With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll kick it off.
First of all, thank you very much to you and members of the committee for the opportunity of appearing before you.
I'd like to introduce my colleagues. With me today are John Spence, who is editor of cbc.watch.ca, a website devoted to documenting and discussing issues of bias and balance in CBC programming, and Frank Gue, a retired professional engineer from the fields of manufacturing, management, and education. My name is Viggo Lewis. I'm a retired businessman with a background in manufacturing companies in Canada and the States.
I'll kick off with a six-minute presentation, followed by two minutes each from my colleagues. We're very conscious of your time requirements.
We have submitted a written brief that recommends, in summary, first that CBC's mandate should be revised to include two clauses from the Broadcasting Act that deal with the requirement that Canadian programming “be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information” and—the second clause—“provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern”.
This recommendation in itself is not enough. It is one thing to have a mandate and policies, and quite another to ensure that the mandate is carried out. So we've attached to this recommendation two others, which we consider to be an integral part and of equal importance, namely first: that just as CBC undoubtedly has in place controls to ensure compliance with other important matters of corporate policy, such as safety, equal opportunity, and so on, so should controls be established to ensure that programming bias is eliminated and balance becomes the order of the day; secondly, that all future ombudsmen be appointed from outside the ranks of present or past CBC employees.
The current policy of appointing present or former CBC employees to this position places too great a burden on the individual appointed to provide impartial judgment of past colleagues and friends with whom he or she has been associated for years. Further, that person should be able to see with clear lenses, and not those provided by the CBC.
We've submitted our brief based not on opinion or perception, but on facts. As we have shown in our written brief, it is a fact that CBC management readily admit to the public perception of left-wing bias and lack of balance in their programming, and we've provided evidence of our own to support this admission and concern. On the other hand, CBC management resolutely deny that bias and lack of balance exist.
Now, whose perception is correct? We believe it's the public's perception, representing all hues of society, that is the correct one.
Why have we made these recommendations? What good will they do? How will they improve the state of broadcasting in Canada, especially since the need for journalistic balance is well-covered in CBC's journalistic standards and practice?
The answer is that the need for balance in an organization that is the most broadly-based and substantial broadcast journalism organization in Canada, funded by all of us, is huge. The CBC occupies a unique position of trust in Canada and by virtue of its size and coverage exerts enormous influence on public opinion, and these steps will help ensure balance.
CBC fulfills sections of its mandate, such as reflecting the multicultural nature of Canada, being distinctively Canadian, contributing to the flow of and exchange of cultural expression, and so on. By contrast—and this is important—by its own admission it fails to live up to its own journalistic standards of providing balance, as perceived by the public. This is unacceptable, and so we say that since its mandate is absolutely silent on the subject of balance, and since this subject is of such importance, it should be written into CBC's mandate.
If the heritage committee endorses this recommendation, it could and should act as a tipping point to CBC policy and action in the future and help increase its audience, and we think that's important.
To conclude, we feel that we need a public broadcaster, but we need a balanced public broadcaster. CBC—and I'm sure you're well aware of this, because you faced them—faces many costly demands by various interest groups. But these recommendations are unique, in that they appeal not to a single interest group but to the public as a whole and are not costly.
Thank you for your attention and invitation to take part.
I'll turn it over to John Spence.