Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2007

[Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very glad to be here, because I've been listening to the CBC for many years and I have many concerns about it.

When the CBC began in 1932 it was a vastly different country. There were few people. We had infrequent contact with each other, as Canadians, and in the world there was very little communication because the only way was by post. Telephones were few and far between. What happened is Canada has vastly changed, as we all know. We have 500 channels. We have satellite now. We've gone into digital. It is wholly different world from what it was when Canada began.

Certainly the Broadcasting Act of 1991 is not a reflection of what the CBC should be. The two most important considerations under section 3 of the Broadcasting Act are that the CBC be predominantly and distinctly Canadian and to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences.

However, I would like to say that as conservative women—and there are many of us in Canada—we have never had a voice on the CBC. When there are so-called issues that may reflect women—and all issues reflect men and women—it is always the liberal, left-wing—I hate that word—feminists, yet there are very many competent, capable spokespersons among conservative women in Canada. We vote. We think. We're educated, many of us, and there is a total ignorance and reluctance to let our voice be heard in Canada. Certainly we are as much Canadian as anybody else, but we're never heard.

One of the reasons this is happening is that the CBC's viewership and the CBC television and the radio has fallen off and off and down. I saw one report, which was in the National Post, saying that only 5% of people view national CBC TV. I saw 2%. In other words, CBC is not serving the needs of Canadians, not just women but all Canadians. The trouble is the CBC, instead of being a unifying element in Canadian society, which was always the intention, to unify Canadians, has now become a very divisive organization because it's perceived by many as a source of indoctrination and propaganda for the left of centre political and social agenda, rather than a source of unbiased information.

I gave you some examples on page 4 of my brief. I don't want you to think I'm making this up and it's just a perception. I have concrete examples of why CBC has become so divisive and so unacceptable to many Canadians. It does not reflect a vast number of Canadians, and that's why it's not popular. How do we know it's not popular? We know by the few people who actually watch it. People are watching, for example, CBC national TV news, but they don't watch CBC national news at 10 because you don't want to hear the spin that you're going to get on it. All you want is the facts. You want information. You don't want a spin from a left-wing perspective.

What the broadcasters are doing when they want speakers or commentators, they are never conservative women. They're never conservative commentators who are male. They are always from the other side. We're not being given a fair and objective analysis of what Canadians want, yet Canadians are forced to pay $1 billion annually to the CBC. As I said, at one time it served its purpose, but no longer.

The CBC has done something else, which is egregious, as far as we're concerned. It not only doesn't represent Canadians any longer, but the second thing is it has tried to usurp or take away the public broadcasting role. For example, the CBC is taking sports and trying to match and be competitive with other television, like CTV or Global.

Obviously the CBC, with its declining audience and loss of revenue both from the government and advertising, is not serving the needs in Canada, but having criticized the CBC—and I could go on forever, I can tell you, giving you examples—I will say there's an extraordinary difference in some places in the CBC, and one of them is the CBC Northern Service. I was in Nunavut, and I was absolutely astonished that the CBC came from another world that I knew of. CBC Northern Service is responding to the Inuit. It was a very important lifeline for the hunters and the fishermen, but more importantly, it reflected their culture and they actually had programming in the Inuit language

In some of the remote villages, the only contact they ever had with the outside world was the CBC Northern Service. I would say to people, “Oh, if it's the CBC, you don't want to listen to that, it doesn't reflect you,” because they're very traditional, as you know, their culture. They all said, “Oh, no, they are wonderful; they do listen to us; they do support us.”

So it is possible for the CBC. We have members in the Northwest Territories who say “Yes, we do need regional broadcasting that reflects our views as northerners.” So it's possible for the CBC's culture to turn around.

I'm afraid most of the CBC culture comes out of downtown Toronto, where I live, but it doesn't mean that downtown Toronto is Canada, and that has been one of the problems.

One has to ask, why is it that CNN has a 2.7% Canadian audience and only 1.7% watch CBC Newsworld? That's supposed to be our network, but we don't watch; we tune in for the facts at CNN. That is an example of how the culture of the CBC has proven to be unacceptable to so many Canadians, but as I say, it can serve in the regional areas.

So REAL Women would suggest an alternative to the CBC, that it simply works into the regional areas where there isn't private broadcasting. Private broadcasting is still in most of Canada, but it does need public broadcasting in the remote regions. That was one of CBC's roles under the Broadcasting Act, and that is where it can serve.

Another problem, in order to keep its public service mandate, is to scale back the CBC to the public broadcasting in the States. It's ironic that the public broadcasting services in the States, on the Canadian border, are supported by Canadians. Canadians don't get a tax receipt for what they're doing, but the border public broadcasting is supported. Why? Because the public broadcaster reflects what Canadians want to see, and that's why Canadians are putting their money into the public broadcasting but they don't want to put it into the CBC.

In our modern 500-channel era, it is unusual for taxpayers to continue to spend $1 billion funding the CBC's general service programming amid the increasingly segmented and cluttered market landscape we now have. We know that more and more Canadians are looking to specialty channels. They are not looking to the conventional channels of CTV and CBC.

I'm not saying CTV and Global aren't having troubles as well. Their audience is declining, but not nearly not as much as the CBC's. They're declining too because Canadians have other viewing habits that go into specialty television.

If CBC wants to continue, people who want to watch it should be able to pay for it, but those of us who do not agree with the CBC's culture should not be obliged to continue to pay for the CBC. What we should have is that if you want to pay for it, like the public broadcasting, pay for it. If you don't want it, you shouldn't have to, as a taxpayer, be forced to pay for a broadcasting system that means absolutely nothing to you. In fact, it has become absolutely irrelevant.

I won't turn on the CBC national news or CBC radio. Why bother? Do I want to hear something that has a spin to it that does not reflect my views? Again, speaking as a national women's organization, it does not reflect what many Canadian women think and our views on a variety of issues. And it's the same thing for many, many Canadian men. It does not reflect them.

If you're going to keep the CBC, you have to change the whole culture. You have to get it out of competition with public broadcasting and you have to emphasize where it's important, which is in regional broadcasting.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. LaRose.

[Jean LaRose, Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network]

Merci.

I just want to mention, before I start, that for the sake of brevity and the committee's timetable, I will depart from my prepared text. You've been given a copy of my presentation. I've shortened it to allow for a longer Q and A session.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you for receiving me here in Toronto. With me today are Joel Fortune from the firm Fasken Martineau.

Committee members have all learned from their political experience that the vision each of us forms of the world depends on our origins and the pivotal moments in our lives. So my comments are made in that spirit.

First of all, I'll provide you with a picture of APTN, the Aboriginal People's Television Network.

Second, since the committee is interested in public broadcasting, I'll talk about APTN's role in that regard.

Third, I'll discuss the way APTN and CBC/Radio-Canada could support each other more to better serve Canada's Aboriginal people and Canadians as a whole.

APTN was licensed as a national service by the CRTC in 1999. We launched in September of that year.

APTN had a prior life. It used to be known as Television Northern Canada, or TVNC. TVNC operated a network of northern transmitters, and offered programming produced by aboriginal communications societies across the north. The communications societies received funding from the federal government's northern native broadcast access program, NNBAP. The infrastructure of the northern network was supported by another federal government program, the northern distribution program, or NDP.

APTN still offers a great deal of programming produced by aboriginal communications societies, supported by NNBAP. This program is not like anything else you will see in the broadcasting system. It speaks directly to the experiences of aboriginal peoples in the north, and is usually in aboriginal languages. When we broadcast it on APTN, we provide subtitling for a broader national audience.

APTN also receives support from the federal government through the NDP in the amount of $2.1 million per year to offset part of the costs of our northern distribution network. For the past few years, APTN's costs have exceeded the amount of the contribution agreement.

Where APTN is different from TVNC is that we are now, thanks to the CRTC, also made available throughout Canada on all larger cable systems and on the two satellite DTH systems as part of basic service. We offer three feeds—east, west, and north—and hope to soon add a high-definition feed.

Let me refer you to a copy of our schedule, which has been circulated to you. The only reason red was chosen was that it's a very prominent colour. You can see the red is Canadian content, and most of these shows are produced by aboriginal peoples in Canada, by aboriginal producers.

APTN has been, we think, a tremendous success. First, it has made a place for aboriginal peoples in Canadian television—in fact in television at all. APTN was the first national aboriginal broadcaster in the world. Until APTN, the likelihood of seeing an aboriginal face when you turned on the television was slim to none.

I remember someone once said there that were more space aliens on television than aboriginal peoples. That person was right, and may still be, but now at least you have a choice—that is to say, Canadians have a choice. All they have to do is find APTN in the channel lineup.

Second, having APTN in the system has helped other broadcasters to better represent aboriginal peoples.

Third, APTN has created amazing opportunities for aboriginal peoples in media.

And last, the significance of APTN as a symbol of inclusion for aboriginal peoples should not be underestimated. I don't think I'm overstating things when I say that having APTN on television validates the presence of aboriginal peoples in Canadian society.

So you can see why APTN is firmly convinced that it must be seen as a public broadcaster carrying out an important public mandate.

We aren't motivated by profit. APTN is a non-profit organization. All our resources are used to expand Aboriginal peoples presence on Canadian television, and most of its resources are invested in programs that appear on the screen. We naturally want to succeed and increase our revenues, but that's only secondary to our mandate.

We are independent of government and directed by a board of directors consisting of 21 members who represent the Metis, Inuit and First Nations communities of all regions of Canada. You can rest assured that our board takes its work seriously and ensures that APTN carries out its mandate.

Our activities are transparent, and we report to the communities we serve. On our Web site, among the blogs, forums, downloads and information on our programs, you'll find our audited financial statements from the last broadcast year, information on members of our board of directors and management, our bylaws, job opportunities and detailed information for independent producers concerning our open RFP process for new programs.

APTN launched when it did and has the resources it has thanks to the enlightened application of public policy by the CRTC, and also by the Department of Canadian Heritage through the programs I mentioned earlier. APTN reflects the direct application, in the public interest, of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in the Broadcasting Act.

APTN speaks directly to the part of the broadcasting policy for Canada in the Broadcasting Act that states that the broadcasting system should reflect what is called “the special place” of aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. Our place in the broadcasting system is therefore inspired by public legislation.

Why is it important to look at APTN as a public broadcaster, one could ask? The most important consequence is that APTN, and more broadly aboriginal peoples in broadcasting, then become a part of the formal, public purpose for our broadcasting system. Serving aboriginal peoples becomes an element of that system that should be supported through public resources and through the regulatory framework that makes our broadcasting system possible.

Now, let us turn to our Broadcasting Act. We think the act does not reflect clearly enough this understanding of aboriginal broadcasting in the system. Also, there is a part of the act that aboriginal peoples find objectionable. That is the part that says, in paragraph 3(1)(o), that programming reflecting aboriginal peoples in Canada should be made available in the broadcasting system as resources become available for that purpose.

Think about that. If aboriginal peoples are part of the “public” of Canada, which you would have to think we are, then why is it that this part of the public is dealt with on a secondary basis in the Broadcasting Act?

We know that resources are not limitless. Allocating resources is always a question of balance, and that goes without saying. So why is it necessary to say to a part of the “public”—to aboriginal peoples—that our culture, as opposed to French or English culture, should be reflected in the system only if resources are available? Why single aboriginal peoples out in a fashion that relegates them to second-class status?

This is an easy part of the act to fix. This committee in the previous Parliament recommended that it should be fixed, and we strongly urge this committee to do what it can to make that happen.

It will make a difference. It may surprise you, but there are some who do not welcome APTN, which has been made possible only through enlightened regulation. Just a couple of weeks ago, one of Canada's largest and most powerful communications companies said to the CRTC that it was a mistake for the commission to have made APTN a basic service for all Canadians—despite the profound discrimination and exclusion faced by aboriginal peoples in Canadian society.

It was said that the commission should remove the protection afforded APTN, the basis for our existence, and move to a so-called “consumer-friendly"”approach. And then the comment was made that this approach should—and this is a direct quote—“take into account the needs of people as per the Broadcasting Act and as resources are available to meet those requirements”.

Well, in this context, which in plain speech means taking APTN away, that comment gives me a chill. Perhaps you can see now why it is important to get rid of those words about resources becoming available.

In Canada, the resources are available; it's a question of making priorities. We have heard before that resources are not available. We are hearing it now on a whole range of issues facing aboriginal peoples in Canada and we will hear it in the future. Let's get rid of this second-tier treatment for aboriginal peoples in the Broadcasting Act once and for all.

Incidentally, I still don't see how getting rid of APTN as a basic service would be consumer-friendly. According to BBM—and that's a national rating system—APTN has an average weekly reach of nearly three million Canadians, with peaks of almost four million viewers, and these are almost entirely non-aboriginal Canadians. We also have a huge aboriginal audience.

In our written remarks, we pointed out that the CBC and APTN had made productive collaborative efforts in the past as public broadcasters in order to achieve common objectives. We have been encouraged by this common effort. However, we believe there is room for improvement.

We have made specific recommendations in this area in our written submission, and I will not take the time of the committee to repeat them here.

We have partnered with broadcasters and BDUs in the past few years—with key players such as CTV, Rogers OMNI Television, Bell ExpressVu, S-VOX, CanWest, Cancom, the Harvard Broadcasting radio group, among a few others—and we have clearly laid out our place in this major industry.

I suggest to the committee that the time has come to remove the last barrier that prevents us from being recognized fully by the Broadcasting Act. I am hopeful that this committee will maintain its support to amend the Broadcasting Act and help us to resist those who would see us disappear.

Thank you. I'm going to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Yes?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have to leave, and I think Mr. Fast has to leave too. I just wanted to say that there is no disrespect in our leaving now. We have to catch a plane.

I have found it very interesting, so I want to thank you for coming and presenting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I also want to thank you. I just find it quite unfortunate that there would be somebody who decries the fact that APTN is effectively serving the northern communities, the aboriginal communities of Canada. To me, that is shocking. I know you were fairly circumspect about identifying the source of those comments, but they certainly don't reflect my views and probably not the rest of the committee's views.

Thank you for coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for those comments too, and have a safe trip, guys.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I have to leave as well. We're sharing the same taxi, but I'll let them get started and I'll join them in a second.

Do you think Rex Murphy is a left-leaning propagandist?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

No, not necessarily. He might be a rare exception, but I don't think he really comes across as a family conservative.

I want to speak too, but it's as a national women's group. You might get an isolated Rex Murphy, but you're not getting women reflected, and what women really think in Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But he has a big chunk of the nightly news on CBC, where he's basically given carte blanche to say what he wants. I also read him in the Globe and Mail, and I wouldn't call him left-leaning. I would call him very centrist, and sometimes quite conservative.

Also, on the nightly news with Peter Mansbridge, I can't think of anything left-leaning that Peter Mansbridge has said. They often have panels in which they have representatives of the conservative point of view and the liberal point of view.

This idea that the CBC, especially CBC News, is some kind of propaganda machine is one that, even though I try to see your point of view on it, I just can't wrap my mind around.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Let me suggest that when it comes to controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage or abortion—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I don't know where Peter Mansbridge stands on same-sex marriage.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Well, he'd give the news, but the commentators they choose are not giving a balanced account to Canadians. When I would hear a news account of some story on CBC 's The World at Six, or whatever that program was, it would just absolutely make my blood run cold, because I'd think, who are they to give this interpretation to this set of facts? That's what's happening. It's not a reflection. It's not balanced.

I would just say scrap the whole CBC; if they can't change their culture to be balanced, who wants them? Why is $1 billion of taxpayers' money being spent on an unbalanced, biased, narrow sort of agenda?

I'm not alone on this. Why people aren't watching the CBC is a major question you should be addressing. They are not watching because it doesn't reflect what Canadians do.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I think there has been an erosion of market share for all broadcasters.

There are two contradictory terms that keep being brought up. One is that the news, or television, or the CBC should be objective, and the other is that it should reflect Canadian values. Those are contradictory—

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

No, it is not contradictory.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'll give you my reasoning as to why I think, at the margins, it can be contradictory.

Whenever you speak of values, you are speaking of a kind of bias or point of view. And when you're speaking of objectivity, you're speaking more about a factual kind of presentation. Now it could be that the CBC is simply reflecting Canadian values when it comes to the kind of society we want to live in, in terms of having social safety nets and so on and so forth. I'm looking here at some findings from a study, which I believe people have been quoting, in which, in the fall of 2006, CBC/Radio-Canada received the support of nine in ten Canadians on all of the following indications: whether the broadcaster was essential, whether it was trusted, whether it was comprehensive, and so on. I mean, we're talking about numbers in the 90s. So I don't think you can have it both ways.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

That poll is one thing. But what are Canadians doing? You're saying Canadian values. Well, Canadians don't all think alike. We're not monolithic. We're all different. Canadians are not watching CBC, because we don't trust it. We don't feel confident, regardless of that poll.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's an interpretation you're giving. This says that Canadians trust the CBC. It doesn't mean they're not watching the CBC because they don't trust it. They may prefer to watch some reality show. They may prefer to watch Entertainment Tonight. It doesn't mean they don't trust the CBC. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I would disagree. Why do they watch Lloyd Robertson on CTV or Global? Why are they popular? Why is our friend Peter Mansbridge not watched by nearly as many Canadians? There must be some reason.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm sure that Peter Mansbridge is trusted. Lloyd Robertson was on the CBC, and he was trusted on the CBC.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

That was 25 years ago. I don't think you can say that the CBC is a reflection of Canada and Canadians. If it were, they'd be watching. They wouldn't be looking to CNN for world news. They would be looking to Newsworld, but they're not.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Do you think CNN is a reflection of Canadians?

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

No. Why are Canadians looking to CNN? I don't like CNN particularly, either. Canadians are looking to CNN for news. They're not looking to Newsworld, which we're paying for.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

CNN is considered to have a fairly right-wing bias.