Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 4 - Evidence for December 13, 2004
TORONTO, Monday, December 13, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 12:46 p.m. to examine the current state of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the medias' role, rights, and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am pleased to declare these public hearings open. As you know, this is the first time the committee meets outside of Ottawa in the context of this very interesting study of Canadian news media. I am sure that today and tomorrow, here in Toronto, and Wednesday and Thursday in Montreal, we will be hearing some very interesting testimony.
[English]
I look forward to hearing from members of the public later today.
This committee is studying the Canadian news media and the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that the news media remains healthy, independent, and diverse, particularly in the light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years, notably globalization, technological change, convergence, and increased concentration of ownership.
Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Wendell Wilks, President and CEO of TV Niagara. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Wilks, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Mr. Wendell Wilks, Chief Executive Officer, Television Niagara: Senator, you might recall that about 30 years ago you and I served on a judging panel called Can Pro. It was the first Canadian Association of Broadcasters enterprise to judge Canadian programs.
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to weigh in with my thoughts, reflections, and some small recommendations. Like Santa Claus, though, I have learned that if you ask for too many things you really end up with nothing, so I will stick to a couple of small ideas.
An act of Parliament says that the purpose of the Canadian broadcasting system is to relate the diverse regions of our country to one another; the Broadcasting Act is precise in stating this purpose, however, we live in a universe where this act is interpreted in such a way that the interests and concerns of millions of Canadians are not being discussed on TV. We need to re-examine the origins and intentions of broadcasting.
I will focus on two issues: the loss of local television, and, the sorry state of national English television viewership.
Today, the huge media conglomerates control almost all of the broadcast output; there are located mainly in Toronto and Montreal. Niagara, by the way, is across the lake; we are south of Lake Ontario.
The drift toward consolidation and amalgamation is fuelled by the need for more and more profit, and, as a result, over the last few decades we have seen less regional and local television.
We have created single TV stations with huge high-powered signals that reach millions of homes; a single television station that has the capacity to serve hundreds of communities, making local TV virtually impossible.
How can a TV station like City TV in Toronto or CFTO or CBLT or OMNI or CH in Hamilton or CHAN-TV in Vancouver cover local issues when their signal reaches the entire province?
We often miss the close-up of community TV coverage, and far too often the local stories that reach our urban communities are stories that involve body bags.
The big stations chase ambulances and fire trucks and hang around courthouses and dwell incessantly with tragedy and mayhem. These 30-second bites add to the community's angst and give the population the sense that our cities are decadent and that our entire society lives in constant chaos and strife. Today the main menu provided by too many of our mega TV stations consists of this kind of broadcasting.
The truth about most of our cities and our communities is that the redeeming gentility, sensitivity, and quality of our lives and institutions are the envy of the world. Crime is not predominant and violence amongst our citizens is actually decreasing.
All the research and polls suggest that we are more concerned about health care, education, societal welfare, and the future than we have ever been. We are more protective of the environment, more involved in our communities, and are working harder than ever to make our neighbourhoods safe and our family units stronger. Gender equality, aboriginal fairness and inclusiveness, and multicultural blending experiments have yielded the most progressive society in the world.
There are town, village, and street corner issues that require that we talk to each other daily in the broadcast area; that is how we relate the diverse regions to each other.
Unfortunately, the big guys, most of whom are Bay Street-driven, give these issues scant time and attention, and scramble for huge audiences with American imports, sports, and unreal reality shows.
I have been greatly influenced by the research work of the Project for Excellence in Television, which is based in Washington, D.C., and has active participation from Columbia University. Their research has proven that when local news provides more in-depth coverage with long, well-researched video coverage, these community news programs have better ratings than the body bag TV journalistic coverage.
I will leave a copy of the studies with you, and we have also filed it with your clerk in the electronic format.
Our under-served communities in Canada deserve better, and the admirable ideas expressed in the Broadcasting Act should allow broadcast entrepreneurs the right to try to rectify these shortcomings.
Let me illustrate with a look at my own region in the Golden Horseshoe; the area around Lake Ontario.
Chairman: We are aware of that geographical area.
Mr. Wilks: I am from Niagara. We have 12 municipalities with 440,000 people spread over a 1,700 square kilometre area. These residents are not connected to regional issues by television. We have become a region of 12 tribes in Niagara and we remain isolated and divided from one another and from our neighbours across the lake. Voter turnout of 28 per cent demonstrates not apathy but disconnection.
Our issues dealing with health care, education, welfare, transportation, the environment and urban decay leaves us perplexed and divided. Our only daily newspaper's ownership has changed five times in 10 years.
Even though we are the twelfth largest market in Canada with more exports than Newfoundland or New Brunswick, Niagara has never had a local TV station. For 55 years, regions one-half our size, like Kingston and Peterborough, have had local television stations, and much smaller communities across Canada, from Medicine Hat to Prince George and Yorkton to North Bay, have been included in the national TV grid.
For the record, Niagara, with all of its challenges remains one of Canada's most liveable regions. What we have here in Niagara is simply a failure to communicate.
Niagara is not alone; all across Canada the local voice has been swallowed up by huge networks. Cable TV has not provided the answer, because cable by its nature is minimalistic in journalistic content and production values. It is run by well-meaning amateurs.
Local regional TV can and should be the key to connecting our citizens. We have missed the opportunity to use the most important medium of communication to bring people and the local issues together.
I am talking about offering employment to hundreds of extremely bright and highly talented graduates from our colleges and universities who cannot find work in their chosen profession. Therein is our hope for the new future in Canadian broadcasting.
The analogy helpful here is probably to compare the big-city daily newspapers to the smaller weeklies. Both survive profitably and serve separate niches. In TV we have the big broadcasters, but the missing narrow-casters that serve a small, specific local area or community are missing.
It is because of a CRTC policy decision that we have this problem. The CRTC does not allow smaller, commercial TV operations, but only considers co-op and not-for-profit models. We already have that with the local amateur cable. Imagine the government telling publishers that they cannot sell local ads. Well, that is what they tell us in the TV business.
The policy is in place to protect the big broadcast converged giants from fragmenting audiences. Now, this is a debatable logic, when the same CRTC allows in a myriad of foreign channels.
The Broadcasting Act says that we have to be predominantly Canadian, but with a plethora of those channels that they allow in from the United States, I can tell you that you can measure the number of hours available in the cable and the satellite spectrum. I hate to tell you this, but Canadian television it is not predominantly Canadian, it is predominantly American.
The airwaves were once a small, restricted spectrum; now we have a vast, compressed, digital bandwidth that can accommodate ten times the channels that we have now.
If we can have FOX News, CNN, BBC, and CNBC, and even Al Jazeera in Mississauga or in Niagara, can we please have space for us to talk to each other?
With the advent of new high-quality, miniaturized, affordable broadcasting technology, local television is poised for rebirth. Imagine if 15 out of 20 programs watched were produced by Canadians. That would be some Christmas present, but today the reality is we remain lucky to get more than one out of the top 20 viewed by Canadians. We the producers, writers, actors, and technicians, and, yes, we regional and local broadcasters wish to challenge the gatekeepers who so protect the anointed few.
If the mega-corporations had been successful in fulfilling the purposes of the Broadcasting Act, we might be agreeable to their protection, but the reality is that their failures far outstrip any of the small victories that they have had.
In English Canada, the slippage is like a landslide, where audiences to Canadian-produced stories continue to decline. The United States has overwhelmed our domestic producers, and it is our fault. Time is running out.
We need another mega-merger, the biggest in Canadian TV history, to get our TV train back on the track. The time has come to assemble all those government-created film and television networks, agencies, funds, and grantors into one giant unit.
In English Canada, that new super-entity, where all priority programming would be created and broadcast would be the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Cable Fund, and the National Film Board. The super-entity would merge all the responsibilities into a single, renewed, exciting, and vibrant national public broadcasting system centred on our proud, venerable, and battered CBC.
We do not need more money. We need new leadership. The government consolidated our armed forces, navy, air force, and army. So, if you can do it for them, we need you to do it for TV.
While public television has been starved, the Government of Canada has provided direct taxpayer cash and subsidies to the national public-sector giants, such as CHUM, CanWest Global, Bell Globemedia, Rogers, and Alliance Atlantis.
We ask, why is taxpayer money going to the private sector, when profits are at an all-time high?
We think this is utter madness.
CBC should be restructured. CBC Sports should be moved to a separate channel and not subsidized. If we pay $1.20 a subscriber to get TSN, surely it is worth that much for us to get CBC Sports, and if there is a profit from selling advertising on CBC Sports, then that profit should go back to the main channel.
When the CBC moves out of advertising on the main channel all of the cash in the system should go towards new CBC French and English priority programming. Now is the time to finally and completely separate private and public broadcasting.
The renaissance of English TV could happen rapidly. Private operators can draw from the injection of new ad dollars from the money that CBC gives up. We would have the public and private broadcasters performing different jobs with different money sources and more rationalized objectives.
Madam Chairman, let the mergers begin. Help us find a way to return local TV voices to the 500-channel universe. Now is the time to reform and refocus government leadership, unleash a new team, and get into the game to win back Canadian viewers both locally and nationally.
I do thank you for the honour of being with you.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree that there is a need to change the Broadcasting Act in order to see a re-emergence of community and local television. I agree that it is a needed change. I think the CRTC promotes monopolies.
Are you saying that we should open up the airwaves to who ever proves themselves in the marketplace, whether it is a programmer for country music or it is a local television station?
Mr. Wilks: We think the criterion for the establishment of local television stations is well established; that is you have to do independent market research to prove that the audience you intend to serve has some interest in the service you propose to offer.
We in the broadcast business have always had to demonstrate to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission that we have the funds to fulfil the promises we make; that we have a boards of directors; and that we practice what our federal government requests of us with regard to things like gender and racial equality and the recognition of all rights and freedoms. All of this is set out in the Broadcasting Act.
There is nothing wrong with the act, and there is nothing wrong with holding broadcasters accountable, but, in some ways the CRTC has not fulfilled its promise to police the stations that were already licensed at the time of the act.
We have just gone through a massive change with the consolidation of ownership and thousands of jobs have been lost as a result. We now have a private sector system where the amount of money being paid on the interest on leverage-buyout debt is greater than the amount of money we are spending on new Canadian programming.
We need to get new broadcast corporations to qualified Canadians, while at the same time look very carefully at whether a new company is eligible to become a new broadcaster.
There is nothing like the competitive process, where four or five applicants make applications; sometimes there are beauty contests that nobody should win.
Senator Tkachuk: It always intrigues me that people are in favour of the private sector until they get their licence, and then, of course, they want a monopoly, and more stringent rules for entering.
In Edmonton a number of years ago Dr. Allard applied for a news channel. He started a local independent television station which became the number-one station in Edmonton. BCTV beat CBC hands down, and yet he lost the application, because his presentation was not good enough, whatever the heck that was.
Why do we have to do a survey?
If the person is of good character, has the money, and wants to start a television station, why should he or she have to prove that the station can make money?
Mr. Wilks: You spoke of Edmonton and Dr. Allard. I am proud to have been the individual that encouraged Dr. Allard to get into the broadcast business. I was the founder of ITV and the CEO of Dr. Allard's Edmonton television station to which you referred. I am very intimate with the circumstances of that particular application.
We lived in a time when we were very protective; it was another time. Believe it or not, we got that licence for ITV Edmonton, where Selkirk Communications, a broadcast company, had a 25 per cent interest in that television station with Dr. Allard. The CRTC deemed that Selkirk Communications could not participate because they already owned a radio station, and some of their shareholders already owned the Edmonton Journal, which was a Southam newspaper. At that time it was considered a concentration of ownership.
It was an era when we were quietly, gently moving along. Outside of the Toronto area we received only three American networks on cable television. Of course, now we have 113 American channels. The rules have changed, and so have our cities.
In 1998 I started the last television station here in Toronto; channel 9, the Christian Television Channel. That was the last television station added since 1976. In the interim the population has doubled.
Edmonton had a population of 400,000 in 1974. The population is over a million today. You can see that there has been a dramatic change in the market and for this reason we need to change as well.
At that time the national news service had not been developed; CBC Newsworld did not exist. I believe that the commission was short-sighted in worrying that private ownership would overwhelm the public broadcast system.
This is one of our continuing problems is that we did not separate the public system from the private system. I believe that is essential. I think that even today, the CRTC would not give Dr. Allard a licence. The CRTC even limits CTV to a wheel where they have very specific headline news in their news package. I believe that to be an unbelievably restrictive requirement.
Why would they allow the CBC to do one thing, and then put this kind of harness on the private sector?
It is just nonsense, and it is time that it is re-examined.
Senator Munson: Mr. Wilks, I am curious about a statement you made about the CRTC and the process and one of the releases. You said that it was discouraging to have to continually explain to the community that you intended to serve. You noted that it is a peculiar process to deal with the CRTC. How is that process peculiar?
I would like to hear your views on the CRTC, and why television cannot get into Canada, while Al Jazeera is able to.
Why do you have go through this process with the CRTC holding the power?
Mr. Wilks: Our rights suggest freedom of the press, media, and other media. We are in the electronic sector and considered part of the other media. We have no problem understanding the freedom of the press. If I want to publish a newspaper, I would simply start publishing and selling ads and distributing my news. There is no rule to prevent me from doing so.
The broadcasting rules were different because we had a very limited spectrum, and had to be very careful, because there were only a certain number of available channels. That situation no longer exists and yet, the rules have not changed. We are still working with the old rule books that suggest that we have this finite little precious thing and we have to be careful about who gets access to it because we are going to run out of space. Well, there is no danger at all of us running out of space. That is all poppycock and gone by the wayside.
People like me have the temerity to come before you and to take great risks. We come to you and make suggestions and sometimes it looks like we are trying to bite the hand that feeds us. We are also continually in front of the CRTC for one reason or another.
I think we are in a new era even with the CRTC. I think that the CRTC and this new self-examination process will help it change. I hope that they licence more communities.
In Edmonton there are quite a lot of local television stations, however, if you live in Mississauga with a population of 800,000 people there is absolutely no local television. You cannot use that medium to sell your goods and services in that city. We see a similar situation in about 12 other cities; they are all covered by these mega-stations with the body- bag stories.
Senator Munson: The CRTC probably can say ``no'' to you, but they will never say ``no'' to CBC or CTV. When CTV gets a five-year or a seven-year licence they are not concerned that the CRTC will not renew the licence. The CRTC can say ``no'' to a little guy like you but not the big guys. It sounds like a double standard.
Mr. Wilks: It is not only that they say ``no,'' but the public process allows these mega-corporations to intervene in our process. They arrive at the same hearing I do with a battery of lawyers and consultants, and they file 200-page briefs and give hysterical interventions as to how a little television station in the neighbourhood of Toronto will destroy mighty Toronto. They go on that they are undertaking to save us.
I say, save us from Train 48. Save us from the trite and the body-bag television. Save us from their failures. I mean, give us at least a right to fail. It is a nonsensical system.
Senator Munson: There is an old saying: ``Alive at five and dead at six.'' It is crazy.
Why has Niagara never had a local TV station?
Mr. Wilks: It probably is the idea that we are surrounded by TV stations. Buffalo is 30 miles down the road. Most of us in Niagara, by the way, watch Buffalo news more than we watch Canadian news.
Hamilton, which is just on the edge of the lake, claims to serve Niagara, with one reporter covering 1,700 square kilometres. The stories that seem to interest them are the ones that include tragedy, mayhem and body bags. They are not interested in any of our local issues.
An area can be covered by all of these massive signals, but that has nothing to do with the area itself. The mega station is making money off of us but is not giving us any payback. They are selling us up to our eyeballs, but they are not making an investment in us. In fact, it is difficult for them to do so because if they covered our local news in Niagara it would not impress the other viewers in the Golden Horseshoe area. We are on the dark part of the Horseshoe. We do not get any of their coverage except when it is something incredibly negative.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Wilks, you made the comment that local television is poised for a rebirth. Please comment on that statement.
In Atlantic Canada we have ATV, which precedes the CTV news, and it gives us excellent news. We also get the body bag news. I mean, just look at our national papers today; their news coverage is all about body bags.
I think that we are blessed with a lot of local coverage. We have the CBC for the first half hour, then the suppertime news is local, and then we go to the national news at 6:30. I feel that Atlantic Canada has good coverage of our legislatures, our business stories, and a good many human interest stories.
Now, how many are watching that versus CNN or something else, I am not sure, but I wonder if our coverage is different than the coverage in Ontario?
Mr. Wilks: Yes, you are fortunate in Atlantic Canada, and we are fortunate on the Prairies.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Not many people will say that. That is wonderful.
Mr. Wilks: Every little city in the Prairies, including Prince Albert, Yorkton, Saskatoon, and Regina has stations. Regina has three.
In the mega-markets it is quite impossible to think a single television station can provide local programming to millions of people.
I managed a television station in Kingston, Ontario, and we had a remarkable relationship with our audience. The Kingston people are blessed. They have a population of less than one-half the area of Niagara.
It is not just in Niagara that I have a special interest. I have observed that throughout Southern Ontario we do not really have a single community; we have a series of communities, and they all have different demographics.
For instance, we have the new City of Brampton that has doubled in size since 1976. Brampton has a huge Southeast Asian population and deserves to have a mechanism with which they can communicate daily. OMNI, the multilingual television service, can not satisfy their needs because of the new immigrants in that city.
The same is true of Mississauga, which has an amazing demographic quite different from Brampton. The Pakistani, Sikh, and East Indian populations get little satisfaction out of OMNI Television. They are all totally dissatisfied with what the broadcasters give them.
They need some narrow-casting, and it is in the narrow-casting where the CRTC has slammed the door on us. We can not put in lower-power transmitters in those cities. The only people the CRTC will allow to do that are co-ops and not-for-profit corporations that hire non-professionals.
We need to bring professional journalism, professional standards, and professional news to these cities. They deserve it. As we move just a little bit to the west of us, to Oakville, Burlington, and Milton we find cities that have a similar demographic to Brampton. In those cities there are half a million people who turn on their television sets every day and never see any of their issues discussed; it is simply not reflected in any of the television journalism.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are you are saying that what we get as Atlantic Canadians, you get as Ontarians, but because your population is so diverse and so large, it is not as relevant to you as it is to us?
We like to hear stories from Truro or from Bathurst or wherever, but is it the huge population, the diversity, that makes it less relevant?
Do these main broadcasters, CTV and CBC do the same thing in Ontario, or do they do it the way it is broken down for us?
Mr. Wilks: You can watch City TV in Ottawa, London, and in most places in Ontario. It is the same with CH. They call themselves the station of Hamilton, Halton, and Niagara, but in fact they reach the entire province. You can watch them anywhere.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It reaches the whole province?
Mr. Wilks: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Ours reaches the whole region.
Mr. Wilks: Yours is the whole region.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We like the sharing of stories, one community to another, throughout Atlantic Canada, and that is what our stations do.
Mr. Wilks: There is much that takes place in some of our large cities that is not reported at all in this medium, and as a consequence, never even makes a regional newscast or a national newscast. It simply goes unreported.
The analogy that I used was probably a good one, in the sense that we have our daily newspapers. We all know who the daily giants are, but in that milieu the little weekly newspapers have carved out their niche, and they are all doing extraordinarily well.
If you like, I think that is actually what is missing with us in television; we do not have that smaller, close-up niche that the weeklies provide.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are you optimistic?
Mr. Wilks: I am optimistic because Canada is an inclusive nation; it is not a nation that excludes people from participating.
The Chairman: What are the economics of the small local stations? How many reporters do you need to adequately cover the city of Brampton? How much does it cost? How many people do you need? Where are you going to get the advertising? Are you in fact eroding the market for the big stations, or is it a separate market?
Mr. Wilks: Well, I hope we produce programming that kicks their pants in. They deserve it. I mean, why would I not be allowed to produce programming that competes against them?
Realistically, the kind of television station we are talking about employs roughly 100 people. In our Niagara proposition we are talking about 25 full-time journalists covering 1,700 square kilometres, in high-definition television, I might add. We are in a new digital era. If you multiply that 100 by 10, you can see that there could be a lot of new jobs. It is painful to know that our community colleges are turning out some extraordinary graduates that we are not going to employ.
Our little website for a television station that is not on the air has received thousands of applications. Our little website has had 6-million inquiries. The idea that some of these unemployed new entrants will be a farm team for the big boys later on is not a problem for me. I do not mind that process; we have to have someplace where we incubate new talent.
Senator Merchant: I must say I admire you for wanting to take the big guys on. And I wish you all the luck in the world.
I live in Regina, and you talked about the three stations there. Are you referring to CTV, CBC, and Global?
Mr. Wilks: Correct.
Senator Merchant: The CBC has the lowest audience in Regina. In our part of the world, we get the national news first, which is the opposite of what you were saying about the Atlantic. We get the national news and then the local news; during the national news a local story is introduced and is presented more fully later in the local news.
When there was a local station in Prince Albert operated by the Rawlinson family, the person that did the news also did the weather and the sports.
I wonder how many people are qualified to do all of that reporting, or are you going to have different people do the news, sports, and weather?
Mr. Wilks: Yes, and CBC, as you may recall, went through a massive cutback when their resource space declined, and the first thing that they cut was local newscasts. That was a disaster, especially in the capital cities where the result was an emasculation of the system. The CBC ran out of money, and they did not have the vision to know how to proceed.
At the present time there is a big groundswell movement for the CBC to get back into local television. We do not think that is appropriate. We think that they are the national and the international service. We think that local coverage is being provided well by the private sector.
So those are just points of view that need more debate, and at a point where the new leadership at CBC seems to be talking more and more about opening more and more local stations. The problem is that they can do that only in places where they have CBC-owned and operated stations, and that is not in many parts of Canada. It would be discriminatory to put all of that money into local television in Regina, and not to put it in Saskatoon, which has the same population as Regina.
I think that local television is well-served by the private sector when it is allowed. What we are trying to do is kick off the restrictive regulatory harnesses and get back to the communities that we intend to represent. Unfortunately, we are not allowed in the game, and the reason is pretty simple. The big guys on this side of the lake believe that all of it belongs to them. They believe that they can have 113 channels, but that one channel with the nerve to speak back to them is blasphemy. That attitude has to change.
Senator Tkachuk: It is nice to see Niagara feels the same way about Toronto that we do in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Wilks: Toronto is great, but so are we. We are all great, and one should not exclude the voice of the other. That is really all we are saying.
Senator Merchant: The CBC which has the mandate to serve communities will fly in Peter Mansbridge to cover a big story in Moose Jaw while we have local reporters that should be telling that story. The CBC does not serve its mandate because the local reporter is better able to do justice to the story because the he or she is more familiar with the story.
Mr. Wilks: I totally agree with you. I started my career in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, and I covered Saskatchewan's first medical care experiment in all of Canada. I was the only reporter on television that offered an observation from Shaunavon, Saskatchewan.
It is incredibly important that we have that local base where the stories originate. When the story becomes significant enough for national coverage then we can we welcome Peter Mansbridge. It is the local journalist who digs out the story and who does the original investigations. Journalism begins at the local level.
Senator Di Nino: I am the only person here from Toronto. Come more often. We need your money.
Mr. Wilks, you certainly have had a long and distinguished career in the broadcasting business, and we value your opinion. I am having some difficulty with some of your conflicting messages, if I understand you correctly.
Do you think that there is really a role for the CRTC in deciding whether someone should open a station or not?
I understand standards and proper operational regulations and so forth, but if a person has enough money to start a TV station in Omimi, do you think that person should be able to do so without any interference from anyone else?
Mr. Wilks: Yes. I think anyone should be able to start a station if he or she meets the fundamental entrance criteria. The company must be incorporated to protect the public interest. It must prove to the commission that it has the resource base and the experience, and that it will abide by the rules. I think we need somebody to be there to measure the qualifications.
It is time that the CRTC sanctions more severely those that break the rules and do not fulfil their promises of performance. They should never punish anyone for success. Right now, they are not giving a chance to the hundreds of Canadian producers and writers who have something to say, something to contribute. There is no resource base to do it because it is so dissipated in the public sector.
I am saying that the CBC should not be selling commercials. They take $200-million a year out for English programming. They take another $150 million out for sports. We want them to keep the sports but get out of commercials and the rest of it.
The BBC has done just that and they have gotten 15 out of the top-20 programs that are produced in England by English producers. They do not have the problem that we have, and it is not because we do not know how to produce in this country. We have clearly proven we know how. What we need is the tools to do it.
Senator Di Nino: And yet you said to give CBC more power, money, and responsibility. That would make it even more powerful and make it more difficult to create a new station. That is an argument that I find conflicting.
Mr. Wilks: Well, there is no competition in production of Canadian programming. Senator, Canadians spend 94 per cent of their time watching foreign drama, and the few successes that we have had are just simply too few. We need more shows like Corner Gas. We need more stories about ourselves.
Senator Di Nino: I happen to agree with you, but I cannot see the rationale. I do not see how collapsing all of these other programs under the umbrella of the CBC will help you achieve the objective that you so eloquently described.
Mr. Wilks: What we are doing now is a shotgun approach, and what I am talking about is a Prairie analogy. It is a rifle shot. We would have a chance at actually penetrating the enemy.
The enemy, by the way, is us; it is not the Americans. We know how to make programs; we have the best artists and stars and writers and directors. In many instances we dominate even American television, and many Canadians have migrated to America to make a living.
We are not going to have a system if we do not start producing programs that Canadians will watch. I think we are giving the money to the wrong people. Why should we give taxpayer money to Bell to produce programs when they are making record profits? It just does not make any sense.
We have got such a limited amount of public money. Why are we giving it to the wrong people and strangling the one hope that we have? The National Film Board has been around and it has done an incredible job. In the news world of new technology, their usefulness is best delivered by merging them into the single entity.
The Chairman: You suggested that the CRTC might be helpful if it could do a little more in the way of enforcing the conditions of licence. As I understand it the CRTC is in a bind and the only function that it has is suspension or non- renewal of a licence.
Do you think there should be a rather greater array of tools available to CRTC and, if so, what tools?
Mr. Wilks: Well, they did impose fines for a period of time. I think they fined one broadcaster in the television sector; a station in Pembroke, Ontario. The fine was $5,000. Those kinds of slaps on the wrists are not penetrable. They are mosquito bites.
We need some cannons. The cannons are money, so sanction them with money. The CRTC makes a profit, so it is not about giving the CRTC more money.
What are we going to do with the money? Put it into some kind of a priority programming pool where it belongs. There needs to be sanctions or some sort of effective mechanism.
The way we appoint the CRTC commissioners is a bit difficult; the one vice-chair of the CRTC is only appointed for a one-year period. We do not need caretakers. We need people that can take us forward into the new tomorrow with clear vision and with a clear-cut, clear mandate.
My point is that CRTC can be reformed. It is run by an effective, sensitive group of people that are capable of doing the job. I just think that no one has asked them to do that job.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so that we know what you are talking about when you talk about the Telefilm money and all that cash that was rolled out for subsidies. Are you saying it should all go to the CBC to produce Canadian content?
Mr. Wilks: The Canadian content network clearly should be the CBC. It is not that we should not produce Canadian content at CTV, but they should do that out of the resources that we have given them. We take $2.7 billion of revenue into Canada from advertisers. That is a lot of money. With the exception of the 350-million that goes to CBC, all of it goes into the private sector.
The CRTC makes its biggest error when it continually asks the private broadcaster to quantitatively deliver, and it delivers things like Train 48, instead of asking the broadcaster to qualitatively deliver what takes more money to concentrate into one high-budget program that somebody will watch.
Quality and quantity are two different differentials, and right now the CRTC is asking too much for quantity and not demanding enough of quality, and that has to be measured with dollars. That is all.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you think that if you shovel enough money into CBC they will actually produce Canadian programming worth watching?
Mr. Wilks: What I am saying is we should shrink the five bureaucracies into one and appoint a commissioner of Canadian programming. There are too many bureaucracies. With CBC out of the commercial sector, the private sector will have even more resources with which to produce programming that Canadians will watch.
Senator Di Nino: I think we should put on record that the private sector has to pay salaries and taxes and all operating expenses which the CBC gets by way of subsidies.
The Chairman: CBC does pay salaries.
Senator Di Nino: Through the subsidies instead of through the advertising.
Mr. Wilks: With great respect senator, the private sector has cut back the consolidation and has seen an enormous cutback in the number of people they employ.
Senator Di Nino: I am not arguing. I just think it should be on the record.
The Chairman: Mr. Wilks, we would be happy to keep you all afternoon. Thank you very much for being here. I look forward to seeing the research to which you referred. If you have any further thoughts about the CRTC, or anything else for that matter do not hesitate to send in written material.
Mr. Wilks: Thank you so much for your courtesy.
The Chairman: Senators, our next witnesses are from are from REAL Women of Canada. We welcome Ms. Lorraine McNamara, and Ms. Gwen Landolt.
Ms. Gwen Landolt, National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada: Honourable senators, REAL Women is very delighted to have the opportunity to come here to express our perspective to the committee.
There has to be a whole new restructuring of our media in Canada, particularly broadcast media. It is our view that it is tied into the 1960s, but times have changed dramatically since then.
The CRTC was formed in 1968 and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1930. In 1968 the CRTC had a mandate, but that mandate has simply been bleached away through circumstances and changes and technology, and we find that it is gainfully trying to hold on to its control, but is out of step with modern times. One of the grave concerns we have is that CRTC is issuing licences very cautiously.
We are a conservative women's group. We believe in conservative, traditional values. We have been around since 1983 and our organization is totally self-supporting. We have 55,000 members across the country, and we can support ourselves as no other women's group can do, which indicates that people are behind us and believe what we are saying. We are not just a single voice without a lot of support across the country.
Our concern is that the CRTC limits the voice of Canadians, and does not properly monitor the voices of Canadians. It limits the licences to certainly politically correct, non-conservative organizations, our broadcasters. It restricts free speech.
We are absolutely delighted with the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec decision that says that satellites, for example, are contrary to the freedom of speech and our Charter.
Canadian voices are not reflected because of the control of the CRTC and the CBC. The CBC is very much an NDP-supporting organization.
Now, do not get mad at me for making that statement. Studies have shown that to be the case and those studies are mentioned in our brief. The studies also show that the English-speaking journalists in Canada and the francophone journalists do not reflect the population.
They specifically found that the NDP, particularly NDP Radio, I mean, the CBC Radio journalists are left-of- centre. ``NDP Radio,'' that is very well put, but I meant to say ``CBC Radio.''
I could give you anecdotal examples of what has happened to me as a woman and a conservative woman's voice in Canada, how I have been sidelined, marginalized by the CBC because I do not speak the party line of radical feminism.
If you ever want specific examples, I can give you what the CBC has done with our voice as a self-supporting, independent women's group, and it is because they simply do not reflect our views.
The control mechanisms on Canadians have been abhorrent to us for many, many years, and we have been enormously frustrated by them.
Canadian content is not about our culture. It is about Canadian broadcasters who are doing the work. In other words, it is an economic issue. It is to preserve the economics of the Canadian broadcaster. It has nothing to do with preserving our culture, and we suggest that maybe Canadian content is being misconstrued. I think most Canadians think that Canadian content means that the Canadian culture will be served. That is not what has happened.
Canadian content has little to do with Canadian culture and has everything to do with crass, industrial protectionism. Programming is deemed Canadian not because it reflects Canada or its people or its culture, but rather because it has the requisite number of Canadians involved in its production. In effect, Canadian content is about jobs and economics, not culture, protection, and promotion.
Canadian media outlets are forced to broadcast music or programming that Canadians may not necessarily want to see or hear. Only 5 per cent of Canadians watch CBC TV because it does not reflect all of Canada.
I know that section 3 of the Broadcasting Act very specifically says the CRTC must give a balance of views. The CRTC must give the varying opinions and voices of the Canadian people. We do not hear that on the CBC.
The CRTC has been extraordinarily reluctant to license independent religious broadcasting in Canada. They say they do not want the American system of all these people speaking, and so only a handful of religious broadcasters have been given licences. There have been a few, ETWN, Del Sol, and Salt & Light. The latter was just given a licence for digital. Very few people at this point in history are watching digital, but they will in due course.
The only religious broadcasting that seems acceptable to the CRTC is Vision TV, and Vision TV is very liberal in its perspective and has been for many years. With a very few minor exceptions Canadians with conservative religious views have not been heard on Canadian airwaves. It is a frustrating experience for Canadians to find that we are tied to the past and the anachronisms of the CRTC and the CBC.
Is there a role for the CRTC? Yes, the CRTC can take on the role of monitor and issue licences.
Is there a role for CBC? There is no longer a role for CBC in general broadcasting. The specialty channels are grabbing the Canadian people.
We know that the American network and PBS are doing well and that Canadians are funnelling their money like mad down to the PBS. Why? It is because PBS provides the viewers with what they want to see.
We suggest that the CBC come into the 21st century and free itself from the 1930s. When CBC began it brought Canadian diversity to the front; now it creates diversity. I resent the CBC. I resent that my money is being paid for this anachronism that is being used by the producers to produce their own programs and not to reflect all broad-based Canadians.
These two institutions, set up in our past are locking in Canadians, and as a result, we are not being heard. It is an enormously frustrating situation. We simply do not trust broadcasting.
These are our shocking statements that are very heartfelt and sincere.
I do a lot of public speaking, and Canadians across the country complain that their voices are not reflected in the public debate.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with many of the things that you have said.
When you say that the CRTC is perpetuating an ideological bent, how do you explain the fact that many of the views are liberal?
Are you saying that when people apply for a job that there is an ideological bent to the interview?
Ms. Landolt: I would not hesitate to say that there is an ideological bent. There has been a tremendous controversy about bringing FOX News in, which of course I am very delighted to see, but there is an ideological bent because broadcasters know that they had better fashion their stations or media outlet according to the appointed individuals on the CRTC in order to have their licence renewed.
Consider the escapade we have just had with CHOI. That situation turned into a public censor; the CRTC did not like the values expressed by CHOI. CHOI had a huge audience in Quebec City. It is difficult to accept that appointed government individuals did not reflect what the government wanted them to say.
Why are appointees, who have nothing but political patronage, determining what Canadians and Quebec City can watch? They had a huge listening audience but according to the commissioner's views their programming was unacceptable. A handful of people should not be telling Canadians what they can see and do especially when they are appointed by the government.
The Chairman: Just for the record, Ms. Landolt, I think that the difficulty the CRTC found with CHOI that some of the material that was broadcast was seen as racist. There is surely a difference between racist remarks and conservative ideas. There are many conservative voices on radio.
Senator Tkachuk: Madam Chair, I think we should allow the testimony.
Ms. Landolt: Senator Fraser, I want to make the comment that they were saying things that were not considered politically correct. They were making fun of the party in power at the time, and that was not acceptable.
It was political content, yes, but to say that it was because it was racist, I disagree. And who determines what is racist? It should not be these political appointees.
If you think there has been racism spoken, such as at Al Jazeera, you are able to go to the courts and claim that is anti-Semitic or that is anti-Christian, or you are able to go to the human rights tribunal. You should not have these political appointees standing back, all nine of them, I think there is a capacity for 13, deciding what is racist. Who are they to suggest what is racist?
The Chairman: I am not disputing your perspective on this, but for the record I want to draw that distinction.
Senator Tkachuk: Madam Chair, we should ask them the questions. We are not here to testify. We are here to ask questions and get their testimony. Anyway, thank you, chair.
The Chairman: Senator Munson.
Ms. Landolt: There is somebody who we have seen on Newsworld for a long time, so you have lots of experience.
Senator Munson: I have a lot of experience in the private sector. I must add that my mother is 91, a conservative, and she likes CBC. I just thought I would throw that in.
Ms. Landolt: Well, she is 91.
Senator Munson: Yes, well, anyway, I certainly respect your views.
Do you believe that communities and minorities in remote centres are appropriately served by the media these days?
Ms. Landolt: No, I do not. I think that Mr. Wilks made a lot of sense. Why do people in Mississauga who are Sikhs or Hindus not have a voice? I would like to see a freedom for these people, and I do not think it is up to the monitoring oligarchs or bureaucrats to say what they can or cannot see or hear.
Let the individual come forward, if a broadcaster is a Hindu or a Sikh or a Muslim. I do not like what happened to Al Jazeera, in that the cable company has to monitor them. Why is a cable company monitoring Al Jazeera? If there are anti-Semitic remarks, then they should go to the courts or the human rights tribunal. The problem is not for the Ottawa bureaucrats to decide.
Senator Munson: Do you feel the same about CBC Radio across the country? Do you feel that they are not acting appropriately in terms of serving their individual communities?
Ms. Landolt: CBC National Radio just drives me up the wall when I hear it. When I hear a story, I think, ``Well, what is the spin on the story today?'' And I do not even bother with CBC TV.
I was up in Iqaluit a while ago with the Inuit, and found that the CBC up there reflects their society. I do not know why. For the most part I do not want to have anything to do with CBC, but when I got to Iqaluit I found I was quite changed. A local Inuit told me that the station was their voice in the north, and that it does reflect their culture. I thought that was a rarity. In most places in the country I feel that the CBC has not gotten it right. The CBC in the north has done a good job though.
Senator Munson: Are you paying as much attention to the private sector in this regard?
Ms. Landolt: Well, certainly the CTV. The CTV is different because it has to give balance; that is where its money comes from. CBC and its producers could not care less.
Senator Munson: Its money comes from where?
Ms. Landolt: CTV is the most-watched TV station in Canada, and I think it is because it has to provide balance. It cannot count on the deep pockets of the taxpayer to pay for everything. They are more inclined, not necessarily totally, but they are more inclined to listen.
Senator Munson: What do you think should happen to the CBC? Do you think it should be dismantled?
Ms. Landolt: No, I do not. We have dealt with this issue and it is covered on page 18 in our brief:
One possible solution to the problem of the CBC, which would allow it to keep its ``public service'' mandate, is to scale it back to a PBS-style model, wherein it would receive modest public funding, and run programming free of sports, sitcoms, and mainstream dramas. Such a transformation would reflect historical changes that have shaped the communications industry. Of course, the CBC will still have to improve its ideological slant: it will need to provide balance to its entrenched, leftist ideology in order to become acceptable and connect with the Canadian public.
I know that you are busy, but if you have the time I hope you will read some of the reference materiel that we have given to you in regards to the CBC and its leftist views.
I looked at studies done on the CBC, and the journalists themselves admit that they are left-of-centre; their perception of the world is different.
The CBC has to be scaled back. It is so frustrating to see our taxes going to producers who are producing programs nobody wants to watch. Less than 5 per cent of the population watches their programs.
I mean, the times are changing, and so are the people. We have second-generation immigrants in this country whose perception is very different than mine was when I was a child. The CBC just does not understand that fact; it is entrenched in the 1960s and 1970s.
Senator Munson: I do not think today is the day for a good debate. It is a good day to ask questions.
You have said that the CRTC also exhibits arrogance in regard to independent religious broadcasting and it only allows safe religious channels like Vision TV.
Would you like it all opened up, and have different religious channels, and let everyone speak for themselves?
Ms. Landolt: Any person that has the foundation, the money, the skilled people and the technology should be allowed to go into business, and if they go broke it is their problem. If they make a million, well, that is their luck. The opportunity should be open to everybody. Let the Sikhs have one. Let the Muslims have one. They have got one now. But, you know, open it up.
Why are we so tight and inhibiting in Canada? We should be open. This is a world of the 21st century, not back in the old 1930s. We need to be open to all views, and we cannot be limited to the CBC and the CTV. We have got to be broader.
I want to know what is happening in Jordan. I want to know what is happening in Brazil. I want a voice for people in Canada who have an interest in the issues relating to those and other countries, but the CBC will not grant those people that privilege. The CRTC keeps them in a tight little huddle and will not let them branch out.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Chair and colleagues, representatives of REAL Women, I think I am a real woman, but I do not know whether I belong in your organization.
You are here speaking for an organization about which I know almost nothing, and I would like you to tell us how many women in Canada you represent, the age range, the geographic distribution, and whether there is any breakdown of education levels and professional levels.
I want to know how you react to the many CBC programs, because I am as much for the CBC as you are against it.
The CBC has many programs that involve public participation; the best one is perhaps, Cross Country Checkup, where every Canadian can speak. There are noon-hour programs, certainly in Atlantic Canada, where the same thing is true. It goes on for an hour-and-one-half. There are also many town hall programs. There are political panels on at least one morning a week. They are on also at supper time, and some times they are on later. These panels represent the three main political parties in English Canada and the Quebec parties as well.
How do you feel about those very open mediums?
Ms. Landolt: We are federally incorporated in 1983. We are a non-profit charitable organization and our membership is open to anyone who supports our values. Our values are traditional values. We just do not agree with a lot of the radical feminist positions, whether it is pornography or a national daycare program.
In our membership faith and age are not an issue: we do not ask those questions of our members. If they support our values, we accept them. We do know that we had a Muslim group of women from Ottawa. We have Inuit women. We have Metis women from Edmonton. We have a broad variety of women. Some are housewives. Some are educated. I am a lawyer. We even have a commercial pilot.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: How many members do you have?
Ms. Landolt: We have 55,000 members, and we do not get one penny from the government. We have been around for over 27 years, and that is because our members have supported us, which is quite different from the radical feminist groups, because they could not exist without the women's programs, and secretary of state giving them money.
We exist simply because our members like what we are doing. It is a good example of a grassroots organization. We do not make a requirement on faith, age or education.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I did not ask about faith. I asked about age distribution or education. How many are members from Atlantic Canada?
Ms. Landolt: I do not know. I am not in charge of membership. I think Ontario has the majority of members simply because the population is greatest. We have members from British Columbia to the Maritimes. I just do not know how many.
The Chairman: I wonder if you could send us some more information about your membership. It is always helpful to have that information when one hears from the representatives of groups such as yours.
Ms. Landolt: Yes, well, the only thing is, we have always agreed that we would never do a survey of our members. We have never, ever done a survey.
The Chairman: We are not asking you to breach privacy laws, but to send us such materiel as you have, by region. I am also interested in knowing how many of your members are individuals, and how many members have come in through other groups.
Ms. Landolt: Yes, I will say that we do have a lot of group organizations, like the Muslim women. The Metis are also a group. We might have a Catholic Women's League out of Calgary. We do have group membership as well.
That is all I can tell you, because I have nothing to do with the administration. I have got enough to do to with the legal and political aspects of the organization.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: How do you respond to the very open program where everybody can speak their mind?
Ms. Landolt: I cannot tell you how pleased I am you asked, because I have experienced the so-called ``open program.'' I will give you an example: I called Cross Country and wanted to speak on an issue, and the operator asked me to tell her my position on the topic that was being discussed. I got wise, and I would give the opposite position and suddenly I found I was on the air. Please do not tell me it is open. It is not. They want a certain speaker to give a certain perspective, and I am a prime example of an individual who has tried to be heard on Cross Country Checkup, and the only way I got my voice heard was when I said I was for the opposite side. When I got on the air and said what I thought they were furious with me.
We cannot be heard. Our members have said time and time and time again that there is no sense for them to call in. They do not listen to our calls. They ask for our position. If you want to get on the air you must state an opposite position.
We have already had problems with town hall programs. One town hall on a very sensitive issue we will not mention was pulled out of the University of Toronto. They were all one perspective.
I give you an example of a political panel showing different perspectives. The late, much grieved, Peter Gzowski, and the most important program, called Morningside was extraordinarily popular. Every week he had a panel of experts from every political party. Well, every single one he chose to represent that party was as left-of-centre as you could believe. Eric Kierans represented the Liberal party, and Stephen Lewis represented the NDP. They are left-of- centre. They all belong to different parties, sure, but they all have a left-of-centre perspective. It was a very happy reunion every Wednesday morning when they all agreed. That is not a broad program.
I do not have any confidence when you say it is wide open. It just is not broad and tolerant from our experience.
I will give you another prime anecdote. When Marc Lepine killed those women 15 years ago I was called by the CBC Radio and CBC TV. They called me asking if I felt that all women were in danger. I replied that Mr. Lepine was an insane person and that I was not frightened. They went on to ask whether I feared for my two daughters who happened to be in university at the time. When I told them that I was not concerned for their safety they hung up on me. They no longer wanted to speak to me because I was I was not speaking the party line. I was not giving their perspective that this violence against women generally meant that all women were in danger. That was not the perspective that I had as a woman and as a mother of university students. I was not politically correct.
That is only one of millions of examples. I have been around a long time. I know I look very young, but it is really misleading. I find again and again and again that the conservative voice of women is just not represented in the CBC or these other programs.
Senator Merchant: I sense a great frustration in what you say. Coming from the West, I have to say that a lot of us must agree with you, because very few people listen to the CBC. More people listen to or watch Global, and more listen to or watch CTV, and that must indicate some kind of connect that people have with what is on the airwaves. I agree with a lot of the things that you say.
Have you done any studies about bias in reporting?
Ms. Landolt: We looked at the studies that were available and we have given you those studies in our brief. Once again, I know you are busy, but reading these studies would be useful and would answer your question very well.
Ms. Lorraine McNamara, National President, REAL Women of Canada: May I interject?
I went on the Internet last night, and I looked up ``media bias Canada.'' I found many sites that concerned media bias in Canada and most of the complaints came from people complaining that the conservative voice is not being heard. I did come across one complaint that the liberal voice was not being heard, and that was because they were considering having FOX News come to Canada, and of course that idea was horrifying to that person.
Either the pro-leftists are not literate on the computer or not very active on the computer, or there are an awful lot of very computer-literate conservatives out there, because that is who was most represented on the internet. Most of the complaints were from conservatives unhappy with the media in general and the CRTC and CBC in particular.
Senator Merchant: I have read a study that was done by the Canadian Media Research Consortium which is comprised of researchers from the University of British Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, the York-Ryerson Joint Graduate Program in Communications and Culture; and, the Communications Program at Laval University. They interviewed 3,012 Canadians to discover what Canadians think about the news and how much Canadians trust the news they receive. Their study examines issues of media credibility and trust and determines if Canadian attitudes and perceptions about the news media are different from American attitudes and perceptions.
I will just tell you very quickly that reporters' preference determines what we see on the news, and that 80 per cent of Canadians think that there is a bias in reporting.
Other studies about politically biased reporting show similar findings. Fifty-three per cent believe that there is political bias in reporting. I see the same attitude in Western Canada, so you are not alone.
Mr. Wilkes related the lack of local programming to voter apathy. I believe he said that there was a 28 per cent turnout in elections.
What do you think? Is there a relationship between what we hear and the voter apathy?
Ms. Landolt: I find people say, ``What is the use?'' They have so much information thrown at them and often their gut reaction is, ``I do not believe that.'' ``I do not agree with it.'' I think that the voters feel that everything is turned against them. They are ordinary hardworking, family-oriented, tax-paying, decent people. I am not suggesting they are all leaders and highly educated, but their gut reaction is, ``It does not connect with my life and what I believe in.''
I refer to the National Media Archive on page 3 of my brief. They have had 25 years of analyzing CBC and TV and have found that on major issues media coverage is not balanced. They have found that Canadian journalists tend to support left-of-centre positions of the news coverage. The same opinion is found in the book Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News.
I think Canadians feel that they do not have a voice, and that nobody is listening to them. As a result, Canadians do not think it matters who is elected. It is irrelevant to them because it is all tied up in the bureaucracy that dictates to them.
I do not think Canadians are stupid. I think that they are perfectly intelligent. They know what is going on and they resent it.
Senator Di Nino: The discussions seem to have been directed at the lack of response by the CBC.
Ms. Landolt: And the CRTC too.
Senator Di Nino: In your brief you talk about how English-speaking journalists differ from the general population. At the end of the piece you give all kinds of different examples and you suggest that the bias is reflected in the news story. You say that this bias is not just in the CBC. You seem to be saying that it is the media in general, whether it is the other TV stations and/or networks, newspapers, or magazines. Am I correct?
Ms. Landolt: Yes. They did not say specifically CBC, but then you will find at the end that they particularly go after the CBC.
Senator Di Nino: Yes, I saw that.
Ms. Landolt: I think it is in the CBC section that they note the bias of the CBC. It is true. Many of the journalists came out of the 1960s and 1970s, and they are living in the past. They are not falling into step with the changing times.
We are not static as a people in the way we think and what we believe, and we are changing, and we have to move on in all fields. Even very left-wing broadcasters should be allowed to set up a station. So too should a conservative, or a religious group, or a feminist group be able to broadcast. The entire field should be opened up.
Senator Di Nino: How do we change that situation? Do we begin by asking people during the application process what their political biases are, and what their religious bent is? This is an issue that defies solution, if we are going to respect the Charter and the privacy laws.
You have listed some examples of journalists who are more likely to be this way politically, that way in lifestyles, et cetera. Are you suggesting that we could change that by adding an application that says, are you gay or are you heterosexual, or are you Christian or are you a Muslim, are you old or are you young, are you an NDP or are you a Conservative? I do not know. How do you solve that problem?
Ms. Landolt: Well, I think that it does come in the hiring. You are right there. How do you hire? Obviously you can not ask if someone is Muslim or gay. That would be inappropriate.
Senator Di Nino: You cannot. Our laws will not permit such questions.
Ms. Landolt: And you would not want them asked anyway, laws or no laws. I think the answer is to be found in the hiring of these people. A solution may be found in the education system which is liberal. There is no two ways about it. I have five children going through the universities. I know how liberal they are, yet the problem may rectify itself in due course. I find many of the younger people are more conservative. I can see that there is a change out there that has not really hit its peak at the present time.
Senator Di Nino: Do you think it will look after itself?
Ms. Landolt: I am not saying it will look after itself. You see, everything is supposed to be balanced in the newsroom, everything but politics. You might ask them where their political bias is and that may make a difference. You can ask them if they are NDP or Liberal or something else.
The newsrooms have a balance in the requisite number of gays, requisite number of Blacks, requisite number of Muslims, but nobody asks whether there are a requisite number of balanced political views. That is a question that should be asked. It is not against the law to ask a person about his or her political perspective. We should seek to find a political balance in both our newsrooms and our journalists.
Di Nino: Let me ask you another question on the representation of diversity, including religious diversity. I do not think you are suggesting that the CBC should have as its mandate certain Christian programs, certain Jewish programs, certain Buddhist programs. Am I correct?
Ms. Landolt: No.
Senator Di Nino: The answer is ``no.'' So what you are saying is that for those who wish to express a particular point of view the opportunity should exist for them to create their own channels?
Ms. Landolt: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: You believe that they should be able to create their own vehicles, to create their own journals, et cetera?
Ms. Landolt: Absolutely, yes.
Senator Di Nino: As opposed to imposing certain constraints or certain rules on the networks or on the papers?
Ms. Landolt: Yes. That is exactly what we think.
Senator Di Nino: Are you saying that if you have enough money, want to start a station, and as long as it is within the laws of the country, you do not defame, or do something that is illegal or immoral as defined in our system, then you should be able to pull the switch and go on the air and preach your particular view of Canadianism?
Ms. Landolt: Yes, exactly, and that would make a truly Canadian country. If that were the situation we would no longer feel suppressed.
Senator Di Nino: Should this situation apply to politics, religion, and ethnicity?
Ms. Landolt: Yes, ideology, anything. We just should be free and open.
Senator Di Nino: So the CRTC should be changed to make sure that takes place.
Ms. Landolt: Yes, and to monitor the people. They have to licence people who have the requisite amount of money and experience, whatever the criteria may be, and that is all they should do.
Senator Di Nino: Assuming that they have the necessary skills and resources to be able to perform that function.
Ms. Landolt: Yes, but the CRTC should not be able to limit what we can see and do. That is the major problem that we see with the CRTC. They are only political appointees. They have no business to tell us what we can see.
Senator Di Nino: I have to put on the record that I disagree with you on that point. They do have legitimacy, because the law of the country permits that to happen. If that is to be changed, that can be changed.
The Chairman: ``Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.''
Senator Munson: You say you are a conservative, traditional group, and let the doors open and let voices be heard, let everybody have a 500-channel universe. In that scenario people might have a channel on same-sex marriage.
Ms. Landolt: We have Pride TV which deals same-sex relationships, so why cannot we have a traditional channel that discusses the importance of traditional marriage? If they want to do it and lose money, let them go ahead.
Senator Munson: I know this has nothing to do with our study, but national daycare was discussed at the beginning of our committee. Are you are against a national daycare program?
Ms. Landolt: That is something that our organization opposes. Neither the CBC nor any other network has asked us why we do not want a national daycare program. We have not been interviewed by any of the media concerning a national daycare program. We are women, and we are mothers, and we do not want a national daycare program.
Senator Munson: That is a whole other different subject.
The Chairman: It is.
Ms. Landolt: Have you heard our voice on that subject?
Senator Munson: The answer might be to simply go to the private sector and ask them to ask you the question and they can do a story on your position.
Ms. Landolt: Senator Munson, have you heard our voice on CBC or CTV? I mean, why is not this conservative approach to childcare being heard in Canada? That is a very good example.
Senator Munson: Well, if I was still working, I would ask you the question. I would do a story on your opposition to a national daycare program.
Ms. Landolt: I would appreciate the question being asked.
The Chairman: Speaking as a mother myself, I am also fascinated by this topic, but we have run out of time.
Ms. Landolt: Yes.
The Chairman: And I do apologize for that. Thank you very much indeed for being here.
Senator Tkachuk: It is not a surprise, Chairman, that there are people who do not believe in a national daycare.
The Chairman: I did not say which way my own views go.
Senator Tkachuk: It was very much a surprise to him. A national daycare program, so what? Who cares?
The Chairman: We could hold hearings from now until next Tuesday on that one.
Senator Munson: I always care.
The Chairman: We are extremely grateful to you both, Ms. McNamara and Ms. Landolt.
Ms. Landolt: It has been a pleasure.
The Chairman: I expect you will be back before senate committees one way or another.
Ms. McNamara: At least we had a voice here.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our next witness is Mr. Paul Winkler, who is appearing today as an individual. Thank you very much for joining us.
Mr. Paul Winkler, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.
The biggest Canadian business over the past year has surrounded Conrad Black and his fall from the top of his international media empire. Countless stories and reports have been produced here and abroad since the story first broke as a result of inquiries from the U.S. investment firm Tweedy, Browne in the spring of 2003. For this I am glad, however, the story should have come out years before. To date, I am the only person to have successfully sued them, highlighting issues central to what is now before the courts.
My experience over the past five years has left me frustrated and disappointed with a number of Canadian institutions, including the media, the Competition Bureau, and securities regulators.
My story helps illustrate how when one media company controls much of the media in an area or the country in general. In this situation reporters are loathe to report or investigate that firm since their employment often hangs in the balance.
My ordeal has also showed me that the Competition Bureau needs to be clear about what it allows or does not allow concerning multiple-property ownership in the marketplace. I also believe their enforcement needs to be improved.
I am a former newspaper executive who refused to cooperate with my employer, Hollinger International Inc., over issues related to ethics, competition law, and securities law. I was fired in 1999 from the position of publisher of the Kelowna Capital News and general manager of the Okanagan group of newspapers, based in Kelowna, B.C. I was forced to sue for damages against a company that tried outspending me on legal fees in an attempt to silence me.
My wife, a journalist at one of the papers, also lost her job as a result of my actions, leaving us both unemployed with four children under the age of 13. To top it off, Hollinger Inc. countersued me as an act of intimidation, I believe.
Further, Hollinger International Inc. executives questioned two of my witnesses, who continued to work for Hollinger-owned papers, about their testimony prior to trial. They felt intimidated but courageously took the stand and told the truth. Other witnesses refused to testify for fear of reprisals or being blacklisted.
I persevered, and two years later got to court in British Columbia for an eight-day trial. Seven months later the judge's ruling came down, and I won a convincing victory and was cited for being highly ethical. I was awarded the one year of income I was entitled to under my contract, a small financial recovery, in light of my legal costs and the length of time I was unemployed, but significant, I thought, because I had been able to expose David Radler and Conrad Black. After all, it was at my trial that they were able to establish for the first time their private ownership of Horizon Publications Inc. and, as such, conflict-of-interest issues.
Their involvement in Horizon Publications Inc. is now at the heart of many of the lawsuits filed against them. At the time, Hollinger Inc. was Canada's largest media company and third-largest newspaper chain in the world. Surely the major media outlets in Canada would be quick to pounce on Mr. Black and Mr. Radler, two media tycoons well- known for questionable and ruthless actions. That did not happen.
The Globe and Mail and The Vancouver Sun each reported on my legal victory in 2002, but despite my pleas for them to dig deeper into the wrongdoing, they did not bother. The local TV station in Kelowna had a reporter at my wrongful dismissal trial most days, and even interviewed some of my witnesses outside the courtroom.
To the best of my knowledge, this CanWest station did not air anything. Was that because Mr. Radler and Mr. Black were on the CanWest board at the time?
I sent a copy of my judgment and additional information to the Ontario Securities Commission, who replied within a day, saying they saw no securities violations and would not pursue the matter.
I should not have been surprised that no one seemed interested. Before my case went to trial, I presented various pieces of evidence concerning Mr. Radler and Mr. Black's link with Horizon Publications Inc. to countless media outlets, local politicians, a journalism school, and a media watchdog organization. I even had someone ask pointed questions of Conrad Black at the Hollinger Inc. annual meeting in 2000.
Kelowna CBC radio stations said they would do something with the story, but did not. Canadian Press in Vancouver was presented with information, but said they were not prepared to tackle the story, since Hollinger Inc. controlled CP at the time.
Even the union, CEP, that represented the employees at the Horizon-owned Kelowna Daily Courier, knew both Mr. Radler and Mr. Black were involved in Horizon Publications Inc. The union was forced to accept a contract with Horizon following threats that their paper would be closed if the employees did not agree to a five-year deal, the first three years with no increase, followed by a 1 per cent pay increase in each of the final two years.
Saving jobs for the employees they represented came before any public outcry that Mr. Radler and Mr. Black secretively controlled the Horizon paper, and that there was a gun to the union's head, since Hollinger Inc. owned the competing Capital News.
A reporter at one of the national newspapers wrote in an e-mail that if his employment hung in the balance, he would not likely have pursued the matter as I did. I am convinced that virtually every key executive in Canadian newspapers knew that Horizon Publications Inc. was a front for Mr. Radler and Mr. Black, yet no one bothered to probe further to expose them.
Why? Fear of litigation, disbelief at the scope of their alleged duplicity, lack of solid evidence, the need or desire to do deals with Mr. Radler or Mr. Black, or was it because the story emanated from Kelowna, B.C.? I am still not sure of the reason.
Not only I was unable to get anyone in Canada interested in reporting on what took place, I found it difficult to find work because of the control that Mr. Radler and Mr. Black had over the Canadian industry at the time. There were very few jobs in my field of expertise, that being the general management of the community newspaper chains.
Bob Calvert, the CanWest executive responsible for most of their papers following CanWest's acquisition of Hollinger Inc. papers in 2000, told me that things would work out for me. Soon after he called to say, ``I cannot talk to you, because you-know-who is still involved.'' Mr. Radler and Mr. Black were on the CanWest board at that time.
I was later told by Mr. Calvert's chief financial officer that Mr. Calvert wanted me to be president of a 1,000- employee Lower Mainland publishing group, but had been turned down by the Aspers, the family that controls CanWest, since they did not want to ``rock the boat with Radler.'' This was the same job that Hollinger Inc. had earmarked me for prior to my becoming uncooperative.
Two other group publisher jobs emerged in Canada, but in both cases it appeared likely that Hollinger Inc. or Horizon Publications Inc. would soon own them. We almost moved to the U.S., before deciding to move back to Ontario, where I run a small, ten-employee magazine publishing company in which I have a minority interest.
The Hollinger/Horizon story finally broke in the summer of 2003, when the Chicago Tribune started probing and sent a reporter to interview me. They did the homework that the Canadian media failed to do. They ran a story on the front page of their Sunday paper.
In the months that followed, I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Times of London, BBC TV, CBC Radio, along with numerous stories in The Globe and Mail and The Vancouver Sun. All of a sudden the story was important.
On a personal note, this journey has been far more difficult than I imagined it would be at the outset. There were very few supporters or cheerleaders, especially from my industry. I sensed that most media insiders thought I had overreacted and wondered why I would pass up a promotion or, worse, throw my career away over something that seemed to them either trivial or too bizarre to be real.
Most of my family and friends advised me against pursuing legal action, since the little guy rarely wins, and after all, this was Conrad Black and David Radler, and they never lose legal battles.
In summary, my experience taught me that too many people, especially those in today's media, put profit, self- interest, and self-preservation above what is right. There are often a few outstanding individuals who will risk all to tell the truth, and that was certainly the case with several of my witnesses. Without them I am sure I would have lost the case.
When an industry is dominated by one company, or in the case of newspapers, where a handful of companies have carved up most of the pie, the opportunity for abuse increases significantly, whistle-blowers are forced to put their livelihoods on the line, knowing they may never work in their profession again.
The problem is somewhat systemic, in that to be competitive in today's media environment you must be large. Large companies are usually publicly traded, where executives only keep their jobs and their generous stock-related compensation if they continue to improve earnings. The fastest way to improve earnings is to eliminate competition.
With that in mind, I would like to make a few points about the Competition Bureau, since they figure into your deliberations. Throughout my career, the Competition Bureau has played an important, albeit confusing and seemingly inconsistent role.
I started taking notes in Kelowna when I was told by my boss about Horizon's purchase of my competitor, the Daily Courier, in the spring of 1999. Knowing there was a link between my company, Hollinger Inc. and Horizon Publications Inc. I inquired about the Competition Bureau, and was told this was beneath their radar. Did that mean they would not notice, or that it was not big enough for them to be concerned?
The Competition Bureau contacted me soon after Hollinger Inc. dismissed me in December 1999. They seemed interested in what had taken place. I met with one of their investigators in January of 2000. Eighteen months later, Hollinger Inc. sold my former paper because of involvement from the Competition Bureau, although the Competition Bureau never announced their involvement.
Rather than selling the paper to several legitimate newspaper companies that wanted it, Hollinger Inc. sold it to the stepfather of Todd Vogt, the president of Horizon Publications Inc., along with two of Vogt's friends. The selling price was a fraction of what the paper was worth.
Despite my protestations that this was not an arm's length transaction, the deal was allowed to proceed, and has now been documented in the 513-page corporate kleptocracy document filed by Hollinger International Inc. with the SEC. For doing virtually nothing, these owners of convenience pocketed roughly $15 million before tax.
Most newspapers publishers have no idea of what the Competition Bureau will or will not allow. It seems to me in many cases it is complaint-driven. In Kelowna, they acted and said one group could not own both the daily and the three-times weekly. That was in 2001. Last year, Torstar Corporation and Osprey Media made a deal that involved the Torstar-owned three-times weekly, Kingston This Week. They sold it to Osprey Media, owners of the Kingston Whig- Standard, who now have both papers.
Small-market daily newspapers can make embarrassingly high profits, even if their penetration level is just 40 per cent of households, provided they do not face a controlled circulation in community papers.
Since virtually all Canadian newspapers are now owned by publicly-traded media giants competition is eliminated whenever possible by way of a trade or swap of properties that rationalizes markets and eliminates competition.
The owners say community papers and small dailies serve different reader and advertiser audiences. That is bunk. We competed in Kelowna for every ad dollar, every story, and every reader.
To the north of Kelowna is Vernon, where a three-time weekly called the Morning Star has a readership higher than any newspaper in the country. Virtually everyone gets it, and virtually everyone reads it. It is a great way to keep the community informed and keep kids reading. They won the market the old-fashioned way, by competing with a great team and with a big commitment to news. The old Thompson daily paper closed in 1996, and despite Horizon's attempt in 1999 to start a new daily there, it also closed.
The Competition Bureau needs to set the record straight. There are still many markets in the country where small dailies and community papers are fighting it out. Can one company own both? Based on precedent, there is no clear answer, and that makes it difficult.
When I was still out west our corporate vice-president of advertising said to me that it was ironic, that as a result of our team success in Kelowna, Mr. Radler and Conrad Black were able to buy the competition for a song, and, if not stopped, would be able to screw our staff, many of whom would have lost their jobs.
I am convinced their plan was to gradually diminish our paper into a ``shopper,'' which is a non-editorial product, over time, since that is the best way to make money, if you can have both products in town.
Creating legislation in an attempt to control monopolistic media companies might be ideal, but extremely difficult to create and enforce. The fact is the horse is already out of the barn.
I regret that, despite having discussed the mandate of this committee with several trusted publisher friends, we were unable to come up with any workable suggestions, aside from the need for clarity and consistency from the Competition Bureau.
Some people think opening the door to foreign ownership would be good, while others have concerns about losing control over the media. For me, my thoughts can best be summarized by the French social scientist, Emile Durkheim, who wrote:
Where mores are sufficient, laws are not necessary. Where mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.
Senator Tkachuk: Has the Competition Bureau ever taken in small-market publications like Prince Albert or Kelowna or any of those towns? Does it really care, and is it important that it cares?
Mr. Winkler: Well, there was a time when they did. I took this out of my comments, knowing I was running out of time. Ten years ago I was responsible for all of Southam's community newspapers in Ontario, and we had a little paper in Flamborough that was in competition with the established paper.
Our paper was one that was a grudge paper that was started a few years before; it was losing money and should have been closed. I managed to negotiate a print contract with that competitor that would coincide with the time we were going to shut down our paper anyway.
I was advised by the Southam lawyers not to put this in writing, because we might be charged by the Competition Bureau for lessening competition.
I know of other markets where they have not involved themselves. Kelowna may have gotten involved there, simply because I kept passing information along to them, and maybe because there was an attempt to keep this from everyone's sight. The whole idea was that Mr. Radler and Mr. Black wanted to keep this quiet and have no one realize that there was essentially a common owner.
I think their plan was eventually to have the Hollinger Inc. paper be sold off to them privately, which would allow them then to personally own the marketplace and make many millions of dollars out of a non-competing marketplace.
In markets where you have a three-time weekly and a small daily, markets such as Prince George and Kamloops, Kingston, Barrie, and Peterborough, it tends to be a life-and-death battle between these papers, and in most cases the daily will lose.
Vernon had a daily, and Oakville and Oshawa used to have a daily. The community papers, when properly funded and working well will put the small daily out of business, but, if that daily is not facing a true outside competitor, and that competitor at some point is allowed to become part of that same company, the free newspaper will have the news taken out of it and a greater gap between the daily and the community paper will be created.
The problem, from a readership point of view, is that the community paper can get readership of up to 90 per cent, which is the case in Vernon. We had close to having that in Kelowna. A shopper will only get 50 per cent of the people reading it, and for different reasons.
A small daily in a non-competitive market can make a 40 per cent return on revenue. That is the case in places like St. John's, Newfoundland where they no longer have competition. You can take a market like Kelowna, where the daily was losing money, because we basically take it to market.
Senator Tkachuk: Are not we following a great Canadian tradition. I mean, at one time, Southam Publications Inc. and Thompson Corp. ran everything. Now we have Conrad Black and Torstar Corp. and a couple of other. What is the difference today from what it was like a few years ago?
Mr. Winkler: Well, there were opportunities to start a lot of these competing papers. I built my career around competing against small-market Thompson papers. We did it in Cambridge and in Guelph. I did it, albeit for a family company, and then eventually for Southam Publications Inc.
Kingston is the first market that I know of where the Competition Bureau has not intervened and allowed a market that size to have a common owner.
One might argue that given the declining readership and the decline of newspapers in general it is not in the best interest of the community to have that level of competition, but it is in the best interest to keep that daily going and not have it face significant competition.
I argue that should not be the case. I think that type of competition is healthy, although I have a personal bias. I think small communities are best served by three-time weeklies that go to everybody and where you encourage readership, whereas small dailies only go at best to 40 per cent of the households today.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you.
Senator Di Nino: This is a very topical, fascinating story. Your association with the Blacks seems to have given you a great deal of knowledge about what some people perceive to be a problem in the industry.
Certainly the problem of ownership and the concentration of ownership is one that we talk about a little. Do you have anything to add on the convergence problem that we have in the industry, as opposed to the ownership of newspapers or what-have-you?
Mr. Winkler: I have a few thoughts on convergence. It has to a large extent been a failed exercise, but with respect to public policy I cannot say that I have given a lot of thought to the subject. Put simply, the more control of any media that rests in the hands of a few people, the more the door is closed to others. In my experience in Kelowna, one would have thought that the TV station there would have been keen to report my story. Maybe there were other reasons, but I found it strange that they would have a reporter at my lawsuit for most of the eight days and then not report the story.
Senator Di Nino: Do you buy the argument that when you have heavy convergence, you may have a losing proposition in one on purpose to make money in another?
You seem to have experienced that with the Conrad Black situation in the newspaper business. Could this happen with a variety of different media outlets?
Mr. Winkler: I have very little experience in that area. We are talking crossing lines between print and broadcast, and I cannot think of any reason why one would want to take a loss on one arm of the business in order to gain on the other side. Local TV stations do not compete as directly with the local newspaper; from a competitive point of view, I think it is really more the newspapers that are more head to head. Radio and TV tend to have their own audience and newspapers tend to be somewhat separate from them. The concern is if the reporters become worried about reporting business issues that should be reported.
Senator Di Nino: That is fair enough. Newspapers have been one of the most useful tools for the dissemination of news, entertainment, education, et cetera. How is cyberspace going to affect that industry?
Mr. Winkler: I think they will work hand in hand. My ideal model for medium-sized communities is to get a newspaper into everybody's hands. Fliers are a very big part of the business today. The combination of a great local portal and a three-time weekly newspaper that everyone reads is a better way to serve a community than a daily that goes to, in the case of Kelowna, 25 per cent of the homes.
Senator Di Nino: You believe that the two can work together?
Mr. Winkler: Yes, but I think the old model that the newspaper business was built around no longer works. It was a symbiotic relationship between readers and advertisers, and you cannot keep them together any longer if you insist on the reader paying. It just is not going to happen, and as a result the advertising has got to go. The advertisers today want to reach the entire marketplace.
Early in my career, there were a lot of arguments about the fact that a daily newspaper reader was the only reader that was important, because he or she was the better-educated group and whatnot. That is still by and large true, but today it is becoming more of a line drawn at age rather than education.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Winkler, yours is a story of great courage and experience. It is very interesting to hear it firsthand.
While listening to you I wondered if you were giving the message that one should be suspicious of other large corporations more than one would be worried about an individual business in the media, knowing that it is the large companies that have the huge contact with the public.
Are you signalling to the Canadian public at every opportunity that one should be wary of the large ownerships and conglomerates?
Mr. Winkler: In my years with Southam Inc., I found the top people to be people of great integrity. As much as I did not always agree with some of their business decisions and got a little frustrated at times in the few years I did spend reporting to the president there, I never found there to be an issue of ethics that I was concerned with whatsoever; in fact, quite the opposite.
I think that is why I was so appalled at what occurred. I was just in shock that this was actually happening after so many years of dealing with people of high integrity.
That said, I think today's media climate is different. There is a systemic problem that exists, and I think there is a need to do deals. In my case a lot of people knew what had taken place, and they could argue it was up to somebody else to blow the whistle or make an issue of it. I was a little frustrated that a number of media outlets and key executives knew what was going on and did not point their reporters to the potential story and have them investigate it.
I think there is a need to do deals, and I think the media leaders, to the extent that I have insight into it, would be in conflict over a story such as mine.
I think there are very few times when you encounter issues such as breach of securities and alleged breach of securities laws. That case has not yet gone to court. My case with competition and breach of competition law, and just the whole secrecy surrounding it was quite unique.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You use the term ``systemic problem.'' Is it a systemic problem or a systemic fact? You are talking about deal-making. Is deal-making pretty deeply imbedded in the human race?
Mr. Winkler: There was a time in the newspaper business when certain people would not make deals with others. And I think today the fastest way to make a profit is to make sure that you have the ear of your competitor. If the Competition Bureau continues to lower the bar, which is happening, you need to be in that position.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You have used the word ``problem.'' Is the problem then with the deal-makers, the people who are smart business people, or is the problem with the Competition Bureau?
Mr. Winkler: I think it is a question of, what we in Canadian society want to allow. Business leaders by virtue of their role in society need to work within the law to make as much money as possible. I think smaller communities, are often not well served by some of the deal-making that takes place, for some the reasons I have pointed out.
I think some high-quality, controlled-circulation newspapers could become casualties, and Kingston This Week is an example. I think it was a pretty good paper. Reports I have from various people, including the fellow who started it and ran it for many years, indicated that it is a real shame what is happening to that paper.
Senator Munson: What was the response from Canadian Press; was it a chill, self-censorship or self-preservation?
Mr. Winkler: Self-preservation, from what I understand. I did not present the information to them, one of my witnesses, who was an investigator reporter did. Certainly the sense was it was self-preservation. The comment was that they were not going to the story because Hollinger Inc. controls Canadian Press.
Senator Munson: Television seemed to ignore it. Was the story too complex for television?
Mr. Winkler: I always felt it was a magazine story, because there are many other nuances that I have not touched upon. I have about 50 pages of notes from the time this thing started. BBC TV came and spent a whole day with me and then found that the story was too complicated for them to air.
Senator Munson: I can understand that in television.
In Vancouver we have the one-ownership of television, radio and newspapers. Ken Alexander, the publisher of The Walrus had a few quotes which I found very interesting. Mr. Alexander said that government should regulate but in a delicate way.
Based on what has happened to you, and I know you believe in freedom of media, democracy, expression of media, and so on, is it troubling for you that perhaps your voice is not heard?
Mr. Winkler: I would like to be able to say that the government should legislate, put walls up to stop these kinds of things from happening, but my difficulty has been in coming up with anything that is a meaningful in the way of recommendations.
Honourable senators are far more learned in these things than I am and have given more thought to the subject.
Should we do our best to put some roadblocks in the way of concentration and ensure that there are voices in places like Vancouver? Yes.
Senator Munson: We will have to work on some of those ideas. This is a market economy, a survival of the fittest kind of situation. I imagine that individual journalists are also concerned. But my personal feeling is that when lesser voices are heard in a democracy, it becomes a lesser democracy.
Mr. Winkler: It is.
Senator Munson: Individual voices.
Mr. Winkler: It is. The difficulty is that to be competitive and survive today you need to be large. You cannot start even a community newspaper today. You just do not see it happening. I guess you can go on the Web and start creating something there, but the economics do not allow for that to happen. It is a conundrum.
Senator Tkachuk: You said that they have to be large, yet all of these newspapers were purchased by the large companies. They were not startups by the large companies. The weeklies were all individually started.
Mr. Winkler: Exactly.
Senator Tkachuk: They all were very profitable, made money, and that is why the companies were attracted to them and bought them. Governments closed their eyes to what was going on, but nonetheless that is what happened. So obviously, individual entrepreneurs can create and have created opportunity in these markets.
Are you saying that because the large companies now own those weeklies, that they are so powerful that new startups cannot begin in those communities?
Mr. Winkler: That is part of it. The big companies will bleed a small operator. There are many stories where individuals have started up against the larger company, and the Competition Bureau has been contacted, but they have been too slow to act. There are ways to ensure that you can put the small guy out of business if comes into your larger marketplace.
There is also another dynamic that has taken place and that is that increasingly the advertising buying decisions are not made by Mr. Smith on Main Street. Even in smaller towns it is becoming more and more chain-operated.
When I started my career 30 years ago the Sears store across the street had a department of 10 people. That department 20 years ago disappeared. I believe one person in Toronto that today makes the decisions for virtually all of Sears in Canada.
So purchases of advertising now are done on a national, provincial basis, so you need to be part of the network, and even the small papers are increasingly finding that to be a need.
It is still easier, granted, to start a weekly up. I live in Niagara and there is a new weekly that has been launched to replace one that was bought out by Torstar Corporation when they launched a new weekly operation in Niagara. So, there is a new weekly started in Thorold; it is a three-person operation. It can happen.
The Chairman: You won at trial. Was that appealed?
Mr. Winkler: No, it was not appealed. I think it is credit to the judge. It took her seven months to get the decision written. Everyone in the industry told me that Hollinger Inc. would appeal, but it did not happen that way. There was really no room for appeal and the judge stayed to the law.
My whole objective was to expose these men. The trial, which lasted eight days concentrated on whether or not I had quit. That was really the issue, but we managed to open it up a lot and get that evidence in.
The Chairman: I want to be very careful about making judgments about cases that are still under investigation by various appropriate authorities, so my questions will be put in general terms. Our job is to look at appropriate policy for broad cases, not just for one or two individuals.
The Chairman: Is there a law that requires the owners, including the beneficial owners, of media be made public?
Mr. Winkler: Yes.
The Chairman: Yes, there should be or, yes, there is?
Mr. Winkler: Yes, there should be, and no, there is no such law. We tried desperately to find out who owned Horizon Publications Inc. Another one of my frustrations with the Competition Bureau is that they obviously did find out and did not alert the securities people. It has taken a long time to get everything settle, and to answer your question, there should be something that makes known who owns the media company.
The Chairman: Dealing with the Competition Bureau and the system, I gather that part of the problem you perceive is that the Competition Bureau tends not to get involved, and certainly not publicly involved, in small operations. Is that your interpretation of the Competition Bureau's involvement?
Mr. Winkler: That is my understanding, yes.
The Chairman: Something that has been brought up in other sessions of this committee has to do also with the way the Competition Bureau approaches media cases, which is to say that it does not look at editorial matters.
There exists a fabulous philosophical justification for saying that no government authority should be looking at editorial matters, news content, and so on. On the other hand, if they only look at advertising, is that adequate?
Is there a way to cut this Gordian knot?
Mr. Winkler: I know that is one of the issues with which you are dealing. Ideally, the Bureau would broaden their mandate to include that authority.
I think simply looking at the competition side of it, with respect to a local ad market, it is far too difficult to ascertain, and I do not know what criteria they would use. I think that it would make more sense for them to have a slightly broader mandate that would include news.
The Chairman: Clearly, the challenge would be to define criteria that could be perceived to be objective and universal rather than subjective.
Mr. Winkler: Exactly.
The Chairman: We do not want a situation where they might decide that they do not like so-and-so, and therefore he will not be allowed to purchase a newspaper company.
Mr. Winkler: Right. The city of Kelowna is a hotbed of media: There are about six radio stations, local TV and the two newspapers. A survey done in Kelown showed that our three-time weekly was number one with the community in terms of where the community turned for community information. Even when we were up against the television station, we had the highest rankings in North America for viewership and our three-time weekly was number one.
That is an example of a paper that was of great value to the community, but the Competition Bureau's perspective was that there was a reduction in competition. I dare say that I think if I had not really harassed them they likely would not have become involved. Mind you, they called me in the first place, I did not call them. I suspect that another competitor who wanted to buy the paper called.
The Chairman: Well, when you have a hotbed, things happen in it, do they not?
Mr. Winkler: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: In many countries, media ownership is different than it is in North America. Political parties and religious organizations are allowed to own newspapers.
What is your opinion on the restriction of ownership of the media?
Mr. Winkler: Well, that is right off the top. I do not like it is my initial reaction. If a particular interest group with deep pockets had the ability to come in and buy an important media outlet the public would speak, the advertiser would speak, and they would punish the media if it did not reflect the community.
The reality is, start-ups are not easily done, and I think that they likely would not be punished to the extent that they should, and the community would likely suffer if the ideology of that particular interest group was able to put itself foremost with that media outlet.
Senator Di Nino: Do you agree with the comments or the criticism that the media sometimes does not listen to all the voices in the country in the same balanced and fair manner?
Mr. Winkler: That is a very general statement.
Senator Di Nino: Did you hear the previous presentation?
Mr. Winkler: I did hear the presentation. My own bias is not unlike theirs; the media is somewhat left-leaning. I think I have seen a change in that somewhat in more recent years.
In the case of the kind of operations I ran, which were a multitude of smaller operations, each publication takes on the personality of the editor, and with the editor a certain degree of bias.
The editors and publishers that I know at a more grassroots level are not engaged in any bias reporting or restricting voices.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Winkler. Your visit has been extremely interesting, and we have kept you a bit longer than we told you we would, but we are grateful to you for giving us your time and your thoughts. It all has been most instructive.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I would like to now welcome Mr. Angelo Persichilli, political editor at Corriere Canadese, an Italian-language daily based in Toronto that has a readership of over 100,000.
Before I invite you to make your presentation, Mr. Persichilli, let me express our condolences about your loss, the death of Mr. Dan Iannuzzi. It was a great loss to the community. You have our sympathies.
Mr. Angelo Persichilli, Political Editor, Corriere Canadese: Thank you. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: We would ask you to make a 10-minute presentation, and then we will follow with questions. The floor is yours.
Mr. Persichilli: Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much. This is my first appearance at a Senate committee. As a journalist, I usually listen to politicians. I feel like I am trading places with you.
Senator Di Nino: I have heard you before, many times.
Mr. Persichilli: There is an overwhelming concern among Canadians about the concentration of media and the lack of diversity of voices. How is it possible to have less diversity of voices in a 1,000-channel environment and a volcano- like Internet, erupting news 24/7, compared to 20 years ago, when we had only two national TV networks, one national radio broadcaster and only one national newspaper?
It is a question that can generate dozens of answers. I am offering two. The first one deals with technicalities of the media in general and broadcasting in particular; the second deals with content.
There are three elements influencing our product — first, the organization, meaning publishers, broadcasters, journalists and operators; second, technology; and third, the audience. During the last 10 or 15 years, technology and audience have changed at a rate that editors and broadcasters find problematic. In fact, while accepting technological changes is relatively easy — just write a cheque — it is more complicated to acknowledge the worldwide changing society and the repercussions in our neighbourhood.
Many organizations, despite big investments in technology, still have problems getting their message to the audience. In my opinion, there are three reasons for this. First, they talk to an audience that no longer exists. Second, their message is obsolete. Third, they are not able to cope with foreign competition; they have refused to acknowledge the new needs of the ever-changing audience.
I can elaborate on this subject during question period, if you want.
Instead of looking at the cause of the problem and trying to reconnect with the audience, improving the content, our broadcasters and editors have asked the government for help and have adopted the same cure adopted abroad — in the United States — and that is convergence. Size matters, they say.
Honourable senators, regardless of how much we merge, we will never be bigger than them. The only chance we have is to be better than them. Their cry for help from the government will not solve our problems; rather, it will only delay the demise.
Technology has forced us to open up to foreign competition. Unfortunately, Canadian media operators, instead of fighting foreign competition by increasing the quality of our programs or the content of our newspapers, have reduced the competition inside.
This fortress mentality, coupled with the Canadian mergers and convergence, is killing competition inside Canada and fostering competition from outside. Instead of using technology to improve our product, the new corporate owners are using the new technology to reduce costs. It costs only a few cents to run 10 stories from around the world, using news agencies and the Internet. It costs more to run a story from downtown Hamilton and Chicoutimi. We see newscasts broadcasting the same footage and newspapers printing the same story. In short, we have more competition from abroad, and less, much less, from within.
Let us consider the dispute now before the CRTC, just for the sake of argument. The CRTC wants to regulate journalists from CTV Newsnet, for example, but it allows FOX News and other foreign broadcasters to reach Canadian viewers without restrictions. Hence, instead of unleashing the creativity of our journalists and increasing internal competition, we increase external competition and reduce the internal creativity.
Let me go back to the three elements of the media — organization, technology, and audience — and deal for a moment with the first one, the organization.
Madam chair, 10 or 15 years ago, publishers made money selling newspapers. The more they were selling, the more money they were making. It was what some call a vicious circle. Good journalists write good stories; more good stories, more readers/viewers, more advertising, more money. To do this, they needed to have a direct relationship with people.
The new doctrine, after the mergers — post-convergence — has changed the role of the publisher/owner. The publisher is not just the owner of that media outlet. In fact, in most of cases, the major interest of the new ownership is somewhere else. There is a distinct danger that the new ownership is using the media, not necessarily to increase the readership and the quality and then trying to reach our people, but as a tool to promote their major interest. In other words, making money is not their primary objective, as long as they use the media to pressure the government, for example.
Let me elaborate — and I know a bit about this. I am coming from Italy, and we know about media, politics, and ownership — and Mr. Berlusconi. The only difference at this time is that Mr. Berlusconi made the mistake of being directly in politics. However, being outside, not caring about making money through the media, he was basically using the media to defend his other interests. We are heading in that direction, unfortunately, I believe in Canada.
We can fight this for better journalism, if we use our skills and our creativity, not by hiding ourselves behind government legislation and regulations.
You might ask yourself why I focussed on the so-called mainstream media. As a representative of an Italian daily newspaper, Corriere Canadese, I wan to talk about the so-called ethnic media.
The ethnic media have the same characteristics as the mainstream media, with one difference — that is, we are dealing with the problems I just mentioned much better than the mainstream media. The conventional media have always been convinced that, given our integration into Canadian society, the ethnic media would lose steam. Basically, they believed — actually, they still believe — that language is the driving force behind readership and audience. Of course, they are wrong. In fact, it is the English media that is in trouble, believing that the language would protect them, not the content. In fact, it is the language that kills them. The English-language American programs are hurting them, not because of the language however but because of the content.
On the top of this, there is an increasing demand for channels in other languages. We have German, Portuguese, Arabic. We know what the Italian community is doing to get more Italian-speaking outlets. In addition, there are three more channels from Telelatino, and most likely we are going to get RAI, also. So much for the claim that the Italian language was going to die in Canada. We at Corriere Canadese welcome them all, knowing that their presence will increase and promote the market.
That does not mean that we are giving away our Canadian culture — not at all. Multilingualism is not coming from stations like Channel 47; it is coming from the many channels, in many languages, that are coming into Canada. That is what multilingualism is all about.
How can we fight all of this to defend our culture? The answer is multiculturalism. In the late 1980s, the thinking was to accommodate ethnic minorities by granting them multilingual television, an effective means to allow those communities to continue speaking their own language while feeling a part of this country. This was good at the time, but now it will result in the creation of closed boxes, unable to communicate to one another and to the rest of the country, and unable to put Canadians in a condition to understand each other or exchange experiences.
Multilingual television is now not a Canadian brand name. Multilingual television is now an international phenomenon dominating the airways. Just surf the channels, the cable lineup, and you will see where multilingualism is coming from. We must find a way not to stop this phenomenon, which would be impossible anyway, but to use our multicultural experience to make it a national policy.
Knowing each other better will also help to solve the seeds of racism towards those who are not of the mainstream majority. If we want to sell multiculturalism to the world, we must first use it as a real national policy in all institutions, starting from the media institutions. If anything, the so-called minorities in areas like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are majorities. Understanding them, it might mean a break it or make it for many broadcasters, ethnic or otherwise.
The Kent and the Davey commissions provided valuable guidance to past generations of Canadians. In your work, by daring to challenge the conventional wisdom, you and your committee will make an equal significant contribution to our national life.
I thank you for this opportunity to present in front of this committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might ask.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Persichilli, we always hear about diversity of voices. To you, does it mean ethnic, racial, ideological? What does ``diversity of voices'' mean to you?
Mr. Persichilli: I told you to ask tough questions, and that is a tough one.
Truth, in my opinion, does not exist. Truth is an aspiration. Journalists can be honest, but as to objectivity and truth, anyone who sells you the truth and objectivity does not understand journalism, or it is not honest. If you look at what I am holding here, it is very white, it is very thin, it is both. It is true when I say it is thin; it is true when I say it is white. It is important I am honest when I make the presentation. I have to report what I believe the people might be interested in — yes, it is through my eyes, but I should not have a second meaning. I should not hide something because it may be inconvenient for a certain group. No, I expose. I might be wrong, but I must be honest.
I am not trying to avoid your question, but whoever answers your question does not know exactly what is going on. In my opinion, being honest and reporting what you know — who is going to judge if you are right? If you have listeners, readers and viewers, it means that you are honest.
Senator Tkachuk: When you talked about our ability to compete against all of the different media that are going to be allowed and are being allowed in the country, what is it that prevents them from competing now?
Mr. Persichilli: Let me refer to the case in front of the CRTC now, CTV Newsnet — that they have to report in a certain way. They have to stop every 10 minutes to report a different capsule.
Senator Tkachuk: I am aware.
Mr. Persichilli: I believe we should let broadcasters broadcast whatever they feel their audience is comfortable with.
Senator Tkachuk: Why would they be doing that? When you read about what they are asking Newsnet to do, CTV to do, and actually what they do do, because that is part of their licence, it seems so ridiculous that it defies description.
Why would the CRTC have put this regulation in place anyway? Why would they not just have a news channel? Why not let Global have one or anybody else have one?
Mr. Persichilli: Perhaps they believe that by stopping CTV Newsnet from covering a certain event they are protecting other broadcasters.
Senator Tkachuk: Like CBC Newsworld — who else would they be protecting?
Mr. Persichilli: That is the point. I do not believe they protect Newsworld this way. Say Newsnet has 10 viewers: maybe five go to Newsworld and five go to CNN. In other words, Canadian broadcasting systems lose five.
Senator Tkachuk: So are you trying to tell me that the reason they would be protecting Newsnet would be so that people would be watching — they are not — surely, they are not protecting CNN or FOX News or any of the other international —
Mr. Persichilli: There are many questions I cannot answer when we talk about CRTC. This is one of them.
Senator Munson: I am going to plead conflict of interest on every question I ask, whether it is CBC or CRTC or CTV. When CTV applied for the Newsnet licence, they agreed to the restrictions to get their licence at that particular time. In the changing world, they are lobbying extensively to change it so they can have a level playing field with Newsworld. It was CBC that fought against CTV covering a live event. At that time, it was all about protecting your back.
Senator Tkachuk: Preserving your monopoly.
Senator Munson: We had people from the National Ethnic Press with us a few weeks ago. They talked about levelling the playing field, helping out the ethnic press. They were looking for things such as the elimination of the GST and creating a special account for the ethnic press, making it easier for the ethnic press to survive.
Do you see anything the government can do in a regulatory way with subsidies or otherwise to make the ethnic press more vibrant, or are you satisfied with the playing field as it is today?
Mr. Persichilli: I would like the government to treat the so-called ethnic media like they treat national and English or French media. That media has many direct and indirect subsidies from the government. Look at the situation with Sports Illustrated — I think it was Bill C-40 at that time — protecting them from the American media. They have some subsidies from the federal government. I think it was worth $80 million or $90 million. Do I agree with that? I am not saying either way, but what you do with one you should do with the other, in my opinion.
My point is that the federal government, in its advertising budget, for example, the money given to the national media for advertising is not given to the so-called ethnic media. The ethnic media is not treated fairly, in terms of giving some advertising.
So I am not necessarily calling for more subsidies. I am just saying that they should be treated just like anyone else.
Senator Munson: We also heard complaints that some ethnic media are using other institutions and other countries just as a cover for what they are writing. For example, it was told to us that certain Chinese newspapers have a front but that on the inside it is actually the People's Daily, that it is simply a cover for a point of view from another part of the world.
Do you have an issue with that? Do you have a problem with that sort of thing?
Mr. Persichilli: Do they sell newspapers? Are people buying the newspaper?
Senator Munson: I think they are given away. I am not sure if — yes.
Mr. Persichilli: This is a market issue, in my opinion. Let us say that I am promoting, in my case, coming long ago from Italy, something from Italy. If people do not like it, they will not buy it.
I am of Italian origin; I like things of Italian culture. However, we do not have to talk about nationalism, because I am a Canadian citizen. They are two different things. Hence, it depends on what those Chinese newspapers are reporting. If they are reporting things about pro-China, let us say, against Canada, I do not agree with that. If they are promoting some cultural Chinese events, I do agree.
I do not read Chinese; therefore, I cannot tell you if it is right or wrong. My opinion is that it depends on the content.
Senator Munson: RAI Television — you have talked about a level playing field between Newsnet and FOX News. I have not read all the reasons why RAI has not been allowed to get a licence here, but it seems to me there must be a very influential lobby in Toronto who do not like the idea, perhaps, of competition.
Mr. Persichilli: As a journalist, I have been involved in the issue. I believe I know what is going on. I believe it is a technical problem more than a political or cultural one. There is a technical problem that has to be dealt with.
We have some Italian institutions, some Canadian institutions, and it is all business. They failed to resolve some of their problems and their differences, and they are trying to unload all those problems into the political system, trying to have an answer that they were not able to deal with. However, I believe it is a technical problem, not a political issue.
Senator Munson: Without getting into the technical problem, do you believe in good competition. There is TV Cinque in the rest of the country, so are you in favour of an open market?
Mr. Persichilli: Whether we like it or not, it is here. We cannot stop the skies. We cannot stop broadcasting. I believe the Soviet Union was destroyed because of communications, because of the airwaves. Hence, if countries like the former Soviet Union were not able to stop information at their border, I do not think we will succeed. So whether we like it or not, I believe that we have to deal with it.
I consider myself a Canadian journalist. I do not feel the competition from Italian journalists, or for that matter from American journalists. Let them come on.
In the early 1980s, when I was working for then Channel 47, now OMNI, we had some programs in Italian, and I was very popular in cities like Rochester and Buffalo. I was on there every night; I did not know I was popular. I went there a couple times, and people knew me. We formalized an agreement. We were the only station able to sell Canadian programs to the Americans at that time. They stopped us, for one reason or another, though.
If we sell our product in the U.S. — I am talking especially about third-language programs — there is a lot of request in the U.S. That is a top market that we have decided not to explore. So let us open the skies. I think we have the ability to deal with them.
Senator Merchant: I came to this country a long time ago too, but I am not a journalist. I live in Regina, and we have a community of 1,000 Greeks. We do not have a newspaper, but we are able to keep our culture. The children of the children who were born here speak Greek as well as I do, and I was educated in Greece for six years, or maybe even better, because they speak it at home. I am not married into the Greek community, so I do not speak any Greek at home.
I am trying to understand the role the ethnic media play in the life of immigrants in this country. I am told there are communities in Toronto or Montreal where the Greek community is so large that their children do not learn to speak English. They do not have to. I am sure they do, but they do not need to, and their grandchildren do not need to. They never need to get outside of their community.
Is that good for the country? Is it good to promote that kind of ethnicity, where we hold on to our customs and we hold on to our language? There are many good things about it, perhaps. You did not see any problem, you said, with nationalism, because they are Canadians. You do not see any problem with nation-building or bringing us closer together. Now we cannot do anything about it, because it is coming from the sky, as you said, so we cannot control it any more. Why encourage it, however? What exactly is the reason?
Mr. Persichilli: There are many questions that you have posed. Things change according to the community and their length of time in Canada. What was true 30 or 50 years ago, it is not true today. The kind of immigration back then was such that most people come here with one thing in mind — and I am talking about the Italian community: Buy a house and give a future to the children. They had no interest whatsoever in trying to learn the language. That was 30 years ago, without multiculturalism. I am talking about the 1950s. Multiculturalism is from the 1970s. In the 1950s, many people did not learn the language.
Things are now changing, for many reasons. Immigration is changing. One of the requirements vis-à-vis the new immigration laws is that you have to know the language, you must know the language. Hence, if you do not speak the language — I am not saying there is no chance to be in Canada, but definitely it is much more difficult.
When my children were born, I made sure my son's name was just like my father's name. My son's name is Nicola, and my daughter is Tina. I was making sure that everybody — even though my son opposed it, because in English Nicola is more a female name. I was pushing, though; I said, ``Your name is Nicola.'' To make a long story short, I went back to Italy and my children had two cousins — Lucy and Mary. So what is the language?
Senator Merchant: Of course, in Europe, they all love to speak English. They watch all the English channels.
Mr. Persichilli: As I said, I believe we have to make a big difference between culture and nationalism. It is in the interest of everybody to learn another language, in this case, English.
Let me tell you something else. My boss passed away a few weeks ago. He was a third-generation Canadian. He was fluent in French and English, but he was considered ethnic. Therefore, most of the time, the choice is not ours to decide who we want to be, but it is for the country to accept my boss, when my boss or his son or his daughter are not ethnic any more.
This is not a question that we can answer. It is a question Canada has to answer, especially the two major cultures, English and French. They have to see, they have to understand, when my boss is not an immigrant any more, third- generation Canadian.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Persichilli will not tell you this, but I will tell you a very quick story that his son told me. On the first day he went to school, his teacher introduced him as an Italian, but of course he was born here in Canada. However, some little girl by the name of Jennifer, whose family had just come, I think, from England or Australia, was introduced simply as Jennifer. The point is that Nicola, because of his name, was introduced as being Italian. That gives you some perspective, I think. It is one of those facts that we have to accept. However, maybe a little bit a time we will be able to break it down.
Mr. Persichilli, I want to talk to you about some of the comments you made regarding the third-language media. You and I know, because we deal with this every day here, that they are very successful. The Italian, Chinese, Portuguese, Filipinos, the South Asian communities, are not in the same situation that mainstream newspapers find themselves, that is, not making money. Why is that, in your opinion? I know the third-language papers are smaller — actually, some of them are not that small. Take, for example, the Corriere Canadese, which has a readership of 100,000. Why do they make money, whereas, the National Post, say, is having a huge problem making money?
Mr. Persichilli: There are many reasons. For one, they pay their journalists too much. We are paid much less than we are supposed to.
When I worked in television at channel 47 and was covering events around the world, and was at the same time writing the story for Corriere Canadese, which was part of the same corporation, I would came into contact with CBC people and they had many more people covering the same event. They had a sound technician, someone to bring a tripod, so many people. Each of us would end up filling only two minutes each, but they had many more people. CTV was different. I saw some of their people working hard, much harder, as well as people from other corporations.
However, one of the reasons we can make money is that we try to use all the resources we have. We maximize everything. Maybe when you work for a big corporation, you do not maximize. That might be one explanation.
The other one is that we are more focussed. I do not think some of the mainstream companies are focussed. They run huge corporations and huge news departments. At the end of the day, however, they do not cover the stories they are supposed to. One of the reasons for that is that they do not have a specific market. They still believe that this is Canada, and you write for Canadians. However, if you ask them who the Canadians are, they do not have any answer. So they prepare a product but they do not know who they are selling the product to. We know who we are selling our product to.
Senator Di Nino: Our role here is to make some contribution to the creation of public policy. You talk about the Broadcasting Act, about the CRTC, about the Competition Bureau. Those are the things we are looking at to see if we can improve the relationship between the media and the public.
There is concentration of ownership, conversions, and support systems, in the sense that — I think I heard you loud and clear when you say you do not want any subsidies.
Mr. Persichilli: We want to be treated like others.
Senator Di Nino: When we are looking at this, what would you have us focus on to help the industry in general, but in particular to help the industry that deals with third language?
Mr. Persichilli: We should recreate the role of a real publisher, talking about newspapers, the publisher. As I mentioned in my presentation, at one time the publisher was very sensitive to the audience, to the readership. Otherwise, newspapers would not sell.
It is ironic, because we do not like what CRTC is doing in broadcasting but we regret the fact that there is no CRTC for printing.
Senator Di Nino: Well, I actually agree with that.
I do not want to interrupt you, but the publisher is an entity, an individual, a corporation, what-have-you, that owns a newspaper or some magazine/newspaper combination. You are not suggesting that we should start putting rules on who the publisher should be and what they can do?
Mr. Persichilli: Let me put it this way: If we keep having so-called publishers that have interests other than newspapers, journalism is going to suffer.
As to content, we should be free. There should be no rules about content. However, as to ownership, I believe that we do need rules.
Senator Di Nino: Let me ask one other question, if I may, one last question. I really believe that Canada is redefining the world order in the sense of how communities of such a great variety of people — social, cultural and religious diversity — can live together, where future generations will have much more understanding of each other. The third- language papers, I think, can play a role. I am not sure they have played as much of a role as they should be playing in promoting this new Canadian vision of tomorrow for our grandchildren and so forth.
Do you agree with me, and what can we do, in the sense of a public policy standpoint, to promote that?
Mr. Persichilli: I believe there is a tendency in some interpretation of multiculturalism to push back everything, to let people understand that whatever they do is fine and that whatever they preach about Canada is fine. I believe that we should promote Canada within those people, because I do not believe we do enough; I do not think we do enough.
The government is involved in so-called activities with minorities. However, lately, I see a difference; I see some activity promoting Canada. I might say something that might sound outrageous, but the kind of activity that the federal government was doing in promoting Canada in Quebec is positive and should be done not just in Quebec.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This is very interesting, Mr. Persichilli.
Help us understand a little better how we would move our media towards multiculturalism. Could you give some specific examples? You said earlier that we had to channel the media towards multiculturalism. Do you mean in terms of content? Do you mean in terms of journalists? Are you talking in terms of the television media as well as radio and print? Could you just give us a few examples of how we might accomplish that?
Mr. Persichilli: There are many ways we can accomplish it. I believe we should be driven by what the market wants. I can give two examples. I am talking about news mainly, because that is the sector I am coming from.
As I said, I am of Italian origin, but I feel Canadian. However, if there is something going on in Italy, I would like to know about it, because my mother, my sister, all my relatives are there. I do not see international news covered by national media. I am just talking about international news. There are local and national stories, but I do not see those kinds of events that I might be interested in on national news. The only time we see international news covered by Canadian broadcasters is when something huge has taken place. However, at that point, I switch to CNN, because they are more direct, faster, and they tell me more. Hence, if I want to know more, I watch CNN, for the big news events, say, an earthquake or a big bombing.
We should snap out of it, especially in a city like Toronto. If you approach international news with a different attitude, you will get more, you will understand more. I am not just talking about an earthquake in Portugal or in Greece or in Italy. I am talking about many other events. If our national media covered those stories, I would be closer to Canada, because I would watch national news, Canadian national news.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: To follow up, would you set it up that at a certain hour, at eight o'clock on Wednesdays, say, there is going to be international news focussed on Italy, for example?
Mr. Persichilli: Oh, no, just normal news. If something major is happening, CNN will pick it up. However, I am suggesting carrying other stories from certain countries that you know your audience is interested in.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You mean, change the time —
Mr. Persichilli: No, the importance.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In terms of our newscasts, there is so much that is international, but it is always focussed on the hot spots.
Mr. Persichilli: That is what I am saying.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So you say less hot news.
Mr. Persichilli: I am not necessarily saying —
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Maybe it is quite common, really.
Mr. Persichilli: Take Newsnet and Newsworld, for example. They have a lot of time. They can cover the hot spot in the hot news, as well as other news stories from around the world, instead of focussing on certain events that might interest some people but leave out most new Canadians.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Well, what about the international news that comes on right after the main news at seven o'clock, I think it is, in Atlantic Canada? Is not that right? Is there not an hour of international news on CBC?
Mr. Persichilli: At six o'clock.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes, it follows. There is a whole hour. Now, does that cover Italy, to much extent?
Mr. Persichilli: Yes, but the broadcaster is BBC.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: British, yes.
Mr. Persichilli: That is exactly my point.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In order to for us to do it, we would have to send reporters.
Mr. Persichilli: No, no, no, no, and Senator Munson can —
Senator Munson: We need more international reporters.
Mr. Persichilli: I am talking about more than a national mentality. When I was at channel 47 — I do not know now because I have been out of that sector a few years — we covered the international news very well.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It may be very good that you are not in the news. It means that it is calm and beautiful there, that life is good.
The Chairman: There is a lot of consciousness-raising that needs to be done on an almost permanent basis, I guess.
I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions very quickly about your paper. Is it paid circulation, or is it free?
Mr. Persichilli: Paid.
The Chairman: What is the actual circulation? Your readership is 100,000, but what is the circulation? Do you know, approximately?
Mr. Persichilli: It depends on the day. It goes from 20 to 30.
The Chairman: Okay. And it is six days a week?
Mr. Persichilli: Monday to Saturday, and we also publish Tandem, which is an English-language magazine, every Friday.
The Chairman: What do readers want most from you? Do they want news about Italy? Do they want news about Italian-Canadians? Do they want news about the whole of Canada only written in Italian? I am sure they want all of these, but which would be the priority?
Mr. Persichilli: It depends on the kind of audience or the kind of readership you want. Young people are interested in soccer, for example. When you talk about soccer, of course —
The Chairman: Italy, Italy, Italy.
Senator Merchant: And Greece.
The Chairman: And Greece.
Mr. Persichilli: Absolutely. They are European champions, yes.
That is the kind of coverage young people want. They also want to read about music. So Corriere as well as Tandem covers that.
The 30-year-old to 50-year-old group is interested in business and trade. They are interested in exchange. There are many of those people. Many are in the Italian-Canadian community are very interested in politics also — not much from Italy but from Canada. And that is my job.
The Chairman: Political editor.
Thank you very much, indeed. It has been an extremely interesting session and we are very grateful to you for being with us.
Senators, we will now open the floor to members of the public so that they may make brief presentations to us.
We have with us now D. Peter Reynolds and Peter G. Reynolds, who are here representing deaftv.ca
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds, as an individual: On the behalf of the deaf community, we want to thank you for seeing us. Normally, as per our mandate, we would have one of our deaf team members speak to you directly; however, unfortunately, we did not have enough time to book a sign language interpreter.
To speed up the process — we know we only have five minutes — I will read our statement. Following that, we will answer any questions you might have.
Communications technology is having a profound impact on Canadians who communicate in American Sign Language, ASL. No single cultural group is gaining greater benefits from Internet-related services such as e-mail and text messaging than ASL users. These technologies have drawn deaf Canadians together in ways undreamed of only a few years ago. They are proving to be powerful instruments in fostering relationships and helping community leaders in their long and often frustrating struggle for equal rights.
The rapid development of streaming media, and the ease with which we can watch video on our computers, opens up exciting opportunities for ASL users. Deaf people, using high-speed connections, can see and talk to each other directly over vast distances. They can also view video on the Internet presented entirely in sign language.
Deaf TV, the public affairs television series, and its companion website, deaftv.ca, are pioneering all of these technologies for benefit of deaf Canadians. It is partnered with the Canadian Deaf Heritage Centre. The centre, which is a project of the Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf, will be a permanent showcase of deaf history and culture and will be located in Toronto's historic distillery district.
Deaf TV began as a pilot program funded and aired by OMNI Television in Toronto. OMNI also funded Deaf Pride, a documentary about the 14th World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf, held in Montreal in July of 2003. Both programs, produced by a team of hearing and deaf broadcasters, have had repeated airings on OMNI 1 and 2 and Bell ExpressVU. To make them fully accessible, the programs are presented in ASL with subtitles and the voice of an interpreter.
We believe that the Deaf TV website — deaftv.ca — which features broadband streaming video, can serve not only the information needs of deaf Canadians but be a model of how broadband can bring other communities closer together. This is one of the reasons we will seek to develop mutually beneficial relationships with those private and government entities who have a direct interest in promoting information technology and services.
Let me turn to the subject of fundraising. The producers of Deaf TV are currently raising money for a continuing series and training program as well as seeking additional broadcast outlets for the series in Canada, as well as in the United States and other countries where ASL is used. We also belief Deaf TV can be a model for a French-language (LSQ) version of the project. Any assistance this committee can provide us in identifying funding sources and broadcast outlets would be greatly appreciated.
We are enclosing a video CDs of Deaf TV. We believe this program is convincing evidence that deaf people can make television programs that attract both a deaf and a hearing audience. Few, if any, deaf people work in television. Deaf TV hopes to change that through example and training and mentoring programs.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you private, or is it non-profit?
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: The Canadian Deaf Heritage Project is a non-profit organization, and right now For The Record Productions, which is our company, is working with them to help produce this thing. Currently, we are trying to see how it is going to work, whether is it going to be purely for profit, working with the broadcaster, or non-profit. That really has not been decided at this point.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not sure what you mean. When you say ``Deaf TV,'' are you talking about sponsoring or producing a television production for regular television, or is it expanding the text driven on more channels? What is it? Help me out here.
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: Deaf TV is cultural — like Italian-Canadian programming or Chinese-Canadian programs; it is deaf-Canadian programming. In other words, it is programming in American Sign Language, programming by the deaf for the deaf, from the deaf point of view. So it is in their own language, broadcast entirely in sign language, rather than English-language programming close-captioned.
Senator Tkachuk: So are you talking about a channel or are you talking about an actual production that would be sold?
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: It would be an actual production sold to other broadcasters. Ultimately, you know, we have discussed the idea of having a Deaf TV channel. But initially, the idea of being on a mainstream broadcaster with a regular weekly program was more effective than just having a digital channel somewhere high up in the dial where nobody can see it. Again, it is just as important to reach deaf Canadians about deaf issues as it is to reach hearing Canadians about deaf issues. So that is a sort of two-pronged approach.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds, as an individual: It is a weekly magazine program, like any other weekly magazine program.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, except it is done with sign language.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: Done in sign language, as you will see on the CD.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, that is interesting.
How many deaf people are there in Canada?
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: I know in Ontario there are 50,000 people who directly use ASL to communicate on a daily basis. Vis-à-vis the numbers across Canada, not only of people who are deaf, deafened and hard of hearing, but also their family members, it is closer to a million people that are in some way using ASL on a daily basis.
Senator Tkachuk: For those who are blind, there is a designation of being legally blind. Is the same applicable to people who are deaf or hard of hearing?
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: There is deaf, deafened, and hard of hearing, I am not sure, to be honest, as to the number of legally deaf people there would be in Canada.
Often there are people who are hard of hearing who have, through family or their own situation, gone the auditory way; that is, they have learned to speak, they have not learned ASL. Then there are those people who are not stone deaf, if you want to call it that, but who are hard of hearing, but have chosen to learn ASL because they can communicate more easily than speaking.
Senator Tkachuk: In terms of your weekly show, is it a standard format? Is it a drama production, usually all sign language, or is it a news show, or is it a mixture?
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: It is a mixture. The world of the deaf, if you want to call it that, is rich in all cultural areas — poetry, storytelling, news stories. It is a language and a culture unto itself, and it is as varied as any cultural group. The program, the series, would reflect that culture, not only back to the people whose principal language is ASL but to the public at large.
This program will be of interest not just to the people who are deaf and use ASL, but family members, people who are learning ASL, which is very popular in schools across the country, plus people who work with people who are deaf in government and social services and whatever. It will provide an opportunity for the non-deaf like ours to see what is happening in the deaf world, and that does not exist today, and has never existed on mainstream television.
Senator Merchant: I think most of my questions have been answered, just by what Senator Tkachuk has asked you. I have had very limited experience with the deaf — I had a deaf student when I was teaching school. This was in the 1970s, so it was a long time ago. I am delighted to see the kind of universe has that opened to them, because this young girl was having terrible difficulty just operating in the classroom. I am glad that you are here to alert us and to awaken us to what is happening with the deaf people.
Is there anything like your program in the United States or Europe, that you are aware of, or in Asia?
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: There is in Europe. The BBC, for example, has stepped up to the plate, as it usually does, but we do not in our country. I am a former CBC producer. I started The Disability Network on CBC, which is now called Moving On, and this is really modelled on that experience.
The BBC has a full-fledged department. They do dramas and documentaries, as well as a magazine show. The BBC pays for it, and that is the end of the issue. The deaf community or other disabilities has to beg and plead and manoeuvre for money and support. Nevertheless, the program still hangs by a thread every year, because it has to go out and get funding.
I wish the CBC or CTV or Global or somebody would step up to the plate and say, ``This is our responsibility. Here is serious money. Let's get on with serving this community in its own language,''' but that has not been done.
Senator Merchant: With regard to the people who are doing these programs, are some of them deaf and some not, or how does this work?
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: Our team is made up of both deaf and non-deaf broadcasters. One of the issues that we found when we started the project was that the deaf community had virtually no exposure to broadcasting, no experience at all. That was stage one of the process. It has been just over a year that we started with OMNI, gathering and training a team of deaf people, from on-camera presentations, to writing, reporting, lighting, anything of that nature. We built a team, and together we produced both Deaf Pride, the documentary, and Deaf TV.
We hope to continue that, so when we continue with a continuing series we will not only have the actual production side, but also an ongoing training and mentoring program to create more deaf broadcasters.
Senator Merchant: It is good to have role models.
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: Absolutely. In fact, that is the title of the pilot.
Senator Merchant: Is it? I have not seen it.
It may also encourage schools of journalism to encourage and help the deaf to get training.
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: One of the greatest things about the show was some of the e-mails we got. Some were from adults, but the majority of them were all from young students, grade 4 and 5 students, who said, ``Wow. I never thought I would see somebody speaking my language on television directly to me. Maybe I can be part of Deaf TV someday.'' That is what it is all about.
Senator Di Nino: Kudos to both of you and all the other folks. Does this have a commercial value, outside of the limited market you are now serving?
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: Yes, it does, and we would like to see it put on a commercial basis. We have envisioned creating a permanent, well-paid, supported production unit, with the skills that are necessary. They can do a variety of tasks in the broadcast field.
There is a television program, as well as the production of DVDs and CDs that we are involved in; we are a kind of publishing house in broadcast media that will offer a variety of services. So whether it is providing information to the website, producing videos, doing consulting work, we would like the project to be a kind of one-stop shop. We want a journalist or a story editor or a producer somewhere in the non-deaf world who wants to do a story to know to come to us; we want them to know where to find the experts. Those are services that we want to be able to sell, because it has to be long term.
We keep saying to our associates, ``We do not want to be struggling from year to year, looking for handouts, looking for money, begging, just struggling along, people working at minimum wage, volunteering.'' We want to have our people hold their heads up and say, ``We are a legitimate company, and we are making money.'' We need a leg up to get started, but the plan — and we are constantly discussing this with people in the deaf community — is to be self- sufficient, to be productive.
Senator Di Nino: I would imagine the market would be wider than most other programs, in that the voice-over and the subtitles could be inserted in a variety of different languages around the world.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: Absolutely.
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: Absolutely.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: If you look at the disk we have given to you, it can be put into any language.
Senator Di Nino: That is what I thought.
There are obviously some national deaf organizations, the Hearing Society — I am trying to remember — certainly the Bob Rumble Centre for the Dead. Reverend Rumble is just an incredible, wonderful man.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: I agree.
Mr. Peter G. Reynolds: Absolutely.
Senator Di Nino: Have you approached these folks?
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: In fact, we lobbied —
Senator Di Nino: You asked for some suggestions.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: I would like to, if I may, publicly thank OMNI Television and Rogers. This would not have been possible without the $60,000 from the Rogers Independent Producers Fund. They believed in ASL as a distinct language and culture — and they are probably the first broadcaster in North America to have done that, to believe in that.
Putting subtitles or little windows up in the corner is one thing, but it is not the total story. They bought the idea, because Deaf TV — the programs that have appeared on Rogers are part of their mandate, their multicultural mandate. So they recognized and accepted the fact that this is a language like any other language. Everything flows from that.
I forgot the question.
Senator Tkachuk: No, no, that was a hell of an answer. The answer was a good one.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This is an important presentation.
This may be naïve — and so I apologize — but I am just wondering what kind of calls you have received or requests you have taken on equality with regard to the news. In other words, has there ever been a demand from the deaf community, or the organizations that represent you, to have sign language on at least one major newscast, let us say, on television a day? There was sign language interpretation on a television event a week or two ago — I think it was when President Bush was here. I remember it so well because it is so unusual. We see it at conventions. We see it at major meetings. However, in terms of the news, has this request been made and refused? It seems to me that this is an equality issue.
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: When you say a ``request,'' to whom do you mean?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I mean, for example, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to have a major newscast co-produced with sign language. It could be the suppertime news, the ten o'clock or nine o'clock news, whatever. Has there been a request for sign language on those broadcasts?
Mr. D. Peter Reynolds: Let me go back to my own involvement with the CBC as an executive producer. We produced a show entitled Silent News, which was on CBC Newsworld. That show was the first and last newscast in sign language, and it was funded at that time by Ontario government. CBC provided the facilities and all the resources. Silent News was hosted by a deaf person. We would run the top stories of the week in one box, but front and centre would be a person signing. It was very impressive, and people really liked it. However, the CBC did not have the money to support the program directly, and so it ended.
As far as requests are concerned — and this is the negative side — when we completed Deaf TV, the pilot, and Deaf Pride, we made up a nice bundle and sent them off to CTV, to CBC, and to Global, with all the documentation. We never got even an acknowledgment or the receipt of those back.
However, we have a letter ready to go to Mr. Rabinovitch and the other people asking them to please acknowledge this, because it is important, and the deaf community is not going to be ignored this way. We take it as an insult that they did not even bother to respond. As an ex-CBC producer, I was surprised by this, particularly. However, I am optimistic that we can get a greater response.
Our plan is to approach the broadcasters and ask them to pool some money for this programming. They could amass a pool of money to create this entity called Deaf TV, and then they could all carry the program, free of charge. The program would have the widest possible exposure. People could be trained, and an understanding could be built between the deaf and the non-deaf in Canada. Today's meeting is the first step in this plan.
The Chairman: Let me thank the both of you for your attendance here today. Thank you for the fascinating presentation.
Please let us know how things work out. As you can tell, we are all interested in it.
I would now invite Mr. Hasanat Ahmad Syed and Mr. Sultan Qureshi from the South Asian Journalists Club to come to the table.
Mr. Hasanat Ahmad Syed, as an individual: Good afternoon. I am grateful to the chair and the clerk of the committee for affording to me this rare opportunity to address this standing committee.
Professor John Miller of Ryerson University has already spoken to you on the plight of the visible minorities in the newsrooms of mainstream media. His research found that they are six times underrepresented.
I am here to present to you the plight of ethnic media, which was somewhat described by Mr. Thomas Saras when he appeared before the committee in Ottawa.
In the booklet that is in your hand, I have provided to you some important documents on the state of advertising to ethnic media.
Last year, the federal government spent about $100 million on advertising. Of this, only $1 million — that is, 1 per cent — went to ethnic advertising. This year, nine months have elapsed. So far, not a single cent of advertising has been released to ethnic media. Why?
The federal government has slashed its budget on advertising by 15 per cent. I would ask you to see the press note on page 3 of the booklet. The decrease is probably a result of the sponsorship scandal. However, the unwitting victim of this saga is the ethnic media.
We wrote to the leader of the opposition and pointed out to him that his vigorous pursuit of this scandal has deeply hurt the ethnic media. His reply can be found on page 4.
The slashing of the budget by 15 per cent is a direct fallout of this scandal and has hurt the ethnic media. We are sure that the Government of Canada is fully aware of the stepmotherly treatment being meted out to ethnic media.
A letter from Ralph Goodale, the then Minister of Public Works and Government Services, is on page 5. In there, he acknowledged this unfortunate fact and sought the assistance and cooperation of the club to educate the departments concerned on the vital importance of utilizing the ethnic media. We promised him full cooperation in the matter, and we are still waiting.
The present Minister of Public Works and Government Services was made aware of the fact that the ethnic media faces the possibility of a 30 per cent commission, and his reply can be found at page 7. We are still awaiting a clear response.
The vital importance of ethnic media can be gauged from the census figure. We include the document at page 9 based on census figure. This shows the relative strength of various ethnic languages in Canada. There are nine large ethnic communities, as shown in this document on page 9. The media serving nine large ethnic communities should be considered for all government advertising.
Since the Senate standing committee will be making its recommendations to the Government of Canada about the state of media industry, it is of vital importance that the Senate draw the attention of the government to its responsibility towards implementation and promotion of multiculturalism, which is integral part of the government policies.
By starving the ethnic media of its due share of federal advertising, the government negates the very concept of diversity. We are not asking for any charity. We are asking our due share.
We would ask the committee to make a recommendation that the ethic media's due share of 15 per cent in federal advertising be allocated to the ethnic media. This percentage is based on the figures as reflected in the 2001 census figures, which places the visible minorities at 16 per cent. This also enjoys the protection of the Charter of the Rights, which guarantees equality to all in government programs.
I have a lot to say, but I know the members of the Senate committee have been listening to representation after representation and must be tired. Therefore, I close my brief, and I am open to questions.
Senator Tkachuk: In the good old days before the sponsorship scandal, what was the percentage of media dollars that the ethnic press received of the total advertising budget?
Mr. Syed: That is a good question. You see, the total advertising budget of the federal government was $100 million, and the ethnic media was getting 1 per cent — that is, $1 million. That is why I wrote to Mr. Goodale and told him that his responsibility was to educate the department that places the federal government advertising. I told him I was ready to help him. However, he is now the Minister of Finance — so I do not know what happened.
Senator Tkachuk: So before the sponsorship scandal, the ethnic media received about $1 million of the $100 million allocated.
Mr. Syed: That is 1 per cent, of the total advertising budget.
Senator Tkachuk: Today, the government is still spending money on advertising.
Mr. Syed: They are, and the ethnic media for the last nine months has not received a single cent. The reason — actually, I received another letter from the present Minister of Public Works. He pointed out that all the advertising was closed down until June of this year, and then they started advertising. We are now in December. Nine months have already gone by, and we have not received a single cent of advertising.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, there would have been no advertising during the federal election.
Mr. Syed: That is understandable.
Senator Tkachuk: That is understandable, and it is probably true. But how would the sponsorship scandal have affected the fact that you are not getting 1 per cent of the advertising that is being spent now?
Mr. Syed: That is a very good question. The bureaucrats in Ottawa — I think the saying ``once bitten, twice shy'' refers to the bureaucrats who are now very careful in even doing their advertising.
The election is over, and we are now in the ninth month of this current fiscal year. Only three months are left, and not a single cent has been released to us.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not here to tell you what the Liberal government should be doing or not doing, sir.
Mr. Syed: No, of course.
Senator Tkachuk: However, I will give you assurance of one thing. If the federal Liberal government wanted to spend 1 per cent of their advertising dollars on the ethnic media, there would be no problem doing so. The bureaucrats are not at fault. Stephen Harper is not at fault. There is only one person at fault.
Mr. Syed: Do you mean the Prime Minister? See, my own sense is —
Senator Tkachuk: I am not going to say that.
Mr. Syed: I came to the standing committee because you are going to make recommendations about the state of the media in Canada. I have placed the figures in these documents. These are the figures that should be acted upon. In making your recommendations, you can point out the miserable state of this thing.
The Liberals got a minority government, and they got that minority on the backs of the South Asian people living in the GTA. We elected five South Asian members, and we supported 40 others. This is my personal assessment, but we helped the Liberals become elected, and they are ignoring the ethnic minorities.
Senator Tkachuk: I will leave it at that.
Senator Di Nino: How much money did you get the year before last year?
Mr. Syed: Do you mean advertising dollars?
Senator Di Nino: Advertising, yes.
Mr. Syed: I do not have the figure available to me. As I indicated to you, the total advertising budget was $100 million.
Senator Di Nino: That was election year.
Mr. Syed: Before that.
Senator Di Nino: Have you been getting approximately 1 per cent over the last few years?
Mr. Syed: These are government figures, not mine.
Senator Di Nino: In other words, it was not because of election year that you —
Mr. Syed: No, no.
Senator Di Nino: Is this a discussion that has been had at the Ethnic Press Council?
Mr. Syed: No, the Ethnic Press Council has nothing to do with us. We are the South Asian Journalists Club. We do not work with them.
Senator Di Nino: You are talking about the ethnic media.
Mr. Syed: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: You are not talking about just your —
Mr. Syed: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: — portion. You are saying the whole ethnic media. There is an organization called the Ethnic Press Council.
Mr. Syed: I know them.
Senator Di Nino: They speak very eloquently on behalf of the third-language media. Do they feel the same way you do? Have they made representation?
Mr. Syed: Thomas Saras has already made a presentation in Ottawa.
Senator Di Nino: Madam Chair, you heard Mr. Persichilli say basically the same thing — that is, the third-language media are not looking for handouts, that, rather, they are looking for their fair share of whatever is available.
Mr. Syed: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: I would agree with that. My point is that I believe it is an issue that is better presented by the whole ethnic media, under one umbrella organization. If they have said the same thing, that is fine. I have no other questions.
Senator Merchant: I am just trying to figure out why you are not getting any funding. I still do not understand why you are not. I do not understand how the sponsorship scandal is related to you getting some funding.
I am just looking at the letters that you have received from the two ministers. The first one said that Communication Canada could work with your organization to ensure that the agency of record has the most up-to-date list of ethnic media to facilitate the placement of advertisements. They have that? Is there a problem with that?
Mr. Syed: They have.
Senator Merchant: They have that. Minister Brison has said that the choice of any given media is based upon sound media-planning practices that take into account factors such as messaging, media availability, target audience, demographics, circulation, timing, and budget.
You are able to provide all of this to them, are not you? There must be some reason why you are not getting funding.
Mr. Syed: Mr. Ralph Goodale asked me to make that presentation, and we have not been able to get an opportunity to make that presentation.
Senator Merchant: You have not been there yet. You have not had the opportunity.
Mr. Syed: No. We have all the figures, and we want to present it.
For example, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration is going to do some advertising. The best target for their advertising is the ethnic media, because that media is run by immigrants, which is the target audience. However, Citizenship and Immigration goes to The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post, which is run by the mainstream people. That is a waste of money. I want to explain that to the decision makers, but we have not had the opportunity to explain these things.
The Chairman: I undertake on behalf of this committee to write to Mr. Brison to inform him of your situation.
I have a question, arising from the fact that for many years in my youth I worked for the number-two paper. Actually, I worked for two successive number-two papers and their respective markets. I remember how the advertising directors of those newspapers, people who were trying to attract advertising, would tear their hair out, because no matter how wonderful we believed our audience numbers to be the other paper was the bigger one. So the advertisers always thought, ``I get a better bang for my buck on objective criteria by going to the big paper.''
We know that in the wake of the sponsorship controversy the federal government brought in its moratorium, in order to go back and revise all the criteria and presumably make them as objective as possible, and all those things that purchasers of advertising space tend to do.
So my question is this: Is that where you think the problem arises, that in the devising of criteria, that in the revamping of criteria, ethnic media fell off the table because they are small or not so visible? Is it that simple? Is it just that the criteria have not taken you into account, or is there some other difficulty?
Mr. Syed: Mr. Ralph Goodale has already admitted that the reason we are not getting an appropriate percentage of advertising is that the communications people in the departments are not well educated about the strength and the effectiveness of the ethnic media.
As I indicated to you, if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to advertise something, they should place their ad with the ethnic media, because immigrants, by and large, read the ethnic media. Of course, The Globe and Mail is a well read paper, but one page of advertising costs $35,000. In the ethnic media, the same thing will be achieved, and many more immigrants will see the advertising.
The Chairman: I think we all understand the point you are making, Mr. Syed.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Just to understand the figures, up until last year, you were receiving 1 per cent?
Mr. Syed: Yes, that is right.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: For a considerable time before that?
Mr. Syed: Considerable time, absolutely.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So what you are asking for is a jump to 15 per cent. I do not mean overnight, but you want 15 per cent; is that correct?
Mr. Syed: Based on the demographic figures — you cannot ignore the percentages.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This is advice that you are not asking me for — but I would imagine these things are usually done in a step-wise faction, because that represents an enormous increase, from 1 per cent to 15 per cent.
Mr. Syed: What I am suggesting is that if we ask for 15 per cent, we will get 5 per cent or 7 per cent. That is what I am saying.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The 1 per cent was not just last year. It was for a long while.
Mr. Syed: Yes, for a very long time.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We do appreciate your attendance here. I will write to Mr. Brison and send him a copy of your brief.
Our next witness, whom I will now invite to come to the table, is Mr. Derek Luis, the executive director of the Canadian Diversity Producers Association.
I understand that you have very broad range of interests. Our study, as you know, is focussed on the news media, and since we are limited for time, I am going to ask you, if I may be so bold, to focus on that, if you can.
Mr. Derek Luis, as an individual: Absolutely. I am prepared to focus on that.
The Canadian Diversity Producers Association represents culturally diverse producers from across Canada who create film, television, and news. In the interest of brevity, I will focus on the news issues.
My primarily concerns are just to address the issues of equal access to employment opportunities that have been highlighted by three major studies, one by the CRTC, through the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and I am sure John Miller from Ryerson has addressed some of those issues.
One statistic that illustrates that point is with respect to the CBC, for example, our public broadcaster, less than 5 per cent of employees are visible minorities. That is a tremendous concern, in terms of employment access in a city where 50 per cent or more are visible minorities. In 2011, which is just six years away, it is estimated that 70 per cent of the population here will be made up of visible minorities, and they will demand greater access to content and reflection on news stories.
I wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee and find out if there were any initiatives you could recommend in this regard. I understand that Senator Oliver has worked with the Conference Board of Canada to outline the plight of visible minorities, in general, who in many cases make 30 per cent less but contribute, apparently, 30 per cent more to Canada's GDP.
It is just this issue of media professionals having to struggle to establish themselves in the industry.
Senator Munson: In terms of the trends that you are talking about six years from now — that is, 70 per cent visible minorities — do you think the government should step in and regulate that the national broadcaster, at least, and national newspapers hire that many people?
Mr. Luis: The sad thing is that these requirements — in terms of employment equity laws and government corporations and major corporations having to report, women have made tremendous strides and have reached around 45 per cent employment levels, which is relative to their availability in the work force in the area, and to a certain extent Aboriginals have also reached a reasonable relative representation, according to these two studies that have come out. However, shockingly, even though the CBC, as a prime example, is located in many urban centres, the number of 5 per cent representation is appalling. There are great professionals who are dedicated and committed to trying to rectify this.
The biggest issue, however, is in leadership. There are short-film subsidies and commissions for independent filmmakers. As we said, in terms of the news media, there are internships that are being created. There are lots of journalists coming in as reporters and on-camera hosts. However, the issue is employing producers, because it is the producers that help shape and reflect the story.
Twenty years or so ago, the National Council of Chinese Canadians was created as a result of a story that aired, where a news outlet talked about Chinese people overrunning the schools in Vancouver. As a result, the communities mobilized to create an organization to monitor media and effectively create some outreach.
In terms of representation — if we look at what needs to be done, there is no enforcement. The laws that are created need to be enforced. There is no enforcement. These laws are essentially toothless; as a result, for more than 20 years very little has happened.
Senator Munson: What are the dangers if more minority people are not hired in this country?
Mr. Luis: First of all, it is a huge human rights issue. Secondly, if we look at Britain, riots occurred there, producing a whole change in mainstream media. There were huge populations of unemployed young people taking to the streets to riot. There are also terrible social conditions around socio-political issues, and suddenly you realize that there were these enclaves existing in the British media, where, if you did not go to Cambridge or Oxford, you just did not cut it.
We are starting to break through some of those barriers here, but we are also not getting stories told that reflect our national heritage. It has taken us 20 years to get to the stage we are at. At 21 years old, I was journalism student and was talking about these same issues.
My situation has changed. I am a journalist, having 10 years experience working at CBC and MuchMusic and YTV. I have just recently produced my first drama for CHUM, a wonderful culturally diverse story. However, it has been a tremendous journey and a tremendous struggle. I am rare, in terms of my ability to succeed. There are so many talented people that we lose to teaching or business or other fields, and that is a shame.
There is a huge talent pool that we have lost over the last 20 years, and the ones that have made it have been exceptional and extraordinary and unique. So there is a human cost here, and a tremendous frustration factor, in terms of what we have not achieved.
Let me give you an example, in terms of drama. We had several producers come to Canada and leave, because they could not get a Canadian crew of culturally diverse people. The unions did not have that kind of talent available. As a result, we lost $40 million in production. This has happened several times. We cannot continue to let this sort of thing happen.
These are significant issues, in terms of human rights as well as human resources and capacity.
Senator Di Nino: In your opinion, is there a difference between the public broadcaster and private broadcasters?
Mr. Luis: In terms of leadership, there have been slightly greater strides in other private networks. On the other hand, the CBC has no visible minority senior managers or executives. As a result, their efforts to attract minorities, beyond on-camera hosts and a few low-level news producers have generally failed. They have started to create some new initiatives.
Twenty years ago, a producer gave a young journalist named Deepa Mehta her break, and several other journalists who have gone on to work in New York. We all know that Deepa has gone on to other things, right?
Senator Di Nino: A great success.
Mr. Luis: So in the private sector, there is a need to find great talent —
Senator Di Nino: However, they respond better and quicker than the public.
Mr. Luis: That is right. However, there is a huge demand socially and legally for our public organizations to respond.
Senator Di Nino: Just for the record, I want to make sure that we understand, because I believe I understand. You are not talking about reducing the quality or the talent skill here.
Mr. Luis: No, I am talking about professionals in many cases —
Senator Di Nino: You are talking about people of equal talent, equal skills. You are not suggesting that one reduce that bar?
Mr. Luis: No, I am talking about equal opportunities. There are award-winning — Gemini award-winning professionals — who are not getting the same opportunities.
Senator Di Nino: I happen to agree with you. I just want it on the record.
There is a question that I should have asked before, and I will ask you now, because you are a professional in the field. We are back to, principally, to CBC.
Has the CBC, in your opinion, over the last 30 years realized the makeup of this country? Does it reflect what this country is in reality today, in your opinion?
Mr. Luis: Where they have done it right — and it is an example of success — is with CBC Metro Morning. The reason for that is Susan Marjetti, the program manager there. She believes that you cannot tell the outside stories if the inside does not reflect the outside. Her team reflects Toronto in the most accurate way, and they tell the best stories. That program has consistently been number one in Toronto, and is one of the best radio shows and stations on the planet. It is among the top 10 in the world, I would say.
Senator Di Nino: But that is not the case with the nation program, correct?
Mr. Luis: Correct, and they do not build on the success of where things have worked, like a program 20 years ago that was done, for example.
Senator Merchant: You know, there is a saying that a man can be silver but a woman has to be golden to get to the same level. Perhaps that is some of the growing pains that you are experiencing.
I come from Saskatchewan, and my question relates to First Nations people. Our young people, by and large, are First Nations people, and we need to train and empower them to carry on for us, because otherwise we are going to have difficulty. We do not get a lot of new immigrants in Regina or Saskatchewan, and so we must do something about our First Nations people.
Can you tell us anything about what is happening? I know about the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.
Mr. Luis: Yes.
Senator Merchant: Can you tell us what is happening out there?
Mr. Luis: I have done a lot of work with Aboriginal communities. There are two Aboriginal producers' associations. There is a new one that is forming out of the controversy and ashes of the original, a really great, dynamic group of Aboriginal producers.
The biggest issue facing the Aboriginal community is the large youth cohort in their population. Of all the cultural groups, the Aboriginal people have the largest group of people under 25 years old — and hence a tremendous amount of resources. That is really in that group's favour, a definite ministry that puts in so much money.
The most significant thing is the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, which is a must-carry channel. It has had tremendous impact.
It touches on this issue of the systemic challenges and barriers that exist in having a diversity network that would create the same opportunity for culturally diverse, visible minorities, producers, so that they can get into the industry in a more significant way.
Vision TV, for example, when it first came out, was the diversity channel — Women's Television Network and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network created opportunities that normally the mainstream networks would not touch. That is how the NFB got its documentaries on TV — as a result of a weird battle between the NFB and the CBC. Vision TV created tremendous opportunities for ethnic filmmakers who wanted to work in the mainstream, and aboriginal filmmakers and women filmmakers and all kinds of filmmakers who were shut out from the mainstream process. Vision TV created opportunities.
The Women's Television Network created tremendous opportunities for women. With these networks, all kinds of people benefit. There are so many white men who benefited from the Women's channel, who got jobs and commissions. There are many non-native people who have benefited from APTN. It creates many spill-offs in other areas of the entertainment industry. That is an area we are looking at, in terms of dealing with systemic discrimination, barriers to employment, and other funding issues. We are not saying that there is out-and-out racism. These are systemic issues.
Also, because the industry is so competitive, we are dealing with huge companies that have been subsidized over the years. One of the biggest companies, a private corporation, Alliance Atlantis, received $100 million in government subsidies and grants.
That company did wonderful work —
The Chairman: They did not do the news.
Mr. Luis: Not news, you are right.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it still a question of colour, or is it a question of something else? I am a second-generation Ukrainian. He is Italian. We are both in the Senate. Why is it first generation? Why is it that we were able to be integrated but we are having these problems a generation later? Is it a question of colour?
Mr. Luis: I think that is part of it. It is also being out of the mainstream, and it is also the issue of being the outsider. There are also the old internal issues, the classic questions that are asked, such as, ``Will this play in Brandon, Manitoba? Will this play in Halifax?'' If the story is about a black family, say, will it be something that other families can connect with. Hence, for some reason, there is a bias about covering ethnic stories in a broader way. There is a negative desire to spread this nationally.
Senator Tkachuk: I always wonder why people always look at the negative and not the positive. In other words, why do not we study the cultures that succeed versus the cultures that do not?
If you look at the Asian population in Vancouver, the kids are doing great. They are at the top of their class; they are getting scholarships to universities all across the United States. There seems to be no barrier they cannot overcome. That always intrigues me. Regardless of the new language, the new country, they become doctors, lawyers, engineers, et cetera. Why do they succeed and others do not?
Mr. Luis: Their parents work and sacrifice five times more than the average parent. It is the same with East Indian families. It comes down to parents struggling and making a sacrifice.
Senator Tkachuk: It is cultural, are you saying?
Mr. Luis: A lot of those parents do not take vacations.
Senator Tkachuk: So it is culture.
Mr. Luis: Yes — as well as what Senator Merchant talked about, how you have to be golden. Those families are putting their kids through extra schooling and extra training. There is also a cultural peer pressure involved. In many cases, some of those families are much more affluent than the average Canadian family, so they are able to support their kids through education.
Senator Tkachuk: I remember my parents and my parish priest lecturing us that we had to go to university, had to prove ourselves, had to work twice as hard as everybody else, because of who we were. In actuality, out of my school, three of the first students that went to university were of Ukrainian decent.
Those are good cultural lessons. We always have these discussions about how there are negative pressures for accessibility, but we should be looking at the positive stories also. Take your example of the woman producer at Metro Morning. What was her makeup, what drove her, and how did she do what she did to have the number-one morning show in Toronto?
Senator Di Nino: You are referring to Susan Marjetti.
Mr. Luis: She was a great manager, who saw an opportunity.
There was a report that talked about how you are more likely to see aliens from outer space than Asians on television. For some reason, we are not picking Asian news commentators, when it comes to financial analysts or political analysts or whatever. Hence, when it comes to choosing experts, we do not have a pool of Asian experts, so we do not see those people as successful as they may be. They are invisible on television.
The Chairman: We are running a little short on time, and I promised Senator Trenholme Counsell the last question, but I have a supplementary in this area.
We are talking about news here, and I think, you know, the data looked pretty persuasive to me that visible minorities, in particular, are underrepresented in mainstream Canadian newsrooms. However, the word ``mainstream'' is important. I have a hypothesis that I would like you to respond to — that is, that the mainstream media, by and large, for the past 10 to 15 years, have not been hiring much. They have been reducing their staff. In many cases, the remaining staff is unionized. You cannot fire a less-than-competent WASP in order to make room for a brilliant member of a visible minority if the less-than-competent WASP has seniority within the union ranks.
Do not get me wrong. I think unions have been a wonderful influence in many ways, but everything in life has its downside.
So is not part of the problem at least possibly that the whole recognition that we need to diversify our newsrooms has coincided with this other pressure that dictates what you need to do is get rid of people?
Mr. Luis: Yes, there are fewer jobs available — that is a good point. The challenge is that, of the three jobs that may be available, there are always internal candidates who want to shift from one job to the other. There is also the issue of colleagues networking to get an assistant company placed with a former colleague in another company. I remember hearing a lot about this informal networking, where an executive who was ex-CBC has heard through the grapevine that there is a plum job at the London bureau, and taking her assistant, who does not have any journalism background, but positioning him for that job at the London bureau. I remember thinking: What chance do all those poor saps who are applying to the CBC website have against the internal candidates and the outside candidates who are former colleagues? The pipelines to those jobs are not available to others, regardless of how qualified they are.
Those are some of the systemic barriers that keep the best candidates from getting into those new positions.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am a bit incredulous, because I do not understand how you can say many of the things you are saying and not admit that Ian Hanamansingh represents what you are talking about as the goal.
And you are not the first one not to mention his name. Maybe you are talking about the front room versus the back room, and you are not getting your influence in the back room, but surely he is the one to look up to. He is the number-two news anchor with the public broadcaster.
Mr. Luis: Sure.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I do not want to scold you, but I just cannot understand why you do not mention his name as having done just exactly what you say you want others to do. Surely it is to him that you would look for some tips. After all, if he can do it, why cannot others?
He did not come with a golden spoon in his mouth. He did not come from a rich family. I know his life story very, very well. He did not have advantages, he did not have pull or great context, I do not think.
Senator Munson: He is a double minority. He is from New Brunswick.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: To me, he is a glowing example that it can happen. Why do you not admit that this breakthrough has occurred? If he can get where he is — and there is an assumption that he will go higher.
Mr. Luis: Right.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Why is not he the living, breathing, speaking example of the fact that it is possible, that it has happened and that, therefore, it will happen again?
I am not his agent.
Mr. Luis: I agree, he is a very talented guy, and probably among the most qualified journalists around. He has a law degree and a journalism background.
For us, however, it is not about the faces on the camera, whether it is somebody who is immensely qualified or someone who is a great personality that gets pulled off the street. For us, it is about people who make the decisions and who shape the stories, not just the pretty faces or the qualified news analysts. It is more about the mass employment opportunities.
He is a shining example, and there are dozens more great examples. However, for us, the concern is about getting access to a fair share of jobs in news, current affairs, documentary production, and having equal and fair access to those jobs, given these barriers that exist.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So is he really an exception?
Mr. Luis: He is an exception. He is certainly an exception among all journalists and anchors.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Have you people tried to talk to him and ask for his support? Is he approachable?
Mr. Luis: Oh, sure. I have had a beer with Peter Mansbridge. All these people are very approachable. However, there is a disconnect between the HR departments in these news organizations and the executive producers who do the hiring.
Consider this scenario: The human resources department finding three or four good candidates out of the 200 that have applied on the website, and sending three or four to a producer, but the producer having two or three candidates he knows personally, based on people he could not hire before, and then friends of friends. You begin to realize that the pool of six or so people who actually get an interview, or even the two that get an interview, is a pretty elite group — that may not necessarily have those qualifications. My whole is this: There are many Ian Hanamansinghs who have been overlooked, whether they are on camera or potentially management quality.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I think he was chosen because he was the best at the time.
Mr. Luis: Well, he certainly was better than most people on TV, in terms of his voice and his qualifications. He is among the top. I would say he is among the top 10 per cent, in terms of education, poise and presentation. He is exceptional, even beyond that.
The Chairman: Mr. Luis, on behalf the committee, I wish to thank you for your attendance here today.
Mr. Luis: Thank you for your time. I appreciate your attention.
The Chairman: As you can tell, it has been a very interesting session for all of us, and we are very grateful for you for having been here.
The committee adjourned.