Broadcasting Commission Letter addressed to Chantal Bédard (Csur la télé)
Ottawa, 8 February 2017
Csur la télé
Dear Mrs. Bédard:
Re: Complaints filed by CSUR la télé regarding MAtv Montréal (application 2016-0098-2)
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated 19 September 2016 and 26 January 2017, in which you express your disagreement with the Commission’s decision to examine the complaint you filed regarding MAtv Montréal during the second phase of proceedings for the renewal of broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) licences.
In your letters, you state that it makes no sense for certain issues raised in your complaint to be addressed via the replies and arguments of the licensee, who thereby becomes “judge and jury” of a decision the Commission has the authority to make.
Please note that examining your complaint as part of Vidéotron’s licence renewal in no way affects the Commission’s ability to rule on Vidéotron’s compliance in relation to the operation of MAtv Montréal. Giving Vidéotron the opportunity to respond to the substance of your complaint during the proceeding for its licence renewal is not a departure from the originally planned procedure - to process the application under Part 1 of the CRTC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure - which also provided for the opportunity for Vidéotron to file a response.
Respondents’ right to file responses with the Commission is provided under subsection 25(1) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. Allowing Vidéotron to respond to your complaint is therefore explicitly provided for in the rules of procedure, and in no way makes the respondent “judge and jury,” as you suggest.
Executive Director, Broadcasting
- Date modified: