ARCHIVED -  Transcript - Hull, QC - 2001/09/19

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages

Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.

In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.






























Best Western Hotel Hotel Best Western

Champlain Room Salle Champlain

131, Laurier Street 131, rue Laurier

Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)

J8X 3W3 J8X 3W3

September 19, 2001 Le 19 septembre 2001


Volume 1







In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of Contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the public hearing.





Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience publiqe.


Canadian Radio-television and

Telecommunications Commission

Conseil de la radiodiffusion et

des télécommunications canadiennes

Transcript / Transcription

Notice of public hearing CRTC 2001-8 - Star Ray TV /

Avis d'audience publique CRTC 2001-8 - Star Ray TV




David Colville Chairperson / Président

David McKendry Commissioner / Conseiller

Andrée Wylie Commissioner / Conseillère



William Howard Legal Counsel /

Conseiller juridique

Peter Cussons Hearing Secretary

/ Secrétaire de l'audience




Best Western Hotel Hotel Best Western

Champlain Room Salle Champlain

131 Laurier Street 131, rue Laurier

Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)

J8X 3W3 J8X 3W3

September 19, 2001 Le 19 septembre 2001

Volume 1











Jan Pachul, Star Ray TV 3 / 8




Mr. David Bachner 28 / 133

Mr. Paul Coulbeck 31 / 144




--- Upon commencing on Wednesday, September 19 2001 at 9:30 a.m. / L'audience débute le mercredi 19 septembre 2001 à 9h30.

  1. THE CHAIRPERSON: Order please. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. This public hearing -- I guess perhaps first I should introduce myself. My name is David Colville. I am Chairman of the CRTC and with me today is Vice-Chair of Broadcasting Andrée Wylie, and Commissioner David McKendry.
  2. This public hearing has a very specific purpose, which was outlined in the Notice of Public Hearing issued on July 30th 2001. That purpose is to inquire into and hear evidence as to whether Mr. Jan Pachul has been operating a broadcasting license in Toronto -- a broadcasting undertaking in Toronto without a license. This process which could result in the issuance of a mandatory order is being conducted pursuant to Section 12 of the Broadcasting Act.
  3. The format of this public hearing will be as follows. We will first provide Mr. Pachul an opportunity to make his opening remarks and to present any evidence relevant to the purpose of the hearing and to the information that has been placed on the Commission's public file. Following Mr. Pachul's remarks, there may be questions from Legal Counsel and/or the Panel. If any interested parties wish to comment and I understand there are at least two who do, they may do so following the comments of Mr. Pachul and our questions. Mr. Pachul will then be provided an opportunity to reply to those comments. The public hearing will then adjourn and the Panel will make its determination, which will be made public in due course.
  4. I should note here that under Section 12 of the Broadcasting Act, a person who is affected by a mandatory order of the Commission may within 30 days apply to the Commission to reconsider any decision or finding of this Panel. Legal Counsel for this proceeding is Bill Howard and the Hearing Secretary is Peter Cussons. And with us here today is also Nick Ketchum of our broadcasting group
  5. So Mr. Secretary, for the record would you now call Mr. Pachul?
  6. MR. P. CUSSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to Section 12 of the Broadcasting Act, the Commission has called Mr. Jan Pachul to this hearing to inquire into, hear and determine whether a mandatory order should be issued requiring Jan Pachul to cease and desist operating a broadcasting undertaking in Toronto, Ontario or elsewhere in Canada, except in compliance with the Broadcasting Act.
  7. Mr. Pachul, we'd appreciate it if your presentation did not exceed 20 minutes. Mr. Pachul?


  8. MR. J. PACHUL: Thank you very much. I think this mike works here.
  9. Well, I'd like to start off with the fact that we have gone to the Federal Court of Canada Appeals Division to seek certain relief that directly affects this hearing. And we are wondering why this hearing is proceeding because we haven't received any satisfactory answers to several questions that we have asked the CRTC in a letter a few weeks ago. And one of the main issues is the disclosure of specific documents.
  10. We specifically asked for the précis which forms part of the factum book on the previous hearing and we have not received any response whatsoever. Now we feel we're entitled to this disclosure because the Commission has entered our previous application and decision into the record. So where is the précis? What are you hiding?
  11. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'll let you continue you on with your comments, Mr. Pachul. We're not trying to hide anything. I am not aware of what the status is of your request for the disclosure at this time.
  12. MR. J. PACHUL: Also, we wanted to subpoena witnesses. According to the response I got from Mr. -- I'm sorry if I mispronounce his name -- Mr. Blais is it? Is that how you pronounce his name?
  13. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure who you're referring to. Jean-Pierre Blais probably?
  14. MR. J. PACHUL: Yes, Blais, okay. He had stated in the letter that we received from the Commission that the Commission does not have the power to subpoena and pay witnesses, which I take great issue with because if you read the Broadcasting Act -- I got it in front of me here somewhere - the CRTC has the power is vested in us - here it is, "All such powers, rights and privileges as vested in a Superior Court of Record".
  15. Okay. Well, I don't really see anything happening here. Now like you tell me we can't subpoena any witnesses? You know like what of hearing is this? You know like there doesn't seem to be any protection of any of my rights, you know, under the Canadian Constitution. You know like there is compelling evidence that the CRTC has engaged in an ongoing pattern of improper behaviour against new entrance in the television broadcasting business and it's contrary to the public interest that the CRTC is mandated to protect. This evidence absolutely supports a reasonable apprehension or bias. You know I have no expectation whatsoever receiving a fair hearing based on this evidence.
  16. And also, if you go look at my five-year history with the CRTC, it's been nothing but a history of contempt and malice. You know like the question I have whose airwaves are the Canadian airwaves? Are they just a handful of industry insiders that are allowed to engage in broadcasting activities? Or is the public actually somehow in that equation? It doesn't appear to be so. And as far as bias, you know like all you have to do is just read the paper.
  17. Here, you've got an article from the National Post, which incidentally I entered into the record today. This is National Post, December 6th 2000. Okay. And it refers to former Chair Ms Bertrand. Okay. Here it states,

    "Ms Bertrand took charge of the CRTC in 1995, after more than a decade of tight complicity between the regulator and powerful industry interests. Ms Bertrand did little to change that."

  18. This article was written by Matthew Fraser of the National Post. Okay. And it goes to state here,

    "Ms Bertrand imposed her will on CRTC decision by hand-picking friendly commissioners to sit on panels rendering decisions on major transactions, such as BCE Inc.'s $2.3-billion take-over of the CTV television network. A rump of anti-Bertrand dissenters was the "Gang of Three": Stuart Langford, David McKendry and Andrew Cardozo. But industry insiders say their ranks began to swell and include other commissioners, including Cindy Grauer, Barbara Cram and even Joan Pennefather."

  19. Okay. And then it states here,

    "Ms Bertrand's acceptance of Bell Canada's hospitality created the possibility of an appearance of bias. What's more, the CRTC is expected to announce its decision on the BCE-CTV take-over tomorrow, which makes the timing of Ms Bertrand's announced resignation intriguing, to say the least. It could be she fell on her sword to avoid a full-blown media scandal, whatever its merits, immediately before the decision."

  20. Now like who's kidding who here? You know like I haven't seen anybody file any motions of slander or libel. Now here we have another one. This happens to be The Hill Times, "Tensions run high at the CRTC". And this has to do with mostly the CRTC's denial of TFO's application in Quebec. And Senator Jean Gauthier called the decision of the CRTC to deny TVO-TFO, Ontario's public broadcast who broadcasts in Quebec, an equivalent to the capitulation to the commercial interest in the Quebec cable industry. Okay. And this application received over 1,500 supporters. There are only 12 opponents, including you know like the CCTA, CAB and TéléQuébec. And it goes on to state here,

    "According to sources, chairperson Françoise Bertrand, past president of TéléQuébec, did not exclude herself from the case, an instead yelled, screamed and disputed commissioners and pulled out the whip to get the application denied."

  21. Now like how can I expect any kind of fair hearing here? I don't think so. I think I'm just wasting my time here. You know like I think that the decision is already pre-ordained and you know like why am I talking.
  22. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we have no pre-ordained decision here, Mr. Pachul, certainly the three of us that are here. I mean you referred to Madame Bertrand. I don't wish to comment on those newspaper articles or the allegations that were made with respect to her. We are here with an open mind to hear one issue and that is whether or not you're operating a broadcasting undertaking without a license as prescribed in the Broadcasting Act. That's all.
  23. MR. J. PACHUL: Well yes, you sure have such a narrow focus but you know like if you look at the whole history of this, I have tried to legalise this operation for years and years and years, and all I've been getting is stonewalled. Okay. I don't really see the public interest represented here at all. And I see more evidence of this bias which I filed in Federal Court that you know you are violating your own rules or procedure. We had two industry heavyweights clearly submit their intervention two days passed the deadline and they're accepted. But yet, if we go back to our previous hearing, we had an exact similar circumstance with Ken Stein of Shaw Cable (phonetic) who submitted his intervention two days late and it wasn't accepted for the record.
  24. Like again you know and like this whole bit of confusion over our mailing address, well who started that? How come all the correspondence I have been getting from the CRTC is addressed to the right address? So you know where is the fairness?
  25. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, as you know, we had the wrong address in the first public notice and we corrected that.
  26. MR. J. PACHUL: You still didn't correct it. It said like 204 Main or 186 Main. And yet you know I've noticed like all kinds of logins from the CRTC into our website. Our website clearly states what our address is and our phone number. So like what's with all these procedural gymnastics? You know like all I see is malice and contempt. That's it. You know like I went out of my way with this application you know to try to do something for Canada to better the country and what happens. You know like -- you know like I get my application denied on the basis of some manufactured testimony. You know like it's a total joke. You know like if I look at the amount of misrepresentation that's in this decision, you know like this is a kangaroo court you know with all due respect. You know like how am I supposed to you know even think that I'm never going to get a broadcasting license, ever, you know with the kind of shenanigans going on here.
  27. You know and like yes, sure you like a narrow focus because you know like then you don't have to worry about what happened before, do you. That's why we're going to Federal Court because we feel that we can get a fair hearing from the judiciary. We don't feel there is a fair hearing going on here. You know and like you can say all you want. You're going to be fair but you know like where did all this stuff come from, you know all these newspaper articles and all this evidence I have? I didn't make it up.
  28. You know and no disclosure, I think that's a hallmark of the justice disclosure. You know we got to go to the Privacy Commissioner now to get disclosure. And here you're continuing a hearing you know where you haven't even given us like the barest minimal that we're entitled to under the Canadian Constitution. You know and you're wondering you know why I'm talking about like you know this bias. You know it doesn't add up. You look at all these decisions that you've been making here and they're all in favour of the industry. You couldn't care less about what we're doing in Toronto. All you want to do is shut us down. That's all you want to do. You know like the bigger issues you're not concerned about. I don't think that you're going to give us a license at the end of this hearing.
  29. THE CHAIRPERSON: Given the nature of the hearing Mr. Pachul, we couldn't give you a license as a result of this hearing.
  30. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, that's why we're going to Federal Court because we have a big issue with the way the CRTC conducts business quite frankly. That's the issue. We're sick and tired of spending years and years coming down here and getting nothing. We're just wasting our time. Why don't just be upfront with us? "Mr. Pachul, you're never going to get a license. Get out of here." Right. That would be preferable to the way we've been treated.
  31. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's not our answer.
  32. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, like you know show us something different. You know so far I haven't seen anything different. You know and the only reason why we went on the air is because we are greatly offended by what happened here in this decision. Right. And we cannot -- we could not appeal the decision. Okay. We went to the Governor and Counsel. Governor and Counsel tells us we're out of hand. Plus in the meantime, there has been no legal recourse for us to apply for a license. Isn't that correct? You know while you're doing this study on low power, you're not accepting low power applications right now.
  33. So what legal recourse we have? There is none. You know our main defence is a defence of necessity. If we didn't go on the air, we might as well declare bankrupt. You know I'm ruined. You know CRTC is ruining me financially and all I had was the best of intentions. You go back a few years ago. You know we applied for an exemption out of the Broadcast Act. That was a total joke. Like who are you representing here? Are you representing a handful of industry insiders or are you representing the public? It doesn't seem that way. You know, just the mere fact you're going through with this hearing when we have like substantial issues that are unresolved before the hearing just shows you you're biased right there.
  34. THE CHAIRPERSON: So, is that your presentation?
  35. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, how much more time do I have?
  36. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Cussons?
  37. MR. P. CUSSONS: We have another six minutes, Mr. Pachul.
  38. MR. J. PACHUL: Okay. Well, I can certainly keep going. Okay. To top everything off you know this bias that I'm referring to, I even like submitted a intervention regarding Public Notice 2000-19 and I made the points very clear that I felt that there is no way that we're going to get a fair adjudication of low power TV. I think all you're going to do is listen to the CAB who is calling for non-profit operations. You know only they are allowed to own equity in a broadcasting enterprise. Nobody else is. And you know who is going to get a license?
  39. Well you know if the bar is so high that we don't even get a license, you know we're like a rather sophisticated operation. Well, if we can't get one, who can? And like you look at the Toronto hearings you got going on right now you know for the full power stations in Hamilton and Toronto and London, who is there? The same old guys again. Like if the CRTC was as fair as you're claiming, how come you're accepting applications from people that already have licenses in those markets? You know they should be disqualified from applying for a license. Okay. All what's happening there is if they get the license award, well they all of sudden can sell their previous station and reap like about $100 million dollars equity for doing next to nothing.
  40. And like there seems to me there's three little guys that are trying for licenses there. I think that they submitted letters of intent but I don't think you have applications from them. You know they already gave up. You know again it's a farce. You know you got the same people again going after their licenses. The only person that might be different might be Toronto Star, which is a big corporation, and maybe Cregg (phonetic) Broadcast. But what does that do for diversity in broadcasting? Nothing. It's the same players over and over and over again. You know why can't you just give us a chance? You know what's the problem here? You know like I recognise that you know we're bucking you know the powers to be but how do you get innovation? Innovation is somebody bucking the powers to be.
  41. You know, you look at the people that intervened against us the first time around. Like CHUM Television, how many licenses have they got between our denial of our application and today? Right. And you want to put off like a little UHF operation? You want to put that out of business? You know like you're basically ruining my life you know because I've been trying to legalise this operation for a long period of time. And what am I supposed to do? Just roll over and play dead. You know like just be like everybody else and get a raw deal from the CRTC, just go away. Or are we supposed to be like Milestone Communications in Toronto? In order for us to get a license, we got to sell out like a 25 percent share to an existing broadcaster and like in their case standard broadcasting. Is that how we get a license?
  42. Well look how long suffering they were, 12 years. Like is that the way the public interest is represented by the CRTC with these kinds of actions? And how is the public interest served by putting us out of business? You know what benefit is there to the broadcasting system? And where is the public even entering into the picture? I don't see the public interest. Like you can count on one hand the amount of decisions the CRTC has made that you would really consider in the public interest. I think one of them would to not regulate the Internet.
  43. And then there's always the question of arbitrary decisions. Okay. Like you look at our original decision. Now there's always talk about cable. Right. What does cable coverage have to do with our ability to run a TV station and serve the public? Nothing. You know like the actual issues of what we're doing weren't even addressed. You know and all this bunk about us covering the beaches. We never made any statements we're covering the beaches, ever. You know and what do you do? Just invent stuff out of thin air? Like you got this code word "apparently". You know whenever apparently seems to appear in any of your documents, well we're going to lie here. So we're not going to call it a lie but we're going to call it apparently.
  44. You know it's like -- you know I think you people are on a different planet. You know like are we like on the same planet here? Are we in the same country? And then there are other issues too. Like what ever happened to freedom of speech? You know like we're not allowed to make our views known. You know like all the views in the media just have to be filtered through maybe five corporations. Nobody else has the ability to speak out and broadcast. You know like I don't really see how the CRTC represents democracy. In fact, I got an e-mail today from somebody in Europe and what this individual felt was that the CRTC was giving Canada a culturally backwards image. You know it's like you're the thought police. You're telling people what you can watch and what you can't watch. You know it's very similar to what's happening in Cuba or the former Soviet Union.
  45. You know, like at least if you're going to be as corrupt as you are, why not just tell us? You know like why make the pretence of fairness? Well, I guess my time is up now, right
  46. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for your presentation and I thank you for respecting the time.
  47. Counsel?
  48. MR. W. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  49. I think Mr. Pachul I can be quite brief. Do you have any comments on the material that has been placed in the public file?
  50. MR. J. PACHUL: Excuse me?
  51. MR. W. HOWARD: Do you have any comments on the material that has been placed in the public file?
  52. MR. J. PACHUL: Yes, I do have one comment. I find it rather disgusting that what you used for a sample of our work on the air was a public forum where we criticised the CRTC and the decision. You know so that just gives me an idea of what the CRTC thinks of freedom of speech.
  53. MR. W. HOWARD: Okay. I guess what I'm really asking you is, there is a number of statements in that material, not counting your own comments at this point. Just the material that was filed by the Commission that you are indeed carrying on a broadcasting undertaking in Toronto. Are you disputing the veracity of those statements or are you saying that the people who made those statements are incorrect?
  54. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  55. MR. W. HOWARD: Sorry?
  56. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  57. MR. W. HOWARD: You stand mute. Okay. So what it stands as is you don't deny, you don't say either way.
  58. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  59. MR. W. HOWARD: Now, there has been a number of comments which you have filed. Do you rely on those comments as part of your submission?
  60. MR. J. PACHUL: I think those comments were mostly done for the benefit of our supporters that felt that the CRTC was extending an olive branch to us with that letter, which I really didn't see, but I went along with my supporters.
  61. MR. W. HOWARD: So you rely upon those documents in support of your position.
  62. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  63. MR. W. HOWARD: You were the person that did submit them. They all seem to have come from e-mails from yourself with one exception. Mr. Bachner seems to have e-mailed himself once and you e-mailed a copy also.
  64. MR. J. PACHUL: Who?
  65. MR. W. HOWARD: Mr. Bachner. He e-mailed a copy directly to the Commission himself and then you e-mailed subsequently a copy of his to the Commission also. So what I'm saying is they all went through yourself and you are telling me that you have no comment on whether or not you're relying on them? I mean -- I guess my question is why did you submit them?
  66. MR. J. PACHUL: Like I said, I submitted it for the benefit of our supporters who felt like that there was an olive branch being extended by the CRTC. So we thought that we would write something in good faith and that's what we did.
  67. MR. W. HOWARD: In addition to the statements that are made in the record that was compiled as the public record by the Commission and put forward, there are statements and comments that you filed, 2, 7, 12 and 43. Mr. Bachner is 17, 19, 28, 34 and 38 that say that they are individuals who have either heard and watched your station or who are members of the programming community that have placed programming on your station or are indeed doing programming.
  68. Do you disagree with those statements?
  69. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute. This is in front of the Federal Court and I'm not going to answer anything.
  70. MR. W. HOWARD: Do you need anymore time to formulate a reply other than the one you've given me?
  71. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, I would like this hearing to be adjourned until the Federal Court adjudicates this matter.
  72. MR. W. HOWARD: Aside from that I guess.
  73. MR. J. PACHUL: Could you repeat the question?
  74. MR. W. HOWARD: Yes. Do you need any more time to formulate a reply? And this is something that caught you by surprise in here that you have in here -- by in here I mean in the record -- that has not given you an opportunity to furnish a reply to the comments that you filed in the Commission record.
  75. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, I need much passed today because, for one, I had asked for specific disclosure that did not occur, which should have been furnished before this hearing even progressed.
  76. MR. W. HOWARD: I'm talking about comments -- any comments you have on the material filed at this point.
  77. MR. J. PACHUL: No, I don't have any comments.
  78. MR. W. HOWARD: Thank you.
  79. Now, did you receive experimental licences from the Department of Industry?
  80. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute. I keep on telling you I'm not answering any questions. This is in front of Federal Court.
  81. MR. W. HOWARD: Okay.
  82. MR. J. PACHUL: I am not going to prejudice my case with the Federal Court.
  83. MR. W. HOWARD: Okay. I have placed -- or I see before me, having been placed, I should say, in the material two licences from Industry Canada, which run each for a period of one month.
  84. Did you receive any other licences from Industry Canada other than those?
  85. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  86. MR. W. HOWARD: Well, I guess I'm not going to get too far, but I will just ask one more question.
  87. In here, it seems that the power allowed under the licence was 0.8 of a watt indoor and at ground level. And your undertaking today, is it at that power and at that level, or is it at the power and level far more substantial, i.e. on the roof of a building at approximately 500 watts?
  88. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  89. MR. W. HOWARD: On your website you stated that although -- well:
  90. "Not Star Ray TV, although we

    have been broadcasting on

    channel 15 on and off since

    1998, we vowed to defy the CRTC

    and have kept a regular

    broadcast schedule since

    September 2000."

  91. Is that statement incorrect?
  92. MR. J. PACHUL: I stand mute.
  93. MR. W. HOWARD: Now, you said that you were told that you could not subpoena witnesses.
  94. Can you tell me or read to me the sentence that says that? I will put it in a different way if you don't have it in front of you.
  95. Is the sentence "The CRTC has no power to pay the costs of witnesses or intervenors in broadcasting proceedings."? Is that the statement you rely on for your statement?
  96. MR. J. PACHUL: What I rely on is the lack of a statement. There is no addressing of the issue.
  97. MR. W. HOWARD: Are there any other materials that you wish to file at this time?
  98. MR. J. PACHUL: Yes, I filed them.
  99. MR. W. HOWARD: So all the materials that you wish to rely on are filed at this time. Thank you.
  100. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, no, I filed extra material today.
  101. MR. W. HOWARD: Okay. I haven't seen it. That's why I'm asking.
  102. Mr. Secretary, did you receive it?
  103. MR. P. CUSSONS: Not yet.
  104. Sir, who did you file it with?
  105. MR. J. PACHUL: I believe this lady has them.
  106. MR. W. HOWARD: Mr. Pachul, this seems to consist of -- well, it's a document dated May the 7th, 2001 regarding CRTC Public Notice 2001-19. That would be ---
  107. MR. J. PACHUL: Yes, that's correct.
  108. MR. W. HOWARD: And that would be what? That is your ---
  109. MR. J. PACHUL: That was my statement on the reasonable apprehension of bias.
  110. MR. W. HOWARD: And that was accepted by the Commission in that context?
  111. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, it was accepted in the context of a review of community television.
  112. MR. W. HOWARD: And I'm not sure if it's a separate document or whether the break just happens to be at the top of the page.
  113. MR. J. PACHUL: No, there is another document, which is the actual petition to ---
  114. MR. W. HOWARD: Petition ---
  115. MR. J. PACHUL: --- the Governor-in-Council regarding the decision and the gross misrepresentations contained in that decision.
  116. MR. W. HOWARD: Okay.
  117. And the other document would be the Motion Record for your application before the Federal Court, which I believe was dismissed yesterday. Is that correct?
  118. MR. J. PACHUL: It wasn't dismissed. I was given a direction by the judge.
  119. MR. W. HOWARD: The interlocutory application was dismissed? The actual application itself -- the main application continues. Okay.
  120. MR. J. PACHUL: No, my understanding is that I can proceed as long as I follow the direction of the Court.
  121. MR. W. HOWARD: Yes, that is correct.
  122. Sorry, Mr. Pachul, you are filing more material? It says National Post Online and ---
  123. MR. J. PACHUL: "Tensions run high at CRTC".
  124. MR. W. HOWARD: The Hill Times?
  125. MR. J. PACHUL: Yes, Hill Times.
  126. MR. W. HOWARD: Now, these are dated December the 6th, 2000, and it's a -- the article you read from by Matthew Fraser and an article of September the 11th, 2000 of the Hill Times, which you read from also.
  127. MR. J. PACHUL: That's correct.
  128. MR. W. HOWARD: The witnesses you said you wanted to bring here, were they going to give evidence as to whether or not you were broadcasting?
  129. MR. J. PACHUL: No, they were going to give evidence on why I have a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding this hearing and previous hearings.
  130. MR. W. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think those are my questions.
  131. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, counsel.
  132. So Mr. Pachul, we will now provide an opportunity for the -- I believe there were two supporters who wished to speak. So I guess the first one would be Mr. David Bachner.


  133. MR. D. BACHNER: I have been a supporter of public access media for a long time. I have been involved in campus community radio and various other things.
  134. I first found out about Star Ray TV from an article in the newspaper that there was this low-power station applying for a licence with the CRTC. I guess it was about a year or two ago that I saw this article.
  135. I didn't really know what to expect, whether or not it would get a licence. I was disappointed to find out that it did not get a licence, and it wasn't until I actually read the decision that I was really surprised at how blatantly obvious it was that that particular decision was so heavily weighted in favour of the major corporate players in the broadcast industry who intervened against.
  136. What I also found particularly troubling was that there was 43 supporting interventions and only five opposing ones. There was more than eight times the number of supporters as there was opposers, and all 43 were from members of the public. All five of the opposing ones were from major corporate players in the broadcast industry.
  137. I read the decision in total and saw only maybe a paragraph of lip service paid to the 43 supporters, and the rest of the decision was going over issues that, I guess, could best be described as very self-serving and with clear intent of preventing any new competition in the Toronto market. I was appalled.
  138. So I will keep this short. You know, like most Canadians, I don't have all the time in the world to read and study CRTC procedure and rules, but I do know enough to know that this Commission is supposed to represent the public interest in broadcast licensing.
  139. I feel that the earlier decision 2000-3-40 was a mistake and did not serve in the interest of -- in the public interest at all, and I feel that this hearing here, whether or not to issue Mr. Pachul a mandatory order to cease operating on a broadcast undertaking is definitely not in the public interest.
  140. I mean, Star Ray TV is -- offers engaging, locally-relevant programming that is just not available anywhere else on the Toronto dial, cable or otherwise, and it is easily accessible. It's easy to get on the air. It offers more Canadian content than any other station on the dial, on air or cable.
  141. The question I put to the Commission is exactly how would issuing Mr. Pachul this mandatory order to cease operating serve the public interest? And my second question is will the Commission address this last question in clear terms in its decision?
  142. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Bachner.
  143. Mr. Coulbeck, am I pronouncing your name correctly?


  144. MR. P. COULBECK: My name is Paul Coulbeck, and I too have read the decision of the CRTC and also the application from Star Ray Television, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there was a predetermined outcome of this Commission to protect the industry insiders by excluding any new entrants into the industry to the extent that they fabricated testimony in order to justify their decision. It seems to me bordering on perjury. This has caused an incredible hardship on our community. It has caused an incredible hardship on anyone who is working with this station. It has hampered us in fulfilling our goals as a community station.
  145. For instance, the City of Toronto wanted us to cover their City Hall meetings live, and they were going to set us up with the link. They were going to put in the link for us to do it and everything, and because of this decision, that was trashed. We are not able to fulfil that.
  146. So I guess basically what I am doing is I'm waiting to see, since there seems to be housecleaning going on in the CRTC, I'm taking a wait-and-see kind of approach to see if there is going to be a correction of this miscarriage of justice.
  147. Thank you very much.
  148. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Coulbeck.
  149. So Mr. Pachul, do you wish to make any comments and respond to your supporters?


  150. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, I think they are just expressing what I have said before, that there is a lot of improper behaviour occurring here, and I find that the decision in particular is very difficult to accept, all the misrepresentations.
  151. The one thing in particular that really bugs me is this notion that we're covering the Beaches. We never made any statements we're covering the Beaches area. All you have got to do is look at this coverage map right here. UHF channel -- it says 16, but 15 coverage map. It's very obvious the area that we are covering.
  152. Now, how do you come up with this, for lack of a better word, crap here is beyond me. Because here we've got -- like, what kind of reasoning is this? This is a joke. You know, why did I do this? I'm beginning to wonder why did I bother. I try to do something for the community, and it just turns out to be a joke.
  153. These statements here, the "apparent inconsistency" -- there's that word again -- "between the intensely local focus of the proposed programming service and the applicant's business plan, which is predicated on mandatory cable coverage well beyond the area for which the service intended, the Commission has denied this application."
  154. That's bogus. No statements were ever made like that. And you're using that as a basis of denying me a licence? It's offensive. It's downright offensive, and both Mr. Coulbeck and Mr. Bachner share my offence, and that's why we are going to Federal Court. We did not go to Federal Court lightly. We went because we figured that there is no way we are going to get a fair hearing, and we are probably wasting our time right now.
  155. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Do you wish to make any other closing comments then beyond that?
  156. I just have one question, and I want to reiterate the purpose of this hearing. We have an obligation under the Broadcasting Act which states that no one can operate a broadcasting undertaking in Canada without a licence, and so the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether, in fact, Star Ray TV is operating a broadcasting undertaking in Canada right now without a licence.
  157. I guess given your obvious desire to operate a broadcasting in Toronto and the obvious support you have from your viewers and those who logged on to your website and the interventions that we have got in support of Mr. Bachner and Mr. Coulbeck here today supporting your desire to do that.
  158. I think I and my colleagues might be interested to know what steps you might be prepared to take in order to operate such an undertaking within the confines of the Act.
  159. MR. J. PACHUL: Well, for one, I don't really know how it's possible if you're not accepting any applications for low-power TV operations right now, because you are "studying the matter". So what legal recourse do we have?
  160. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact we do not have any legal recourse. I think that's the big problem here.
  161. And also, why are we at this hearing to begin with? Because there is something very wrong with our decision. That's the only reason why we have taken any actions that we have taken, because we are greatly offended at this decision. It does not address what we have in this application, and it fabricates testimony. We are going to prosecute this problem. That's why we are going to Federal Court. That's the bottom line, and we're not stopping.
  162. Now, if you could suggest some steps we could take, maybe there is a middle ground, but so far I haven't seen any kind of compromise.
  163. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think those are all our questions then, Mr. Pachul. I thank you for attending today and your supporters as well.
  164. I don't believe we have any other questions, counsel.
  165. MR. W. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
  166. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
  167. Well, that concludes this hearing.

--- Upon adjourning at 10:20 A.M. / L'audience est ajournée à 10h20.








I, Johanne Laporte, a certified court reporter in the Province of Ontario, hereby certify the foregoing pages to be an accurate transcription of my notes/recordings to the best of my skill and ability, and I so swear.



Johanne Laporte, CVR
























I, William Jones, a certified court reporter in the Province of Ontario, hereby certify the foregoing pages to be an accurate transcription of my notes/recordings taken to the best of my skill and ability, and I so swear.



William B. Jones, CVR

Date modified: