CRTC has recently sought from private broadcasters a strategy for basic research that can measure the industry's progress in improving the representation of minorities and aboriginal people. This should be extended to the CBC as well. Until a system is introduced to measure the progress of diversity on air, broadcasters will continue to find excuses for coming up short in their portrayal of Canada's multicultural make-up and aboriginal reality.

We recommend strongly that the baseline data survey on diversity in news, current affairs, drama, and entertainment advocated by the CBC be carried out by broadcasters. If we don't have that baseline, we can't know five years from now whether there has been improvement.

We also recommend that when broadcasters appear before the CRTC or other hearings, independent funding be provided for ethnic, community, and other groups to appear and voice their views.

[Translation]

Mr. Reuben Friedman (Member, Communications and Diversity Network): Thank you. I am very please to address the committee today.

I think the key element to consider is the fast changes happening at a global level. Medias are now facing globalization and with the Internet every individual has more communication possibilities than a country had 100 years ago.

[English]

The Internet is now the preferred home for all those who strongly value the ability of the individual to get information and communicate information. Broadcasting still has an important role in terms of the representation of society that we think refers to us as Canadians. In that respect, it is crucial to ensure that we have quality products; that Canadians of all origins and backgrounds have opportunities to express themselves and see themselves on the screen.

Someone once said, “If you build it, they will come.” I'm firmly convinced that if Canadians have the opportunity to develop their talent, produce quality programming, and have it shown, people will watch. It's important, therefore, to put the emphasis on where we can have the greatest effect. The CRTC must continue to insist on opportunities for Canadian artists, producers, and directors, but it must also insist that these individuals reflect the totality of Canadian society. We don't want only certain people to get those opportunities; we think everyone should get them.

Finally, it's important to take a look at the possibility of mechanisms to promote exchanges. Broadcasting is fine in terms of stimulating ideas and creating a general impression, but an identity is formed just as much by the reaction to what one sees as what one actually sees. An image can create misunderstanding as well as understanding. It is therefore important that for any image or television show that solicits opinion, we also have mechanisms in place for Canadians to be able to exchange opinions and information, and come to a common understanding on what was shown and seen.

Merci.

À (1025)

The Chair: We'll now turn to Mr. Bestall.

Mr. Patrick Bestall (President, Christian Communications Consultants): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, copies of this presentation and its supplementary reference pages have been made available to the committee.

I thank you, along with one of my associates, Mr. Don Brooks, for making time in order to hear our serious concerns about the mutation of broadcasting in Canada under the pressure of our special requirements for balance for each religious broadcaster.

On the weekend, before preparing this brief, I had four phone calls to return for various reasons, which gave me the opportunity to explain why I was heading for Ottawa, and what a Godsend it was for Sheila Copps to announce these hearings and give us the chance to complain to a third party about CRTC religious policy. Maybe I shouldn't say “third party” here; let's just say “open ears outside the CRTC”. It was interesting to note the spontaneous remarks made by each of the people I spoke to.

First is my dear aunt in Calgary, who happily admits she is not a Christian, but has nicknamed herself Granny Goodwitch. She occasionally hears some religious programs on the radio when she turns it on, on Sunday mornings. She quickly snapped to me, “Good for you. You tell them it's about time somebody did something to get Canadian religious programs on the air. I can't believe that in a country this size, I'm listening to some southern Baptist evangelist. I don't even think there are any southern Baptists in Calgary.”

In London, my church friend John, who happens to be Baptist but not southern, immediately said, “I think they're just afraid to let something on the air in case they hear something they don't agree with.” John likes to call in on talk shows.

In Toronto, I spoke to my mother, who happens to be the person who started the first phone-in talk show in the world, in St. Thomas, Ontario, in 1953, predating the much-publicized New York talk shows by at least five years. She warned me not to talk about Baptist radio stations, Catholic radio stations, Muslim stations, or any other faith stations. As she said, “I don't care if they have them in the U.S. or even in Russia; it's too big a leap for Canada.” After years of moderating talk shows, she knows the power a radio host has to bring about the inclusion of as many views as possible in a socially acceptable way, without the need for regulation or policing. She also said that if Christian radio stations were allowed, not just Christian music stations, but stations with interesting talk programs produced by Christians of all denominations, then they could demonstrate that the CRTC has nothing to fear from continued exposure to a single-faith point of view; then, some day in the future, maybe we could revisit the idea of single denominations having their own stations.

The fourth call I had to make was to my mechanic, and he didn't care what I said.

I believe these four people reflected more than just a few opinions.

I'd like to read to you articles by different newspaper columnists, such as I have included with this brief. In the Hamilton Spectator,“CRTC meddling reaches a crossroads in latest ruling”. That was when Crossroads Television was finally approved. In the London Free Press, “Christian broadcasters always ill-treated”. Another one: “Protected, directed media losing balance”. Still other articles appeared after the CRTC decision on excluding Mother Angelica's Catholic Television Network from the channels that regular subscribers can receive.

We are drawing attention to a malaise in Canadian broadcasting that seems easily identifiable to everyone but the CRTC. I should note that those applicants for radio and TV stations under the present religious policies have remained somewhat silent on the subject, perhaps because they don't need to rock the boat.

Having said all this in my unexpected preamble, I should quickly get to the point of bringing the evidence I promised in my letter to this committee in June.

First, to compare what's happening in the evolution of Christian broadcasting in Canada with other countries, one only has to take a quick glance at the variety of Christian formats flourishing in the U.S. to see that there's something wrong with the picture in Canada. It's in the attached graphic.

We don't suggest a follow-the-leader mentality, but please notice that the U.S. has about as many Christian talk and information radio stations as they do Christian contemporary music stations, and we're not including all the preaching and teaching stations. Yet in Canada, all our new so-called Christian stations are but Christian music stations, over 90% contemporary music. The exception is the AM stations that have been around for decades, with a variety of Christian spoken-word programs, plus a few very low-powered neighbourhood worship stations.

It's because the CRTC has put up too many hoops to jump through, financially exhausting hoops, which discourage the development of Christian talk or information radio. I know this from our experience as program producers before the Christian Institute of Broadcasting became Christian Communications Consultants. We discovered it was easier to get a Christian review of a program on a secular station than on a Christian music station, because secular stations didn't have to worry about balance. They already were balanced by all the other stuff they had.

À (1030)

I know the reservations that young, aggressive Christian broadcasters have about tackling spoken-word programs from talking to them as a consultant and from hearing them at media conferences. These are the same inhibitions that affect religious television broadcasting. “Affect” is a kind word. “Pervert” might also be used, as these broadcasters are manipulated by CRTC policy into offering programming they never originally intended.

I must close by submitting to you the recent history of court decisions both in Canada and the U.S., which fly against the wind of CRTC policy. What we call the balance requirement in Canada they call the fairness doctrine in the U.S., but U.S. courts hardly found it to be fair, and the Federal Communications Commission requirements were finally dropped after a series of appeals. In Canada, provincial courts have been finding CRTC policies to be unnatural for our society. They refuse to prosecute when charges are brought against people wishing to choose their own satellite servers. In the words of a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge:

“I understand that Cuba imposes serious penalties on citizens who attempt to receive radio and television signals from international sources. Such interference is clearly incompatible with freedom of speech and the freedoms which we have always taken for granted in this country.”

I submit to you that the CRTC is out of step with my friends and family, with newspaper journalists, Christians in broadcasting, the courts, and the rest of the world, except for oppressive regimes. I don't have to be careful about saying this because I have no vested interest in any application before the CRTC.

I thank you again for being good listeners.

Mr. Don Brooks (Consultant, Christian Communications Consultants): I have some follow-up remarks to the introduction given by Patrick Bestall.

Canada is a multicultural nation and can take great pride in this fact. It is this very plethora of global identities living in harmony in this land that has given rise to our acceptance virtually anywhere in the world. We have become so transfixed in this cultural mosaic that we have lost sight of the fact that multiculturalism of necessity includes the mainstream. The mainstream in Canada includes and reflects the roots of our heritage: Christian beliefs and principles. It is these Christian beliefs and principles that Canada was built on, and it is these Christian beliefs and principles that have made Canada what it is today.

One of the most significant studies done on the religious make-up of Canadians in the last decade was done by Angus Reid, conducted for Crossroads Christian Communications. It provided powerful, insightful information with respect to the nature of Canadians' faith. The poll results show that 86% of the population believe in God. It further reveals that prayer is practised, at least occasionally, by two-thirds--66%--of Canadians, and 29% pray daily; 54% of Canadians at least occasionally read the Bible or other religious material. Daily readership of the Bible, at 8%, is much higher than the readership of Canada's national newspaper, and much higher than the daily viewership of CBC's prime TV news or CTV's evening news.

The poll also revealed that Canada remains one of the most religious, uniformly Christian nations in the world. Only the United States shows a higher level of Christian belief. With respect to the importance of religious belief, only the United States, Italy, and Spain, the latter two of which are predominantly Catholic, rank higher than Canada. Eighty-three percent of Canadians affiliate themselves with a Christian church or denomination. Eastern non-Christians make up 3%, and those who are Jewish are 1% of the population. All other religious groups account for less than 0.1% of the adult population of Canada. The remaining 13% have no religious affiliation.

The poll concluded that Canada is a Christian nation and that single-faith broadcasting would not be contrary to the nature of the religious belief in Canada.

Contributions that Christianity has made to society include hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages; universities, which also began during the Middle Ages--in addition, most of the world's greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes; literacy and education for the masses; capitalism and free enterprise; representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experience; civil liberties; the abolition of slavery, in both antiquity and modern times; modern science; the elevation of the status of women; higher standards of justice; codifying and setting to writing of many of the world's languages; and greater development of art and music and the inspiration of the greatest works of art. There are many more that could be cited, but the foregoing will be adequate for these purposes.

There is an excellent booklet by George Gallup Jr. and Timothy Jones, entitled The Saints Among Us, which addresses what an impact on society this demographic on faith distribution reflects. The benefit to society of the saints among us must be enormous. As we noted earlier, 73% claim to spend a good deal of time helping people in need, whereas with the strongly uncommitted, that percentage drops to 42%.

Page 41 summarizes the results of a nationally representative sample of 1,052 people surveyed. It reflects that consistently across the six questions on commitment, saints and super-saints outperformed non-saints and the spiritually uncommitted. Christians still exhibit an above-average social conscience.

It might be argued that Christianity is responsible for deaths, oppression, wars, and not controlling religious fanaticism. The following distinction needs to be made. These abuses of Christian teaching are not in line with the teaching itself. In fact, more people have died due to social communism purges in this past century than to anything tied to Christianity. Not all that was done in the name of Christ was sanctioned by Him, and it can be clearly shown from Christ's own teaching that it was wrong. These tragedies took place by the obscuring or denying of biblical teachings, not by following them.

À (1035)

I conclude with this final comment. After the September 11 attacks, the president of Fox TV News is quoted as saying: “To try to present both viewpoints in the name of balance is to lose track of the values of right and wrong”.

Fox TV News, by the way, gets higher ratings than CNN, even though CNN is available in nine million more homes in the U.S.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Well, I'm glad to know there are saints and super-saints among all of us.

I would like now to turn to Mr. Bruce Clemenger from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Thank you.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is a national association of Protestant denominations and Christian organizations. The EFC has participated in several CRTC hearings on religious broadcasting and television violence.

In preparation for this submission we sent a survey to some 15,000 people. Today we have received over 3,000 replies. That's a 20% return rate. We continue to receive around 200 to 300 replies per day. We have thus far tabulated over 1,000 responses, and I'll include those responses in my comments. We intend to produce a written brief that will include the final results of our survey, and we'll submit it to the clerk for distribution to the committee members.

In this submission I'll deal with three issues: the treatment of religion in Canadian broadcasting; religious broadcasting; and violence and sexual content. I'll argue that religion is an integral part of Canadian society and should be reflected in the Canadian broadcasting system; that religious broadcasting in Canada has been successful in serving the needs and aspirations of a segment of the Canadian population and has facilitated the growth of a distinctively Canadian programming and related music industry; and that the Broadcasting Act's purposes are undermined by violence and sexual content as broadcast in Canada.

On religious broadcasting, I begin by noting that the Broadcasting Act, while referring to the cultural and social fabric of Canada and the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, does not refer to religion. In fact, the issue of religious broadcasting per se is dealt with by the CRTC under a section that deals with the need to provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.

This treatment of religion is important for three reasons. First, this omission fails to recognize the important place religion does play in the lives of Canadians. Secondly, the silence on religion could be interpreted as implying that religion should be treated as a subset of culture or race, or that religion is not a significant part of the Canadian mosaic. Thirdly, the CRTC treats religion as something that is controversial and therefore should be restricted.

The people of Canada are deeply religious. A 2000 Ipsos-Reid poll indicated that 84% of Canadians believe in God, and 67% say their religious faith is important to their day-to-day life.

When we're talking about religious broadcasting we are addressing something that is more important than the listening or viewing preferences of a few. Religion is more than a pastime; religion is a completely unique dimension of human experience. Religious beliefs involve one's ultimate commitments in life. It involves living our lives in the way that expresses our deepest beliefs about what gives meaning and value to life.

Religious belief and practice, I submit, is an area of Canadian life where the Canadian broadcasting system has not fulfilled its legislative mandate to “serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children”.

The June 8, 1988 Angus Reid Group survey showed that 65% of weekly churchgoers feel “the media does a poor job of covering faith and religion and that this area does not get the kind of media coverage it should.”

While the Broadcasting Act promotes the examination of racial and ethnic diversity, broadcasting explicitly about religion has strict limitations placed on it. Why is religion not also identified as something that should be explored? Some prefer to treat religion as an aspect of culture or ethnicity, yet religions' beliefs transcend and cross ethnic and cultural boundaries.

Conflating religion, ethnicity and culture results in a distorted understanding of the world around us. For example, recent reporting on the conflict in the Middle East regularly fails to distinguish among race, culture, politics, and religion in examining the factors behind the violence.

We recommend that you consider including the term “religion” in certain sections of the act.

Most coverage of religion concerns the ethical and political implications of religion. We understand that the political and ethical implications of religion should be covered, and we welcome the recent announcement, for instance, of CTV of the hiring of faith and ethics reporters. When covering matters of religion, it is important to have specialists who understand the faiths on which they are reporting. That will help avoid stereotypes.

However, if this is all that is broadcast about religion, Canadians will be exposed to a narrow facet of religious life. Ignorance about religion and the stereotypes of people of faith causes harm and misunderstanding. This is a problem that more openness towards religious broadcasters and more religious programming would address.

To that end, we note that Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, produces very little in the way of programming on religion. In our survey, 75.5% said the CBC does not carry a sufficient level of religious programming on television. CBC Radio fared a little better, yet 62% felt that the level of programming was insufficient.

À (1040)

Another contributing factor is the misunderstanding of religion and, to echo some of the comments made earlier, the betrayal of people of faith in television programming. One 1997 study concluded that for every positive depiction of a devout laity, there were ten negative ones. In our survey, 69.8% said evangelicals were rarely or never fairly portrayed in the media.

We believe there is a need for more programming about religion in broadcast undertakings and for more religious programming on basic services. We also believe that a fair portrayal of people of faith should be a goal of the broadcasting system.

In terms of the treatment of religious broadcasters, religion has been deemed by the CRTC to be a matter of public concern and is therefore treated differently from most other types of programming. Our concern is that this approach to religious broadcasting is in part rooted in a belief that religion promotes intolerance and is always, in all of its aspects, a matter of public concern and controversy. It is this understanding of religion that has influenced the current policy toward religious broadcasting.

As a result, although the Broadcasting Act itself requires the broadcasting system to be balanced in the expression of matters of public concern, the CRTC requires religious broadcasters themselves to provide this variety. As all religious content is considered to be a matter of public concern, religious broadcasters must commit to broadcasting a proportion of programming of other faiths and produce this programming, if none is available, as a condition of their licence. This balance requirement is imposed regardless of whether the community or commercial broadcasters in the same market are contributing to such balance. This places a regulatory and financial burden on religious broadcasters not imposed on other broadcasters. While there may be reasons for requiring balance, any such requirement should not be premised on an inaccurate or narrow view of religion.

There are a number of benefits to religious broadcasting. Since the CRTC began licensing single-faith broadcast stations, the Christian media in Canada has contributed in a number of positive ways to the lives of Canadians. Christian radio and television are fulfilling a very real market need. In our survey, 95.1% of the respondents indicated that it was important or very important for them to have access to a Christian television or radio station.

Initially, it's not only Christians who tune in to Christian radio. CHIM-FM in Timmins reports about 30% of their listeners are non-Christian.

Canadian broadcasters playing Canadian artists enjoy international success. Ottawa's CHRI-FM began real-time audio streaming over the World Wide Web on August 26, 1999. In early 2000 it ranked as the sixth most popular Christian station in the world, according to Musicforce.com's online poll covering 180 stations.

Similarly, Christian television in Canada serves as a venue by which many performers launch themselves into further work. CTS out of Hamilton reports that for about 95% of their visiting performers to their studios, it's their first television exposure.

So we welcome the CRTC's decision to license religious broadcasters. We encourage this development and we believe the CRTC needs to continue in this direction of licensing religious broadcasters to fulfill the mandate of the Broadcasting Act.

In the next couple of minutes, let me turn to violence and sexual content. The underlying philosophy of the Broadcasting Act is that the broadcasting system in Canada is owned and controlled by Canadians. A 1993 Environics poll indicates that over eight in ten Canadians agree that television transmits the wrong values to young people. We are concerned about the portrayal of violence as it objectifies the human person and distorts human dignity. Exposure to gratuitous violence can desensitize people, in particular children, to the effects of violence. It can foster a sense of hopelessness and fear.

We have a communal responsibility to protect society both from dehumanization and the fear it causes. Violence in the media has been shown to be harmful to society, particularly to the children who are exposed to it. A recent study published in Science concluded that the more television children watch, the more likely they are to be violent and exhibit anti-social behaviour. This concern confirms CRTC's earlier review of scientific studies of the effects of television violence that found that television violence is a risk factor for anti-social behaviour and aggressive tendencies.

While we understand the need for freedom of expression in Canadian society, according to the Broadcasting Act the Canadian broadcasting system should not be a medium through which Canadians, in particular children, are harmed.

We're also concerned about the levels of sexual content broadcast in Canada. Sexual content, imagery, depictions of sexual behaviour, particularly when the focus is on the sexual dimension of human nature to the exclusion of all else, can objectify sex and distorts the viewer's perspective of people and their worth. Sexual content without any reference to the possible risks or responsibilities of sexual activity is unrealistic, misleading, and harmful. This poses health risks as well as having consequences for the development of stable adult relationships. I have a number of statistics showing the high levels of sexual content, which I will skip over.

À (1045)

The approach to the content issues taken by the CRTC is to encourage industry self-regulation. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters has created the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to administer a voluntary code on violence and a code on sex role portrayal. The code on violence bans all gratuitous violence and restricts the type of violence shown in children's programs. The sex role portrayal code focuses on the balance of the portrayal of women and men, not specifically on special content.

Many Canadians continue to be offended by scenes of violence and sexual content on television. In our survey, 83.6% of the respondents were offended by scenes of violence on television and another 19.9% were occasionally offended. With regard to sexual imagery, 75.9% were often offended and 13.3% said they were occasionally offended.

If content, particularly that broadcast during prime time, is offensive, then the interests of Canadians are not being served. If programming is harmful to Canadians, particularly the children, then the Broadcasting Act is being violated.

The CBSC has established a watershed hour. Programs containing adult content are not to be broadcast between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., when many children may be watching. While 85% of those surveyed agreed with the idea of a watershed hour, only 7.7% agreed with the choice of 9 p.m.; 22% suggested 10 p.m., and 38% suggested 11 p.m. A necessary component of the watershed hour is the widespread agreement of what is suitable for children. Yet such a consensus, we submit, has not yet been achieved.

For example, Quebec broadcasters showed the movie Strip Tease in an 8 p.m. time slot. The CBSC found the broadcaster had not transgressed the watershed hour because the movie was not intended for an adult audience. The extensive nudity in the movie, while intended by the filmmaker to be sexual, did not involve any sexual content, deemed the CBSC, and was therefore sufficiently innocent to be acceptable for family viewing.

Another element to the approach to regulate the content was the V-chip, the idea that parents can regulate programming, whether or not it originates from Canadian broadcasters. However, even now, it is estimated only 200,000 Canadian households have televisions with the technology.

We acknowledge that parents are primarily responsible for the care and nurture of their children. The CRTC has recognized this, when it has said they should be provided with the information and tools needed to choose suitable programming for their families. The development of a national classification system that is trustworthy to Canadians and the development of technologies that enable people to screen programming is helpful.

We agree the industry has a role. While we prefer voluntary codes, as opposed to government regulation, we question how effective the voluntary codes currently are. According to the Broadcasting Act, however, the broadcasting system, hence the government and the CRTC, is also responsible. When harm is being done, restrictions are warranted and limiting access to harmful programming is justified. This is particularly true when the vulnerable, particularly children, are being harmed and the motivation involves profit.

To conclude, due to the harmful effects to children and adults of the depiction of violence and sexual content, the current approach to regulation of content must be re-evaluated to ensure the intent of the Broadcasting Act is being upheld.

I thank you for affording me the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

À (1050)

The Chair: Ms. Mock, you have the final word. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mrs. Karen Mock (Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation): Thank you.

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is happy to have the opportunity to present a brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, thus participating to the round table on cultural diversity as part of the Study of the State of the Canadian broadcasting System. This brief is in line with our mission and mandate.

[English]

Members of the committee have a copy of our brief in both languages, and I'll speak in the one with which I'm most comfortable. You also have the document that describes the mission and mandate and founding of the foundation.

I will attempt just to highlight sections of our brief, given the limited time, and to defer the rest to the question and answer segment.

As you're aware, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, founded as part of the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement, was founded to foster racial harmony and cross-cultural understanding and to help eliminate racism. It's a foundation to help all Canadians understand the history of racism in Canada and to assist organizations and institutions with research and practical strategies to counter racism in all its forms.

The act specifies that the office of the foundation is in Toronto, but its mandate and activities are national in scope. We are a crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the federal government. We have registered charitable status, and we also enjoy a close relationship, which involves much consultation, with anti-racism and human rights non-governmental organizations as well as other partners in the public and private sectors.

We are in the process of expanding our services and using our expertise, particularly in the areas of education and training, policy development, and the implementation of initiatives that promote institutional change in the direction of cultural diversity and the elimination of systemic racism.

We are participating in this particular forum because of our mandate to affect public policies, ensuring that these policies are inclusive, do not subscribe to stereotypes, and, most of all, do not support racism and racial discrimination.

We are advocating for the creation of the framework and underpinnings of a broadcasting system that is culturally diverse and inclusive of anti-racist principles. Our brief intends to contribute to laying the anti-racist groundwork necessary for a broadcasting system that reflects the cultural diversity of Canada. We will therefore focus on issues particularly salient to race relations and anti-racism in broadcasting and media, the role of diverse community organizations in Canadian broadcasting, and the obligation of Canadian broadcasting to justly reflect the “multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society”, as indeed was stated in the Broadcasting Act of 1991.

As Canadians, we can certainly be proud that with our broadcasting policy reflecting Canada's linguistic and cultural diversity after the hearings in 1984, but which was actually proclaimed in 1985, we were the first country to pass such a policy to attempt to ensure inclusion and cultural diversity. While at the present time some of this is reflected at the provincial, local, and regional levels, there is still no real national framework or service in this regard.

I wish to highlight two main issues: the current under-representation of racial minorities and aboriginal peoples within private and public broadcasting, and the inability of the current broadcasting system to prevent racist misrepresentations of these groups and peoples in defiance of existing human rights legislation.

These two main issues stem from what we see as systemic problems: one, media concentration and convergence in tandem with decreasing support for community broadcasting; two, the failure to acknowledge that community broadcasting makes an important and vital contribution to ethnic and culturally diverse programming; three, the lack of inclusion of racial minorities and aboriginal peoples throughout the full spectrum of broadcasting employment; and four, an incomplete regulatory framework that has not actually put into place the necessary safeguards to prevent both misrepresentation and under-representation of culturally and racially diverse minorities.

À (1055)

Although it has the act and sections of the act in place to attempt to ensure diversity, the result is we have a system that, at best, is inadequate in reflecting the full diversity of cultural and ethno-racial communities in Canada, and, at worst, often propagates stereotypical and racist portrayals.

On the issue of cultural diversity, I would like to quote Lorna Roth in a recent article in the Canadian Journal of Communication, where she says: “There is an unequal distribution of power between those who talk about ethnicity and those who are talked about.”

For example, it is not enough to pigeonhole ethnic or culturally diverse programming in community cable stations and specialty channels. These must be fully integrated into all programming, with the result that all Canadians who turn on their televisions can be assured of viewing culturally diverse representation reflective of the Canadian demographic on each and every channel licensed for broadcast in Canada.

The main challenge before the standing committee is to instigate the process to identify and implement innovative ways to address cultural diversity at all levels of broadcasting. The challenge will inevitably entail altering the influence and impact of globalization and privatization within the broadcasting system, recognizing the unique importance of public spending required to foster the uniqueness of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We also suggest that current trends in community broadcasting, including third-language broadcasting, must be further explored.

There are others who have gone before us, and we would like to echo some of their recommendations. For example, the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians documents the erosion of community broadcasting. They suggest that it will do damage to the objectives of culturally diverse broadcasting that meet the needs of all Canadians in diverse communities.

It is important also to recognize that measurements that determine marketability and therefore programming on commercial stations do not take into account many racial communities, in particular, the black community. In other words, it is more difficult to track the spending habits of the black community than it is a more monotypic community. Programming to black audiences, therefore, is rare or non-existent. Conversely, it is a significant sector that cannot afford to access commercial broadcasters.

The National Film Board's suggestion of a new public tier to address under-representation is one indeed worth exploring. The principle of access, not only for audiences but also for content producers, should also be addressed by the federal programs promoting cultural diversity.

In 2001 the Canadian Race Relations Foundation conducted consultations with a representative sample of community organizations working in racial minority and aboriginal communities. From these discussions we drafted a series of recommendations for a domestic anti-racism policy agenda.

I should say that I am going to submit to the clerk, for the purposes of the research staff, all of the foundation's documents to which I will refer, which include some of the data and very specific recommendations relevant to the work of the standing committee at this time.

One recommendation speaks to the necessity of training in cultural competency and its importance to increase the human resource capacity for cultural diversity and anti-racist perspectives by measures to, and I quote, “...establish national institutes charged with the responsibility of providing effective and relevant training in cultural competency and anti-racism for professionals working with civil society, educators, health care professionals, journalists, members of the legislative and judiciary arms of government”.

Á (1100)

We would like to underscore the importance, in the broadcasting area, schools of journalism, and in-service training for those in broadcasting, of this kind of cultural diversity awareness and anti-racism training.

The Chair: There are several pages left in your brief, and I see you've stuck very closely to your text. Perhaps you could highlight the recommendations so we have time for questioning.

Ms. Karen Mock: Yes, I will go to the highlighted recommendations.

We're looking at three major areas in particular: employment equity within the federally regulated public and private sectors; racism in the media; and cultural industries and institutions.

While there is employment equity legislation in place for the larger organizations, we would like to suggest that its implementation is not as sound as it needs to be. The standing committee would be well advised to review Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service, the report of the task force on the participation of visible minorities in the federal public service, for guidelines on how and why to implement effective change in the broadcasting sector.

On the matter of cultural industries and institutions, Canada's crown corporations within the Heritage Canada portfolio are especially important to fulfill the cultural diversity mandate. The CBC, NFB, Telefilm Canada, Canada Council, and the CRTC are institutions that have indeed made significant efforts to spearhead and further the goals of cultural diversity and representation in Canadian broadcasting, although we regret to say that the progress on these fronts is not yet in keeping with the demographic shifts in Canadian communities.

We recommend, therefore, that support be increased for these institutions and that concrete priorities be set for increased funding for activities that have as their objective the advancement of cultural diversity through the inclusion of racial minorities and aboriginal peoples at every level within Canada's broadcasting system.

We support of course a strong and publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but also support community broadcasting and the creation of an infrastructure to support this.

I'll summarize the recommendations relevant to the CRTC in particular. Through section 3(1)(d)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act, we have enshrined multicultural, multiracial, and aboriginal broadcasting, both in terms of programming and employment opportunities. The CRTC has the critical role of regulating broadcasters to ensure that this is indeed implemented. But is the CRTC adequately equipped at this time to ensure it?

We recommend and reinforce others who have suggested establishing plans and annual reports regarding diversity in programming and community involvement. In particular, we underscore the need to conduct research on the representation of racial minorities and aboriginal people in the broadcasting industry, as well as an analysis of on-screen portrayals of racial minorities and aboriginal people and their communities.

We have heard time and time again about the under-representation, but the decision-makers look for actual data. I've provided for the clerk, and I've referred to in the brief, some of the data on unequal access, some of the testimony from producers and directors who were working in institutions in broadcasting agencies that describes the glass ceiling, marginalization, and indeed even harassment they feel at times.

We also support the recommendation for the creation of an anti-racism and anti-discrimination office at the CRTC and would be pleased to assist in that exercise. As was mentioned earlier in the previous session, we support Bill S-7 to make intervener funding available to community groups.

To conclude, we believe the federal government should act in such a way that public access channels and the airwaves are available to communities, and in particular those communities that traditionally have had less access. This is a real challenge with the concentration and convergence in the media today. We would want some strengthening of the Competition Act in order to ensure the diversity of representation.

Á (1105)

We urge the government to offer protection to community channels as part of their obligation to regulate and deter the creation of these kinds of monopolies. Also, we call for support of community-based media licences to the community, fully funded by broadcast distribution and cable levies.

I know that there is much more to address, particularly in an understanding of the systemic racism that currently, I regret to say, does exist. This may be hard language for those who do not define racism in all of its forms, but the assurance through the act of truly reflecting Canadian society and Canadian content in broadcasting also demands that we pay very close attention, and implement not only the act, but true regulatory measures and accountability to see to it that those sections of the act are fulfilled.

I thank you for the opportunity, and we are pleased to offer any additional information we can to assist in this regard.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I wish to discuss your briefs in which you touch on various aspects of the question.

Mr. Friedman, I believe, mentioned that the CRTC has requested that a research be conducted to evaluate whether it is easier today to represent Canadian diversity.

I would like to know if the research was conducted, who incurred the costs and who the CRTC contracted.

Mr. Reuben Friedman: I think that my colleagues are the ones who raised the issue. Mr. Rasalingam can probably answer your question.

[English]

Who was hired to do the research for the CRTC in terms of representation and cultural diversity?

Á (1110)

Mr. Raj Rasalingam: Thank you for the question.

Essentially, the process on the research is that the CRTC directed the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to come up with baseline research and a study. The terms of reference are on the CRTC website and there are specifics related to that. Our understanding is that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has submitted an initial plan to the CRTC with respect to how it proposes to conduct the research. The document has not been made public as yet. Our understanding is it's just going through the internal mechanisms right now. We will be able to better comment on it once the document is made public. So that's where the status of the research is at.

[Translation]

Mr. Reuben Friedman: Let me add that the study is on cultural diversity and not on employment equity.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I had understood which type of study it was. In fact, to respond to Mrs. Karen Mock, let me stress that a House of Commons committee is currently looking at employment equity under the Employment Equity Act. I do not know whether you have submitted your recommendations to that committee yet but it would be the right place to deal with these issues.

We like to be made aware of such issues although they ultimately are Minister Bradshaw’s area of responsibility. Did you give evidence before that committee?

[English]

Ms. Karen Mock: I personally have not. I'm just completing the beginning of my tenure as executive director. But the Canadian Race Relations Foundation has certainly made submissions through its research and providing a lot of background to the Department of Canadian Heritage on this matter, and does, of course, support the employment equity initiatives.

We wanted to highlight, however, for this particular committee the importance of the CRTC and others who oversee the regulation of the Broadcasting Act. Failure to ensure diversity of representation in employment in broadcasting actually means that there is systemic discrimination happening in the broadcast system. So it is important in the regulation of the act and the monitoring of the act that this is taken into consideration.

The Chair: I think Mrs. Gagnon was suggesting to you that in addition to any representations you have made to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, there is now a specific committee of the House under Minister Bradshaw. It is sitting on the question of pay equity, in general, in all sectors of activity, and it would be worth your while to at least write a letter and send a brief there.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It should be done quickly, preferably before April 25th or April 27th. You can still send a brief.

I want to discuss further the presence of religion in various television and radio shows. You said that multiculturalism led us to understand that there is a dominant Christian culture. I am not sure I fully understand what you mean. Don’t you think a dominant Christian culture excludes other religions and prevents cultural and religion diversity? Is that not a case of discrimination? How can we adequately do justice to the various religious beliefs in Canada? I did not take note of all the numbers you quoted, but wouldn’t 86% create a feeling of exclusion for other religions? How could we give 50% to Christians, 20% to Muslims, etc.? Wouldn’t that be a little complicated?

Á (1115)

[English]

Mr. Don Brooks: It may very well get a little bit complicated. In terms of my presentation, Christianity does form a preponderance of what Canada is, and to take the decision to not have any Christian broadcasting is ignoring the fact that there is a large segment of our population that ought to be represented.

I'm not suggesting in any sense that other religions ought not to be represented. I'm simply saying the mainstream has a large preponderance of Christian representation, and therefore should be seen at least on the airwaves.

Go ahead, Patrick.

Mr. Patrick Bestall: I would also like to answer that.

First, Christianity has demonstrated that it's very multicultural and multiracial, by virtue of its expansion around the world and its diversity of form. Don has answered what he intended, in bringing out the fact that Christianity is under-represented in our broadcasting spectrum.

The real point we want to make is that CRTC policy does not fully appreciate the contribution of religion--and in our case in Canada, Christianity. They're afraid of it. I have to quote the dissenting opinion of six of the fourteen commissioners. As I listened, I realized how important this was. This is why Don and Bruce went to such lengths to point out all the wonderful aspects of Christianity, because we are making an antidote to this.

To quote a couple of paragraphs, six of the fourteen commissioners who formulated our religious policy had this to say:

“Our position that the balance criteria must continue to apply to each licensee is not simply based on a desire to see the balance principle continue for its own sake.”

And I underline the next part:

“Our main opposition to licensing a service which will not commit to balance is the potential that continued exposure of consistently one-sided views may prove to be a destructive force in Canadian society.”

I can't believe it.

“We are deeply disturbed by the extent of social, cultural and racial intolerance which is often rooted in religious intolerance. One only need look to Bosnia, the Middle East, India, Northern Ireland, Africa, etc.”

They quote these as examples of how dangerous it is to be exposed to a single-faith viewpoint. They go on to say:

“We believe that removing the requirement for balance in discretionary religious broadcasting will promote religious, cultural and racial intolerance in Canada, and will lead to a weakening of the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.”

To us, this is preposterous. Yes, there are these abuses, but on the other side of the coin--and you must look at the other side--there is all the good stuff of the “super-saints”. That's why we wanted to paint a bit of a picture of that. Those who are very religious within Christianity, and I believe in other faiths, demonstrate great tolerance and generosity toward people of all colours, races, and cultural backgrounds. So we basically want to refute this dissenting opinion, which is obviously a major influence at the CRTC, by their own expression.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger, just carry on for now.

Madame Gagnon, we'll come back to you.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: OK, I'll come back.

[English]

The Chair: Briefly then, Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: The thrust of our brief wasn't specifically Christian per se, though we commented we're just Christian broadcasters, but that religion itself is under-represented. When you look at the vibrance of religious communities in Canada, and the deep faith Canadians have, the majority of whom are Christian, but there are also vibrant Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu communities.... As an evangelical fellowship, we often work in coalitions with Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and different faith groups on a common issue. So there is that wonderful diversity, but it's not reflected on our TV shows.

Just think of the most popular TV shows and how many of them actually have a person of deep, serious conviction of faith represented. It's missing, and yet it's a dominant part of Canadian life. So our point was why is religion itself unrepresented? Is it because we have this kind of fear that perhaps religion is evil or is dangerous, so then we steer away from it and we try to privatize it? I think that's the wrong way to go. We need to be going in the other direction and say now let's examine and let's celebrate the diversity; let's look at what real religious faith does, and let's not narrow it down really to political or ethical implications but show more of the diversity on our airwaves.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Do you believe, Mrs. Mock, that it will help better represent represent the religions diversity from the chistian point of view? Could it create an opening for other cultures and religions?

[English]

Ms. Karen Mock: It is my understanding, from my own reviewing of media and of the current bias that exists, that the Christian view is not absent at the present time. We have indeed what is sometimes referred to as a Eurocentric approach, and sometimes referred to as an approach provided by the dominant culture, throughout broadcasting in its entirety. Certainly from where I sit, it would never have even occurred to me that the Christian approach or so-called Christian programming was absent from broadcasting at the present time.

What we fail to see is the true representation of a cross-section of the media. At the present time, even though, as your data have shown, there may be a majority of Christians in the country, we are beholden to ensure that in the interest of representing all aspects of Canadian society it isn't so much representation by population but rather that all Canadians would be able to see themselves reflected. And at the present time, Christians in our society can indeed see programming reflective of their background.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

I would like to ask some questions around the issue of employment equity and also this concept of the creation of an anti-racism and anti-discrimination office at the CRTC.

I find that a depressing fact has come to light recently to a group of women MPs here, and it is that the women at Radio-Canada are being paid less than their male counterparts working at the same place. This is depressing for a number of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that it's a crown corporation, and one is expecting that the federal government is going to lead the way in terms of employment equity and getting rid of that glass ceiling. But in fact there are all sorts of problems there, and they have to be dealt with.

It's hard to get a handle on what it is that needs to be done right now, given the fact that nobody seems to be doing it very well. Mr. Rasalingam made the point that the CRTC has sought from public broadcasters methods to measure progress of diversity on the air, which sounds like self-regulation. Is that the way to go? Quite frankly, I don't have too much faith in that method. I want to know, at this point in time, whether you have in your own mind a model that you think will work in terms of representation on air.

We visited a lot of newsrooms across this country behind the scenes, and I have to say that I didn't see a multi-ethnic work environment in any shape or form. I've actually heard people say that this not working, that's not happening. So how do we actually make this happen?

I'm afraid I don't think self-regulation is the way to go. I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Raj Rasalingam: Thank you for the question. I'll just clarify what I said earlier.

The CRTC process was a directive to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, involved the private broadcasters, and it looked at issues of what we see and who we see in terms of reflection. The mandate was not for employment equity.

With response to employment equity, that's the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The position of the Communications and Diversity Network is that the Canadian broadcasters will stand to gain significant benefits with including the newly emerging communities within the broadcasting sector. It's like if you go back to the time you were in high school and were graduating, and the photo came out of the graduation class. If you didn't see your photo, why would you purchase it? That's the analogy I would use to describe it.

With respect to employment equity, one of the common challenges we have come up with in our research, for broadcasters--and I use private broadcasters, not the CBC--has been that they are in union agreements that dictate hiring policies. Could they have separate policies? That's a question I would defer to Professor Lionel Lumb, because he has worked at both the public and the private broadcasters.

Á (1125)

Prof. Lionel Lumb: I'd like to attempt to answer the latter part of your question. I agree with you that if it's self-regulation only, it becomes more difficult. I would go back to the 1980s, when the CRTC did a baseline research data survey itself. It spent its own money at that time, or government money, on the portrayal of gender on air and behind the scenes. It's that kind of baseline data survey that we believe should be done this time around by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, as requested by the CRTC.

I would also say, speaking personally, that I was at the CBC during the 1980s, and at CTV before that, and I can recall that whenever we had a hiring committee, we would have a human resources person sitting along with the rest of the committee to remind us that if there were two candidates, male and female, and they were equal, we should, in the spirit of affirmative action, choose the female, choose the woman. This often happened. It took that kind of regulation, if you like, to make a change in gender hiring. It is certainly my personal belief that this kind of system ought to be introduced into the hiring of other minorities.

There has been some correction--not to the highest levels, but there has been some correction--at crown corporations such as the CBC because of that kind of regulation. It is not perfect. Within the public and private broadcasters right now, I don't think the public broadcaster is doing quite as well as the private broadcasters on the gender side of things. Neither of them is doing very much in senior management levels on the diversity side.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have to agree with you, and I'd like to talk for a second about this idea of recording what we see and who we see on air. Right now we are being asked to look at Bill S-7, which is a bill that will allow groups, all of your groups, to actually do some good in-depth research, to provide quality input to the CRTC about what the world looks like to you. It's in fact being blocked by various places, one of them being the CAB, which feels that in fact the work is already being done, that it would be in some way a nuisance and obstructive to the process.

I'd like to hear from all of you as to why you think this Bill S-7 is really important, that assistance is really needed at this point in time for interveners to make their case before the CRTC so that the CRTC can make better decisions.

Á (1130)

Ms. Karen Mock: Well, what it does, just to use a hackneyed expression, is level the playing field. You have small, grassroots organizations that can do sound research and make important interventions come to committees such as this and make effective interventions, but this costs money. Sure, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters or an agency itself, when it is up for review or before the CRTC, can certainly afford what it needs to create the evidence. But as we know, many of our organizations in other sectors--let's say it's a court challenges program that one can use--have been able to make effective cases and outstanding interventions with quality research. They have made a real difference as a third-party intervener and a friend of the court, so to speak. That same levelling of the playing field would be important to ensure that all the voices are heard in the area of broadcasting as well.

Prof. Lionel Lumb: I would add that members of the CAB are indeed going down this road towards diversity plans, internal plans for better diversity in broadcasting. Through hearings across the country, they are indeed making themselves available to various community groups.

I think what we're trying to say is that support for those groups to make their views known is very important. As long as the broadcasters are showing any kind of willingness to change, this has to be encouraged.

Mr. Raj Rasalingam: Another point to add in this process is that the experience of our organization has been that a lot of communities have specific concerns with issues around broadcasting. However, they're not even aware of the process of the CRTC; they aren't even aware of the existence of the CRTC itself and the mechanisms available for change. That in itself is a huge education piece, that these are the processes involved to articulate your claim.

I think we have to go even one step backwards to say that this body exists and that's one of the regulatory frameworks that can be utilized. It has been our contention that we need to publicize that much more. We have the best broadcasting networks to do that, and that should be a process that is implemented rapidly so that community organizations and other organizations can articulate those claims.

Another issue is travel expenses. It would be much like asking your constituents to come to Ottawa every time to hear their concerns. You would be the first ones to agree that your concerns and the concerns of the constituents would rarely be heard in this environment because of the length and nature of the travel. That's our position.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): I guess this is to Professor Lumb. The information presented today was certainly informative. It opens up another broad range of questions and concerns, certainly outside the broadcast realm, but we'll try to keep it within the realm of the study we're involved with.

I think your comments were well taken that in Canada we have come a ways with our news programming. I look at sports programming. TSN has really made great strides in the last number of years with being more representative of the Canadian mosaic or tapestry.

You had made reference to some American programming. When I look at American programming--not that I get an opportunity to watch a great deal of television--when I look at Seinfeld, Friends, Drew Carey, and Frasier, they're still pretty white. You look at Will and Grace and maybe Ellen, and they've addressed homophobia, but I still don't see a lot of success stories there.

Which networks, or even more specifically, which programs can we look at to say these guys are doing it right? What should we be holding up as some of the success stories?

Á (1135)

Prof. Lionel Lumb: I would say the country to look at is Britain, even though perhaps there are communities within Britain that would say not enough is being done. But in a series we would see here on TVO, on the CBC sometimes, or on PBS--that's an American channel coming in there--we would see a British series in which characters from diverse cultural communities play a large role. They have real roles. They're not on for a few lines here and there; they are significant characters in the development of a particular series.

An example, going back a couple of years, would be a series called Traffik, about drugs coming in from Pakistan. The BBC went to Pakistan for that, they went to Germany, they were in Britain. That series ran for six hours, I believe, and no finer tribute can be paid than that a Hollywood movie was modelled on that series and was nominated for the Academy Awards. That's just one of them. But in continuing series such as A Touch of Frost or things like that, you will have significant characters emerge, and they emerge as they might be in real life. They emerge as doctors, lawyers, Queen's counsels, MPs, teachers--whatever. They emerge as they are found in life.

I think that is the great lack of what we have here in Canada. We don't have people.... For example, in this city we have the high-tech industry. Now, the high-tech industry is not an all-white industry at all. Do we ever see a program about business in which somebody like the vice-president happens to be a non-white? We don't. But there are lots of non-white vice-presidents in the high-tech industry here, maybe even a president or two I don't know about. The National Research Council is full of people from around the world. In government, CIDA, our own ministries, in academia, these people are there in some significant numbers, yet they don't show up on television screens.

CTV has a program called The Associates. There are six young lawyers there, and one of them is black. That's progress.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I think back to television during the 1970s, when we had Sandford and Son. There was more colour on TV in the American stations back then. We probably did a little bit more with a show like All in the Family and Archie Bunker, who was an obvious bigot and a racist. By being on television, I think it exposed just how ludicrous it was to hold those views and it brought so much to the cause.

You mentioned Da Vinci's Inquest, that when it started out it wasn't really reflective of the community in Vancouver. Was there a process that allowed the show to evolve? What would have moved that show forward? Did it have to be enticed to move forward, or did it just grow as a show?

Prof. Lionel Lumb: I don't know if they played a part, but I think there were complaints from day one about that program, because people realized it was a CBC flagship drama series, yet it was what it was. It has grown, there's no question. You watch it now and you'll see people returning each week who do reflect to some extent the reality of Vancouver, which is a highly multiracial city.

I referred to the CBC special called Jenna, which was very interesting, not least because of its exotic quality, in the sense that I had never seen so many non-white actors show up in one program. It was quite incredible. And it was not only the actors, but the story lines were incredibly interesting, because they got away from the predictable.

Á (1140)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Just back to Da Vinci's Inquest, it wouldn't have grown out of any formal process where a group would have gone to the network or to the producers. It was--

Prof. Lionel Lumb: They heard criticism, for sure, from Pearson-Shoyama. They heard criticism, for sure, from other groups. And I will say this: at the CBC in times past, certain script proposals were thrown back to producers because they said there's no reason why this has to be an all-white cast, then they would decide that a couple of the characters could indeed be people from various ethnic groups.

The other point I make here is that casting directors are.... I've been told by a black actor that in 40 years she has never met a non-white casting director, and she said that at a Pearson-Shoyama forum, so I presume she could not possibly make it up. She is a regular performer on an American soap that is shown here in this country, and in 40 years she has never met a non-white casting director in Canada.

I think that's an example of how things have to change. The pool of talent--writers, casting directors, directors, producers--that's where you have to make significant change behind the scenes in order for people to more readily accept the view that sure, the people in front.... That's what happened in news. And I know that behind the scenes in news it isn't as good as it is on air, as it is on CTV news and on Newsworld or both CBC and CTV. Behind the scenes, it's not as good, but there was at least a process that we should go out looking for people, and that's what should be happening in drama and entertainment as well.

Is the talent there? Of course it's there. But some of them have to go to the United States to play roles.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have something to ask Mrs. Mock.

You identified several innovative ways to increase opportunities. One you mentioned I'd like you to further expand on, and that's the in-service training for broad-range professionals, people in the civil service, the judiciary, and of course broadcast decision-makers within the broadcast industry as well.

I have two questions. I like the suggestion, but how would you intend to engage these people--just encouragement or whatever--and how would a program like that be funded? How would you anticipate the funding process to work in something like that?

Ms. Karen Mock: When you talk about how would you involve people, whether it would just be through encouragement, we would hope that at the actual pre-service level, in the professional schools, it would be more than just encouragement, that there would actually be courses introduced. In fact, there are some in some areas. They are a little uneven, but some of them could be used as the model for in-service.

In the public area, in public broadcasting and so on, it could be through the boards and through the government itself that some of this kind of training is actually mandated and support given for it through the various ministries that are responsible for those jurisdictions. An organization like ours, which actually develops these modules and offers assistance and can put people in touch with people right across the country who are doing this work and developing standards, can be of use in that area.

The reason we suggested an anti-discrimination unit, an anti-racism unit even within the CRTC, is so that an organization like that can use some of its funds to apply to the government for further support for that kind of initiative. If we really are serious about it, then implementing employment equity and implementing cultural diversity in all of the agencies and all of the services.... We can't just have lip service for that, so sure, there has to be a certain kind of encouragement. The training has to be done very effectively, as does the encouragement. So it's not that people are raising guilt or blaming, but that people are brought to see that this is doing good business.

We will not achieve that, though, unless the regulatory bodies really do understand racism and systemic discrimination in all its forms and can name it and can then say “Your organization is not in compliance. Therefore, as a mandatory settlement or in order to reach compliance, here is what you need to do.”

It's one thing simply to censure; it's another thing to really add some clout to the legislation.

Á (1145)

The Chair: I'm afraid we'll have to close here. We've got two other groups coming.

We would like to thank you very much for appearing and for challenging us with many provoking questions to consider. Thank you very much. We appreciate your presence here.

I'd like to call on Mr. Joe Clark, and at the same time the Congrès Iberoaméricain, represented by Mr. Paul Fitzgerald. I didn't cover more than ten minutes to allow for questions and time for us, so please keep your presentation concise to allow for the members to question you.

We'll start with you, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark (Individual Presentation): Hello, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence to this panel. In fact I gave evidence to the equivalent panel 12 years ago, the last time the Broadcasting Act was being revised. I remember that Mrs. Finestone was on the panel at that time.

I'll give a little background information about myself first. I am a journalist and author and an accessibility consultant in Toronto. I go back over almost 25 years in the field of accessibility for people with disabilities. For example, I've been watching captioned television since the late 1970s, since before closed captioning was invented.

I've written over a dozen articles on topics related to captioning, audio description, and other related issues. I've a book coming out on web accessibility entitled Building Accessible Websites, New Riders Publishing. It should be coming out in June. I've given a number of presentations in the field of captioning and audio description.

The Atlantic Monthly described me as “The King of Closed Captions”, whereas Silent News, the monthly newspaper for the deaf, said I was “the Ralph Nader of the captioning industry” and “one of the captioning industry's pests”, although I prefer the term “gadfly” myself.

I have a wealth of accessibility-related information on my website, joeclark.org/access. I do a little accessibility consulting. It's a field I'm just getting into. I recently completed a project with a major Canadian broadcaster on the topic of online video captioning.

Before we begin, let's define two terms related to accessibility. One you're probably all familiar with is “captioning”, which is an accessibility technique for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers and anyone else who likes captioning. Those are visible, written transcriptions of dialogue and other meaningful sound effects on a television program.

The access technique for blind and visually impaired people is “audio description”, in French, description sonore, which involves a separate narrator reading from a carefully honed script, who describes out loud the visual action that's taking place on the screen that you could not figure out from the soundtrack.

Let's move on to substantive issues.

I might as well drop the bomb right at the outset. The Broadcasting Act, as it's currently written, is unconstitutional and it permits illegal discrimination against people with disabilities in the broadcasting sector. It's also inconsistent within itself.

Let's review what the Broadcasting Act says. In paragraph 3.(1)(p) it says: “programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose”. Yet at the same time, item 3.(1)(d)(iii) tells us the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming, “serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights”.

So the question is how can you reflect the aspirations of Canadian men, women, and children, including equal rights, if that equality is subject to broadcaster whim? The reality is that the phase “as resources become available for the purpose” amounts to if we the broadcasters feel like paying for it.

The fact of the matter is that accessibility tends to cost money in all spheres of life. If you look at other issues in inequality, it doesn't cost you any more or any less as a retailer, for example, not to discriminate against Jews or blacks who come into your facility. In the field of employment, for example, it might actually cost you money to accommodate religious minorities or people with disabilities. Those are very unusual cases.

In broad terms, the only examples where providing equality costs money is the field of disability, because disability is qualitatively different from the other forms of equality.

So if the issue according to paragraph 3.(1)(p) of the Broadcasting Act is that we can only have accessibility as resources become available for the purpose, I would like someone to explain to me how it is that we always have resources for new television channels. Isn't it a funny thing that in the year 2001 the CRTC was able to license over 200 category-one and category-two digital specialty channels in a nation of 30 million people? Isn't it odd how we have enough money in the broadcasting system to start entire new networks, but the money isn't there to actually make the existing ones accessible?

Besides, according to the testimony of some of the largest private broadcasters, they already make a profit on captioning alone, not even considering audio description for the moment. On the Global Television Network, for example, Ms. Browne said in the CRTC hearings that actually the profits on closed captioning were about $1 million on $5 million. Global Television makes a 20% profit on captioning. We don't have captioning 24 hours a day on Global. We barely have audio description on Global. Isn't there something wrong with this?

CTV also admits, although they didn't give exact numbers, that they make a profit on captioning themselves.

Á (1150)

The idea that accessibility should only be provided as resources become available for the purpose has been superseded by events. There has always been money available. The issue is the broadcasters don't particularly want to pay it.

Do keep in mind, the public spectrum in Canada is exactly that, public. It belongs to all people. It does not belong to the four or five large corporations that have most of the A-list television licences in Canada. If the spectrum belongs to the people of Canada, all people should be able to receive and understand the programming. Whether you're blind, deaf, or otherwise, it should all come to you because it is a spectrum you own.

To put it in more financial terms, which tend to be the ones that get the most coverage these days, if you're paying for cable or satellite TV, and you are blind or deaf, you are paying the same fee as a non-disabled person, but you do not have equivalent access to all the programming. That, in itself, is a prima facie discrimination.

On the topic of the CRTC, they are really the source of all pain when it comes to this. I've been badgering the CRTC about this for nearly twenty years. They still haven't cleaned up their act.

The entire licensing process, when it comes to accessibility, is simply a licence to discriminate. You can look at the relationship between the CRTC and broadcasters as an old boys network in which there is no outright collusion. There doesn't need to be. Everyone seems to agree on the basic principle that we'll put in a bit of captioning and a little audio description for blind people. In reality, we won't do anything that would threaten the viability of the main purpose to make money. After all, there are only a handful of public broadcasters in Canada. Nearly all of them are private. Private, in this case, is a euphemism for profit-making.

The problem, of course, is that captioning and audio description cost money. The more captioning and description required by the regulator, the lower the profits for most of the broadcasters.

There's no enforcement whatsoever of any accessibility provisions, such as they even exist in the Canadian broadcasting system. Nothing untoward will happen to you at all if you're a broadcaster and do not meet requirements for captioning or description. There has never been a case in which any broadcaster has ever been meaningfully punished for failing to live up to captioning or description requirements. It simply doesn't happen.

Captioning and description are seen as expendable or non-essential added-on features of the Canadian broadcasting system. It must be pointed out that for non-disabled viewers, main picture and main sound aren't considered expendable or non-essential. The techniques used to make them accessible to deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, or visually impaired people are seen as non-essential and expendable.

Another point that must be kept in mind is that quality is a serious problem in Canadian captioning and description. The Broadcasting Act elsewhere requires programming be held to a high standard. The problem is Canadian captioning has always been terrible. It's only getting worse, with one exception. Let me give you a bit of detail on it.

Canada and the United States are mirror images of each other when it comes to captioning quality. On the topic of real-time captioning for live television programs of the sort you'd see on CBC Newsworld, for example, Canada has always had good to excellent captioning. We've had very good training of staff here.

In the United States, real-time captioning has been at best okay to good for various historical reasons. In the United States, on the other hand, their captioning of pre-recorded programs, the many dramatic series we like to watch in the evenings, for twenty years has been good to excellent.

In Canada, captioning of pre-recorded programs has been appalling to abysmal for twenty years. There has been almost no improvement whatsoever in the field of captioning of pre-recorded shows in Canada. In fact, it has gone downhill over the last ten years because more post-production houses are getting into the captioning business. To them, captioning is straightforward--it's only transcription. They'll have a girl do it. They hire a secretary to mis-transcribe the program and pop up the captions. It is considered proper captioning under the CRTC requirements.

This isn't really my opinion. I could sit you down and show you the identical program captioned by Canadians and Americans. Degrassi High and Degrassi Junior High are two examples. After one or two episodes, you'd walk out of there agreeing with me that the Canadians don't know what they're doing and the Americans do. A root cause for this discrepancy is the fact that there are no standards for captioning in Canada. There are certainly no standards for description.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters is known to be working on a Canadian captioning standard. With any luck, I am going to have an audience with the CAB this afternoon to talk about it.

It's my fear that the captioning standards that have so far only included the existing broadcasters, the existing captioning service providers, and a couple of deaf representatives will merely set in stone all the bad practices we've been putting up with for the last twenty years in Canada. Instead of doing bad captioning on the fly, it will now be enforced. It's a human resources issue. Captioning is mostly done by underpaid staff these days.

Á (1155)

It's quite possible to earn $30,000 a year doing captioning, but that's pretty much the ceiling. You tend to have younger people doing the work, fresh out of university, mostly female with not a lot of life experience. This has a material bearing on the ability to transcribe a program. That's merely the first task involved in captioning. We need a certain degree of human resources training to improve the quality of captioning. As it stands, captioning in Canada is different from in the United States, but it isn't any better.

Things get worse. We are recapitulating the history of Canadian captioning in the new field of audio description. The CRTC and broadcasters have pretended for 14 years that audio description is this hypothetical new thing that may be coming down the pike some day. In fact, PBS in the United States has been airing audio description every week since 1988. PBS doesn't exactly have a lot of cash. If they can make it work, certainly the Canadian broadcasters can.

Finally, last year the CRTC eventually acknowledged reality and has begun to require broadcasters to provide some described programming for blind and visually impaired Canadians. Global and CTV are the only licensees that have a requirement to provide description. TVA and Vision, for example, are two other broadcasters that are expected to. The contested local Toronto and Hamilton television licences also have requirements for description, but we can't say those are quite set in stone yet, can we?

It's been one mistake after another for over 20 years. I've been intervening in a number of licence renewal hearings in Canada, the U.S., and Australia to try to set the industry straight on this. In general, there has been no willingness to improve things. As it stands now, most of the Canadian broadcasting system is inaccessible to disabled viewers. That means it's unequal. That means that it is unconstitutional.

The remedies I seek are the same remedies that any deaf or hard-of-hearing person or any blind or visually impaired person would seek. They're pretty drastic, but they're the only ones that are necessary. It's 100% captioning of all programming in English and French, 24 hours a day. One hundred percent captioning in other languages is attainable if we leap certain technical barriers. A longer period of phase-in could be allowed for that.

Similarly, blind and visually impaired Canadians are no less important than deaf and hard-of-hearing Canadians--not any more important either--but they've been overlooked in the broadcasting system for 14 years. One hundred percent of English and French programming, 24 hours a day, on all stations should be audio-described to make it accessible.

So there you go. That's the ten-minute rundown on accessibility in Canada. I'll give the floor to Mr. Fitzgerald and then we can answer your questions later.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you. You raised a very important issue, Mr. Clark. We appreciate it.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald (Vice-President and Legal Counsel, Congrès Iberoaméricain): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you.

[Translation]

I will make my comments in English, but I'll be happy to answer questions in French as well.

[English]

I'm here on behalf of the Congrès Iberoaméricain du Canada, which is an organization of Spanish-speaking Canadians. I thought I would come and tell you why it is that 99% of Canadian Latinos who are watching television in Canada at the moment are watching it through the grey market.

Think back to October 30, 1995. That's when the Québécois voted in a referendum that polls described as too close to call. Imagine that you had been in Europe or Latin America that day. How long would it have taken you to get reliable coverage of the results?

The anxiety that goes with not knowing is something that Canada's Latinos know all too well. On October 12 at about 2 a.m., Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was forced to step aside. At the time, Newsworld was running Play, CBC's new live arts and entertainment magazine, and CNN was rebroadcasting Lou Dobbs Moneyline. Those Latinos who had subscribed to Dish Latino or DirecTV Para Todos through the grey market were watching developments live through CNN Español or Venezuelan television.

In recent weeks there has been an assassination attempt on a Colombian presidential candidate, the first-ever visit of an American president to Peru and El Salvador, and debate in Mexico over Cuba's human rights record. None of these have received significant attention from Canada's media oligopoly.

When I lived in Russia, I followed Canadian events by short-wave radio. Today Canada's Latinos use U.S. satellite television to do the same thing. Through the grey market, they can easily subscribe to 26 Spanish-language channels to watch programs in their mother tongue and follow developments in the land of their birth. For this reason, U.S. satellite systems are very openly sold in the Latin community. Dealers have websites and place full-page ads in community newspapers. You'll find those ads in my information kit. Systems are found in many Spanish bars and restaurants. They've been sold in church basements after Sunday mass and featured as prizes in raffles.

Latino behaviour is not unique. Similar dealer visibility and practices are found in the Arab, Greek, and Russian communities. Across Canada, the message from ethnic communities is the same: If Canada's cable and satellite companies don't want to serve us in our language, we'll buy our services from someone else. An identical attitude exists south of the 49th parallel, where some Americans subscribe to Bell ExpressVu to have access to Canadian channels, télévision en langue française, and hockey games.

In the Canadian grey market, customers use the services of dealers who provide a fictitious U.S. postal address so that the U.S. satellite company will have a valid U.S. billing address on file. The U.S. satellite company then bills the client's Canadian credit card directly. Again, you'll see that tracked in the information kit.

Unlike the black market, in the grey market the Canadian subscriber pays exactly the same amount as an American subscriber would for the service. Given the reasonable price of $35 a month for 26 channels, there's virtually no black market in the Canadian Spanish-speaking community. Further, given that Bell ExpressVu's locals package offers 40 channels for only $10.95, or less than one-third the price, the Latino grey market is not really in competition with either ExpressVu or Star Choice.

Opponents of the grey market and satellite services often talk about the fact that Canadians are not the intended audience of the Dish Network or DirecTV signals that cross into Canada. While that is true, it cannot be ignored that when a Canadian gives his or her credit card, through a dealer, to DirecTV or Dish Network, the U.S. satellite provider knows from that credit card number and associated billing address that the customer lives in Canada. By accepting to deal with Canadians, or Americans in the case of Bell ExpressVu, the satellite company is contracting with an out-of-country resident, thereby making that person part of the intended audience. In other words, if you pay for the signal, you are an intended recipient.

Like so many other legal principles, the most important single element here is the flow of cash from the viewer to the holders of the property rights. It is important to understand this. The owners of the individual stations have intellectual property rights associated with the content of their programming and must give their consent before anyone can view that programming. Inevitably, as I have just said, the consent is often associated with the payment of money.

Spanish grey market programming packages include two types of channels. There are local stations from places like Mexico and Miami, and there are cable-only channels like A&E.

Â (1205)

In the first case, the U.S. satellite company takes a local signal and distributes it nationwide, the way Bell ExpressVu distributes Edmonton's A-Channel across Canada. Typically, those stations are only too happy to get nationwide distribution. In fact, the only problem is when the distribution of that distant channel affects the market of a local channel, but that is not a problem in Canada.

In the second case, the Spanish-language cable channel is sold as part of a package to subscribers. As the number of subscribers increases, so do the revenues of the Spanish cable channel. In both cases, given the complete lack of ability to have their signals distributed in the Canadian market and thereby earn revenue from their programming, Spanish-language cable channels have been willing to look the other way and consider Canada to be part of an essentially enlarged U.S. domestic market.

Consider the case of TV CHILE. On December 14, 2000, in decision 2,722, the CRTC awarded TV CHILE Canada a category 2 specialty TV licence that permitted, rather than required, its signal to be distributed by satellite or digital cable within Canada.

Given that the 1996 census said that only 142,000 Canadians speak Spanish at home, it is no great surprise that no Canadian cable or satellite company has shown the slightest interest in distributing the TV CHILE signal within Canada. In the TV CHILE case we have a company that has a licence to distribute its content in Canada; however, without a distributor, its programs cannot earn money in this market. In other words, unless it can present its programs in Canada, TV CHILE's intellectual property rights in this market are worthless.

Faced with this stark reality and the fact that TV CHILE is currently deriving revenue from Canadian viewers by having its programming distributed through the grey market, TV CHILE has never complained about violations of its intellectual property rights through the grey market.

TV CHILE is not alone. HTV, a Spanish-language all-music channel, also has a CRTC category 2 licence. Like TV CHILE, HTV has no potential Canadian distributor. For the most part, the only reason other Spanish-language channels do not have a category 2 licence is that they did not apply.

Committee members should know that the CRTC's policy is to award category 2 licences to all applicants who meet basic licensing criteria and are not directly competitive with any existing service. All of the Spanish channels distributed through the grey market meet basic licensing criteria.

Because a category 2 licence does not guarantee distribution, many foreign-language channels, faced with the dim prospects of attracting a Canadian distributor, did not bother to apply for a licence. In the case of the Spanish and other ethnic grey markets, we have three basic components: a group of customers willing to pay for a service that is legal and often CRTC approved, but is not distributed in Canada; a group of stations that produce and own the content of their programming and wish to have their signals distributed in Canada, but have no means to do so; and U.S. satellite companies charging monthly subscription fees to the Canadian credit cards of Canadian viewers and paying the foreign TV stations that own the content.

Critics of this approach argue that it hurts the Canadian satellite and digital cable companies. However, if they wish to attract the Spanish community, all they have to do is make room for some Spanish channels in their big 500-channel universe. At this time, there are four foreign Spanish-language stations with a CRTC category 2 licence, but none is currently distributed by satellite in this country.

Quite simply, there is more profit in broadcasting hockey games than ethnic channels, and the congrès understands this. We don't want to tell Canada's cable and satellite companies what channels to transmit. At the same time, we don't believe it should be illegal to watch foreign channels for which one is prepared to pay, especially when the person accepting the money knows that his clients are Canadian and are paying the copyright holder, and when there is no person in Canada distributing that signal within this country. We would argue the same for francophones living in the United States. They should be allowed to use Bell ExpressVu to access TVA, Radio-Québec, TVQ, and Radio-Canada. All of those channels should be available to francophones living in the United States as well.

On March 2, 2002, Canada's Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps, declared her intention to make the grey market illegal. Such a decision by this government would potentially violate article 2(b) of the charter and would constitute a dramatic change in our laws and an unprecedented limitation of fundamental freedoms.

Â (1210)

In Canada, it has never been illegal to subscribe to a foreign newspaper or magazine; to import or read a non-pornographic foreign book; to listen to foreign radio stations via short-wave or the Internet; to watch unfiltered U.S. TV channels via rooftop antennas, as is done every day in border communities; or to watch free-to-air foreign channels via those big C-band satellite dishes in rural areas; or finally, to watch foreign TV channels via the Internet.

It is the hope of the congrès that when this committee makes its recommendations, the right of Canada's minority ethnic communities to subscribe to foreign television channels in their mother tongue, through the grey market, is promoted and respected.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Fitzgerald, you've made your position extremely clear to us, and we appreciate your frankness and the clarity of your brief.

I'll now ask Mrs. Gagnon to start the question period.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clark, in the context of our discussions on the Broadcasting Act, I have spoken to representatives of Radio-Canada and I told them about the captioning issue. I mentioned that Radio-Canada did not have the same captioning frequency as its English counterpart. They explained me certain realities: since the American market is more developed than the French market — I am referring to France —, the percentage of captioning is smaller in Quebec and in other francophone Canadian areas. They told me how they tried very hard to increase the availability of programs with French captioning.

A colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has just submitted a Bill to increase availability of captioning for the hearing impaired community.

Do you believe public television makes more efforts than private broadcaster to that effect? What directions could we take for our efforts in regards to the data that I was given by representatives from Radio-Canada.

[English]

Mr. Joe Clark: Thank you.

Actually, I expected to be asked questions about French captioning. There are, of course, two kinds: real-time captioning, which is steno-captioning of live programs, and captioning of pre-recorded programs. The technological barrier is with real-time captioning, although it is merely a perceived technological barrier.

The French-language broadcasters have been pretending for the better part of a decade that it is difficult or impossible to caption live shows in French. In fact, in the mid-1990s there were two different systems developed to do real-time captioning in French using English hardware.

You may not be aware that to do real-time captioning you use special court-reporting keypads that have only 24 keys. They're about eight inches wide and six inches deep. You have to press several keys at once to produce anything from a single sound to a phrase.

There is no French-language hardware for real-time court reporting or any kind of stenography, in fact. In a case of ingenuity coming to the rescue, some American and Canadian software developers remapped French phonology onto the English hardware. The same thing was done, by the way, in the Spanish language in the U.S. It's possible to real-time caption in Spanish using English-language hardware.

In any event, since the mid-1990s there have been two different systems that can do this on the English-language hardware. One was co-developed by a Canadian real-time captioning company, Waite & Associates. They did a very good job, I must say, and had every accent available in the caption decoder font. It was actually pretty good.

The competing system was developed by Société Radio-Canada. Naturally, there would be a competing system because it is Canada. We have to have competition in captioning, right? It's technically an inferior system. The only accented character it uses is lower-case “é”, when it's technically possible to use many more accents than that. The French-language broadcasters have put their eggs in that basket.

There's a distinct shortage of trained real-time captioners in French around the world, because the system is new. It has been adapted to the English hardware, after all. There are some in France. There are some in Quebec. There aren't enough.

There are no legitimate training programs for machine-aided stenography in the French language, as there are in English. Canada has a very good source for English-language court-reporting training, but there are no schools for French-language court reporting.

On the technological front, there are actually two systems. The first one still exists. It's not in use anywhere in Canada. The rights were sold back to the co-developer on the American side, Cheetah International captioning in California. They still have it in their banks and can readily sell it to any broadcaster. The Radio-Canada system is also available. Technologically, the problem has been solved. It becomes a question of training adequate numbers of court reporters.

I have a final note on that point. The proficiency of real-time court reporting in French at present, after six or seven years of attempting it, is no better than real-time captioning was in English in the first year. They simply can't keep up with the French language. There are linguistic reasons for it.

I have a BA in linguistics, so I can speak knowledgeably about this. As you know, French has a larger number of words per sentence of a larger word length. There is gender and number agreement. You have to keep all these things straight and type them out on the keypad. It's even worse than Spanish. There are built-in linguistic constraints, but they could be overcome. It's not as though captioning English in real time is easy either, but we managed to master it.

The solution to the problem would seem to be better training regimens for French-language real-time captioners.

If you have a question about captioning French pre-recorded shows, please, go ahead and ask. I can tell you about that too. I think you're talking about live programming.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Why are your answers not any shorter, Mr. Clark?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have another question. You are bringing up the issue of technology for the hearing impaired and for the blind community. What would be the technology needs for the blind community? I assume we would need voice technology but I am unsure what we could develop to better serve your needs.

[English]

Mr. Joe Clark: From the hardware standpoint, there are two ways to deliver any kind of accessible television service. The terms are “closed” and “open”--ouvert et codé in French. Closed captioning is the kind we almost always encounter. It is embedded in the TV signal and you need a caption decoder to make the caption visible. Open captioning would be captions that everyone sees. They are a permanent part of the picture. You can draw a parallel in the field of audio description. Almost all description that you can find on the airwaves worldwide is closed description. You have to turn it on. That is done through the so-called SAP, second audio program channel, that is transmitted on any television broadcast. So you have to set your television, or more likely your VCR, to second audio program, or SAP, and then you hear the main audio plus descriptions.

It's much more expensive for broadcasters to install the equipment that will generate the second audio program signal, but once you have that installed there's no added cost for any particular hour of described programming. There's no difference in technology infrastructure cost between English and French. Once you outfit your master control to be able to pass through second audio program all the way through, it's done forever. It doesn't matter what language or description you're using that's broadcast through SAP.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much, both of you, for your presentations. I think what we've heard from both of you are issues that are fundamental to our communities, and yet they remain invisible a great deal of the time. They're not invisible now, and I appreciate that.

I have a quick question for each of you.

Mr. Fitzgerald, I absolutely agree with you that it shouldn't be illegal to watch programming in your mother tongue. I'm wondering if you could give our committee a recommendation we could move forward that would strengthen our commitment to ethnic programming, whether right in the Broadcasting Act or where you'd like. And then I'll ask Mr. Clark a question and then you can both answer.

In terms of closed captioning, or captioning and audio description, I think it's critical that we do put forward a very strong recommendation on this. I believe that there should be equal citizenship for persons with disabilities, and that includes being able to watch TV and be part of the broadcasting environment.

Do you have a sense of the cost of what it would take to get 100% captioning 24 hours a day, and 100% audio description for our broadcasting system? Because that's the battle we will face when we put forward something like that.

So if you could answer both of those questions it would be great.

Â (1220)

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald: There are basically two ways you could go. The Spanish community in Canada would favour one of two approaches. One would be where you say that foreign-language channels coming into Canada from another country through the grey market are allowed. And we're not talking about HBO and all these other things; this is niche stuff. Let them in, and at the same time have an agreement with the United States so that French-language programming will also be allowed into the United States.

If you actually take time to look at both sides of the border, in the English information kit I gave you you'll find websites where francophones are looking for French-language television in places like California and Florida. It's an issue on both sides of the border.

So either you have a situation where you say we're going to have a carve-out for foreign-language channels through the grey market and we're going to let these people come out and pay for the systems and we're going to make it open, or you provide a “must carry”. In other words, you give those ethnic channels a category 1 licence rather than a category 2, because category 2 basically says you can carry them if you want to.

There are 140,000 Latinos in this country, roughly. Maybe it's a little higher now. There's no way that any broadcaster is going to give them 26 channels. It's just not going to happen. If you make it a “must carry”, at that point you're starting to tell the satellite providers what to do.

As a practical matter, I can tell you if you watch the 26 Spanish channels, you won't find the same thing on all of the channels. I have Bell ExpressVu at home. If you watch Bell's 40 channels, you're watching Law and Order seven times on Wednesday night, shifting across the grid. I'm not sure we're seeing real diversity in what we have in Canada. The ethnic communities are looking for that diversity. We're not seeing it.

One of the problems the CRTC has had is that they've only given licences to the Spanish community itself wanting to watch Spanish programs in Canada. If you look at the CRTC category 2 licences and you ask who applied for the licences, it was Radio Italia's Toronto representative.

The Spanish community itself in Canada is not sufficiently well organized to launch a channel. So we're asking for something like maybe Deutsche Welle from Germany. This is the German television channel, which comes in unfiltered. You don't have to have the Canadian German community of Winnipeg producing programming; it just comes in as a package. You can watch it and you get news from Germany. We would like to see that kind of thing coming in on a “must carry” basis, or else make the grey market legal in both the United States and Canada for ethnic-language channels.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Clark.

Mr. Joe Clark: The cost issue is the only objection that's ever raised when we talk about accessibility, and I'm getting a bit tired of it. If we think of human rights legislation, there is the undue hardship or undue burden defence. So it is possible to defend yourself against a claim that you've engaged in discrimination or unequal treatment because to remedy it would involve undue hardship. That certainly cannot be said of the Canadian broadcasting system. It's awash in cash. It makes an enormous amount of money.

I've given you evidence from two private broadcasters that they make profits on captioning. But to substantively answer your question, to provide quality captioning of all English and French programming, not just putting anything in the television signal, would cost many tens of millions of dollars per year, and would require a massive ramping up of the captioning infrastructure. However, that's the minimum necessary to provide equality for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers.

Audio description is a much more labour-intensive process, and costs in the order of ten times as much as captioning. However, that is for the sort of well-scripted, tightly delivered kind of audio description you find on dramatic programs like The Associates, Cold Squad, Psi Factor, or any of the other Canadian shows being described right now. That's an expensive and time-consuming process.

But not all programming in the Canadian system is like that. There's a lot of news programming, for example, that could be made accessible through audio description by merely reading out what the onscreen titles say. If they give a phone number and the news anchor doesn't read it, well, the news anchor should read the phone number. If it's available in onscreen text, it should be available through voice. That kind of provision requires a rejigging of the way you deliver a newscast, but it doesn't actually cost money.

The historical background to your question is that the CRTC and the broadcasters, in their old boys network, have always accepted the fact that we shouldn't really be spending too much money on those deaf people, and certainly not on those blind people, because it gets in the way of things.

Under the Constitution there is no undue hardship defence, as you would find in the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example. Even if there were, it would be inapplicable here, because the Canadian broadcasters simply have the money to do it.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of very brief questions for Mr. Fitzgerald.

When you talk about the Spanish channels, I presume that would also cover other minorities in the country, some of whom would probably be greater in number now than the Spanish.

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald: We represent specifically the Spanish community. The only reason the Spanish community is here is because a group of people at a Spanish bar watching a Honduras and El Salvador game found out about it and asked me to come, as somebody who was a lawyer and spoke English.

The Arabs in this town aren't here. Why aren't they here? It's because they don't know you are having this. There's a group called ART. They have about 14 channels of Arab that they definitely want to be able to watch. If you look in the Arab newspapers, there are ads all through them.

You really need to walk into some of the corner stores that cater to folks who don't speak English and pick up those newspapers sitting in the back by the door, under the place where they sell second-hand cars. Underneath those stacks of magazines, pull out the Arab newspaper, the Korean one, the Polish one, the Russian one, the German one, the Hungarian one, and you're going to find, on page four, huge ads. If you look at the back page of the Ottawa Spanish newspaper, you can't get bigger, really. With all due respect to the visually impaired, I suspect even they could make head or tail out of this one. It has huge print.

If you look at these ethnic communities, these grey market activities are in no way hidden in every single one of them--the Arabs, the Chinese, the Portuguese, the Hindus. The only groups not complaining are the Cantonese, because they have something called Fairchild Television out of Vancouver, and there are a couple of South Asian groups. There's decent South Asian programming through Bell ExpressVu.

Otherwise, whatever the group is, you just have to go onto dish networks' websites in the United States and you'll see a channel lineup. If you look at Bell, you see CTV. I think that would apply for pretty well all of the ethnic communities, and we would support that position.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: You know, I believe this is the first time in ten years that the Broadcasting Act has been looked at, or maybe more than ten years now. Consequently, times have changed. The country has certainly changed. If we're encouraging people to come to this great country of ours, we have to make sure we accommodate them in every way, and this is certainly one way.

I have a short question for Mr. Clark. I almost forgot your name--I'm only kidding you; you don't remind me of the other Mr. Clark.

You mentioned that there are profits in captioning, yet you say captioning only takes place in selective programming. I'm wondering if there are profits simply because of the programming that's selected for captioning. If it were captioning across the board, would the same profit ratio be in place? Or are they like everything else, that you advertise on programs where you know you're going to make a sale, but if you advertise across the board it wouldn't pay off?

Are you aware if that is the case? These companies, private or public, that say they make profit on the captioning, is it because they are captioning only selective programs? If they had to cover the whole spectrum, would it be a profit-making venture, or would it be a loss?

Â (1230)

Mr. Joe Clark: Let me give you some background on how so-called captioning sponsorships work. It's a bit of a boondoggle, actually.

To caption a program costs anywhere from $100 to $900 or $1,000; it depends on the captioning provider. A lot of American programming comes in off the satellite already pre-captioned, so the cost for captioning is nothing.

The way the broadcasters have set up captioning sponsorships is not the way the Americans have done it. In the U.S., captioning sponsorships really mean we pay for the captioning, and when you see on the captions, “Captioning sponsored by Toyota”, or by William Wrigley Jr. Company Foundation, or whoever actually paid for the captioning, and it's built into the program, you read it on the captions forevermore.

The way the Canadians have decided to do it is to make little commercials that say, in voice, “Closed captioning sponsored by...”, insert name of sponsor. Those closed captioning clips run 10 to 15 seconds. Some of them are quite clever; about 25% of them aren't themselves captioned. So the idea is that the broadcaster merely charges its normal 10- or 15-second rates and calls it a captioning sponsorship, and allegedly uses that money to pay for the captioning when in fact captioning is either free, in the case of many American programs delivered off satellite, or inexpensive, in the case of real-time captioning, which is about $145 per broadcast hour now, which is essentially nothing, or semi-expensive, if you're somehow managing to license American captioning or if you use one of the more expensive but still not very competent Canadian providers.

What the Canadian broadcasters call captioning sponsorships is really advertising under a different name. So it isn't actually true what you're saying, that the really popular shows are the ones that are making all the money. It's not linear. It's possible that the rate books for advertising on the various broadcasters might be cheaper in the daytime than at 9 p.m. That merely underscores the fact that we're talking about advertising and not captioning sponsorship.

It is through this means that CTV and Global have managed to make a profit on captioning. In other words, they line up all their expenses in any kind of captioning production on one side of the ledger, and then line up all the income they've received from these captioning advertising segments on television, and on that basis it's considered profitable.

It's a funny thing, though, that the quality of captioning never improves. You don't see the use of more expensive captioning techniques like pop-on captions that appear and disappear in discrete blocks instead of real-time captioning--the former is more expensive than the latter--and you don't see them pouring the profits they've made on captioning back into things like accessibility for the blind and visually impaired.

Throughout the entire process, for twenty years, captioning and now description have been seen as somewhat unenjoyable, tedious, and irksome things that we don't particularly like ourselves. We would certainly never imagine watching an entire program with captioning, no way, and we kind of object to the fact that we have to pay for it in the first place. But the CRTC is not being too hard on us. They'll just make us pay for a certain amount of captioning, not a whole lot, and we can put whatever kind of captioning we want up there, the cheapest we can possibly get, in most cases, and that will be satisfactory for everyone.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Clark, thank you very much for your information, which was extremely useful. Our researchers might pick your brain from time to time, if you don't mind.

Mr. Joe Clark: Actually, I will be submitting an astonishingly and in fact stupefyingly detailed written brief, with more information than you've ever wanted to know about this. It has been my experience that if you talk off the cuff at a meeting like this, everyone pays attention, but if you give them the written brief, they read the brief. So I decided to do it in that order. But yes, I'll give you all sorts of information and answer any questions anyone has.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Mr. Fitzgerald, I think from today on you might find other groups that will want a lawyer to speak for them in English. You might have started a flood.

Mr. Paul Fitzgerald: Thank you. My number is on the stuff. If the researcher wants any more information, we have tons of background and we just tried to boil this down. I'd be happy to provide anything else, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you for appearing. It was extremely useful.

The meeting is adjourned.