Thank you.
I always wonder how you guys do it, because when someone doesn't like something on CTV, they change the channel. If someone doesn't like something on CBC, they phone Charlie Angus, their local, their regional, their national heritage critic, and they demand accountability and say they don't want their tax dollars being spent on this.
For example, this summer I had a letter of outrage about your pro-Israeli coverage and they wanted me to check out a news show. Two days later I got an almost similar letter demanding action on your pro-Lebanese coverage. And each one ended with, “I don't want my tax dollars being spent on this kind of outrageous programming.”
So I'm always wondering how you resist political pressure. I know if you, for example, cancel a curling show, I'm sure there will be members of the government party standing up in the House saying they don't want their tax dollars being spent because they're not getting curling.
It brings me to the question raised by Mr. Lukiwski, who is unfortunately not here right now, but he was quite charged and quite upset about Prairie Giant. He talked about this portrayal of an alcoholic Ku Klux Klan member. I've seen the movie. I think he had a drink in his hand once. So God help him if he sees me with a bottle of wine after work; I don't know how he might describe me. But the issue of Prairie Giant to me is important. It raises the question how does the CBC present programming that doesn't please everybody and how you have a mandate and a clear plan for dealing with this so that it's transparent.
I've looked at the case on Prairie Giant and I've got both the statement and the rebuttal. It seems to me that to cancel a movie based on the work of “anonymous”, someone who wouldn't come forward with their name, raises questions. The fact that I've got two or three rebuttals from researchers and directors to that.... It would seem that you would have a platform where this could be looked at independently and then a decision could be arrived at, but that wasn't the case with Prairie Giant.
You had an anonymous person make claims. You did not allow the screenwriters to rebut, so the movie was canned, the movie that's up for nine Geminis. So I'm wondering what steps would you have in place to protect not just your writers, not just your screenwriters, but your journalists as well, from political pressure?