Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2007

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

Mr. Spence, it's good to see you. I enjoy your website. I'm thinking in terms of balance. We have CBC's “war on reason”, CBC's “blinding enviro-zealotry”. There was a good discussion on how many greenhouse gases are produced by CBC running coast to coast to coast during idle times. There's the issue of we shouldn't be taking partisan jabs at the oil patch. And of course I find my own name in there: “Charlie Angus, whose riding encompasses the First Nation community of Kashechewan, re-continues his pro-CBC campaign. As an aside, why was Angus not held to greater account over the Kashechewan tragedy by CBC news?”

You clearly have strong opinions about CBC. Will you be posting comments about our committee?

[John Spence]

We're still revamping, but yes, there will be comments.

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

Do you have some choice lines that we could hear in advance?

[John Spence]

“Hostile” maybe.

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

Am I hostile?

[John Spence]

You seem a little upset.

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

I'm having fun. I'm enjoying myself. How about the “ever-gregarious Charlie Angus”, as opposed to the “ever-hostile”?

[John Spence]

Is that what you want?

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

I'm just interested in how you're going to put it.

[John Spence]

See, this is the point. You used to work for CBC, correct?

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

Yes, I did.

[John Spence]

You were a CBC journalist.

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

I was a stringer. Do you want to hear my beef about getting paid $10 to go 20 miles?

[John Spence]

No, not really. Do you have a question?

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

We're talking about balance and clear lenses. Have you started to write about our committee?

[John Spence]

Yes, there has been some. I mean, there has been not just me, but I'm getting information in on other stuff. I haven't read all the transcripts from witnesses. I have a real life, I have three kids. This is just something that gets assembled and thrown in on the side.

Really, what it boils down to is taking something that nobody else was doing and doing it in an informal way and just taking it and throwing it out there. Joe made a reference to a movie being thrown back. My reaction to his comments about CBC saying okay, we'll sit on this film, or we'll change it to suit whatever the request of the complainant was—It just seems to me that every movie that comes out, the errors, the major dramatic errors in terms of liberties taken with the script, generally fall in the direction of making the more right-wing characters less palatable and making the left-wing characters more rah-rah, let's make them the protagonist.

Yes, we will follow up on the committee. We will make a final assessment, but right now there's nothing.

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

Okay. One last quick question.

Mr. Gue, I was listening to you, and I guess I fundamentally disagree with you not so much on right wing or left wing. I have a confession to make, and I'll get in trouble for it, but when an NDP campaign goes south and everybody is sitting in the backroom complaining, the first thing they say is it's the damn media: “The media doesn't give us fair comment. We started out in the middle of the campaign, we were second or third, and now they're not even mentioning us. It's the media.” And we like to say it's the media because they're in love with the Liberals or the Conservatives.

I was talking to a Liberal when Paul Martin's campaign went south, and they were saying they won't give Paul Martin a fair break. It seems to me that whenever someone has a wound to lick, it's the media that's picking on us.

I saw this with Tom Flanagan's comments. He wasn't quoted in his show, and he went on his blog site and said this is a sign of bias. I guess I simply don't buy that. Do you think that because Tom Flanagan wasn't quoted in the show, that was a sign that there's some plot at CBC to keep his voice from being heard, or was it just cut from the newsroom?

[Frank Gue]

I can't speak for the CBC, obviously. I wouldn't consider it a sign of bias against Tom, no. People who produce programs—and boy, am I familiar with that—have to time it to the second. Maybe there just wasn't time.

The accusation that the media influence political affairs, if that was your point, is probably valid. That's my opinion, because when you have some CBC commentator embedding in her remarks, “that MPP who stood up in the House and said, 'No more nurses, no more teachers'”, and my careful study of Hansard shows there was no such episode whatsoever—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to say to all our witnesses that I have the greatest of respect for my colleagues across the table, but we come from different political perspectives. Sometimes we're diametrically opposed; we're worlds apart sometimes.

I'm not as dismissive of the complaints of Canadians about the bias that the CBC has or is perceived to have against those who espouse a centre-right perspective on politics. The reason I don't dismiss those readily is that I hear those complaints from my own constituents. They're not isolated complaints. They are regular complaints.

They remind me: “What are you going to do about the CBC?”; “ When are you going to sell the CBC?”; “When are you going to privatize the CBC?” Quite frankly, my response is, I don't think you can expect that we're going to privatize CBC or sell it, because I believe we need a strong Canadian public broadcaster. Mr. Gue, you mentioned that in your remarks.

However, it needs to be a balanced public broadcaster, and when we get stories such as The Tommy Douglas Story, where another politician of his day is vilified in a grossly unfair way, clearly it's a time to step in and act. I would suggest to all of you that the process of appointing an ombudsman was a good first step, but the appointment process has to be fair, and the individual who's appointed must be seen to be above bias. I concur with you that if you draw that ombudsman from the ranks of the CBC or former CBC employees, there is going to be at the very least a perception of bias, if there's not an outright bias.

So I'm not going to dismiss those concerns. I think they will find their way into the report that our staff will prepare.

I have a question for you, Mr. Gue. You mentioned a number of things that could be done to improve the process of appointment of the ombudsman. Are there any other strategies that you could suggest that would improve the accountability of the CBC, especially when it comes to perceived or actual media bias?

[Frank Gue]

Oh, boy. That's almost as bad as finding a candidate for the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure I can intelligently answer your question ad hoc, Mr. Fast. I said here that the person appointed should be not a broadcaster and not an academic. I would have to sit down and think for some hours; then I could create a list.

I'm sorry to be so indefinite, but it's such an important question, I'm just reluctant to answer it off the top of my head.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are you supportive of an independent review of media bias within the CBC?

[Frank Gue]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If you are finished, then I will call this session to a conclusion.

Thank you very much for your presentations. Thank you very much for answering the questions.

We will recess for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Order.

I'm sorry, we're running a little late. There are going to be two or three people who have to leave at five o'clock. What we'll do is take your presentations.

I welcome you here this afternoon. We have Gwen Landolt, from REAL Women of Canada, and Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN. I do watch that sometimes.

We will start off with REAL Women, please, with your presentation.