ARCHIVÉ - Transcription
Cette page Web a été archivée dans le Web
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
Offrir un contenu dans les deux langues officielles
Prière de noter que la Loi sur les langues officielles exige que toutes publications gouvernementales soient disponibles dans les deux langues officielles.
Afin de rencontrer certaines des exigences de cette loi, les procès-verbaux du Conseil seront dorénavant bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience et la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION
DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET
DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT/SUJET:
DIVERSITY OF VOICES PROCEEDING /
AUDIENCE SUR LA DIVERSITÉ DES VOIX
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Portage IV Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
September 17, 2007 Le 17 septembre 2007
Transcripts
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.
Transcription
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 publique.
Canadian
Radio‑television and
Telecommunications
Commission
Conseil
de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications
canadiennes
Transcript
/ Transcription
DIVERSITY OF VOICES PROCEEDING /
AUDIENCE SUR LA DIVERSITÉ DES VOIX
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Konrad von Finckenstein Chairperson / Président
Michel Arpin Commissioner
/ Conseiller Rita Cugini Commissioner
/ Conseillère
Andrée Noël Commissioner
/ Conseillère
Ronald Williams Commissioner
/ Conseiller
Stuart Langford Commissioner
/ Conseiller
Michel Morin Commissioner
/ Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Chantal Boulet Secretary / Secrétaire
Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager /
Gérant de l'audience
Shari Fisher Legal
Counsel /
Bernard Montigny Conseillers juridiques
HELD AT: TENUE
À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle
Outaouais
Portage IV Portage
IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
September 17, 2007 Le 17 septembre 2007
- iv -
TABLE
DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR:
CBC / Radio-Canada 7 / 45
Canadian Association of Broadcasters 60 / 369
CTVglobemedia 122 / 691
CanWest MediaWorks Inc. 168 / 938
Shaw Communications Inc. 216 / 1218
Gatineau (Québec) / Gatineau, Québec
‑‑‑ L'audience
débute le lundi 17 septembre 2007
à 0857 / Upon
commencing on Monday,
September 17, 2007 at 0857
LISTNUM
1 \l 11 THE
SECRETARY: Please, be seated. We will be commencing in a couple of seconds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12 Thank
you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 14 Welcome
to this public hearing on diversity of voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 15 Today's
panel is made up of Michel Arpin, Vice‑Chair, Broadcasting;
Rita Cugini, Regional Commissioner of Ontario; Stuart Langford,
National Commissioner; Michel Morin, National Commissioner;
Andrée Noël, Regional Commissioner for Québec; Ronald Williams,
Regional Commissioner for Alberta and Northwest Territories; and myself,
Konrad von Finckenstein, as chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 16 L'équipe
du Conseil qui nous assiste se compose notamment de Nick Ketchum,
gestionnaire de l'audience et directeur principal, Radiodiffusion;
Shari Fisher et Bernard Montigny, conseillers juridiques; et
Chantal Boulet, secrétaire de l'audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 17 The
issue of media concentration is an important one that has preoccupied policy
makers in Canada for some time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 18 Several
studies have touched on the subject, most notably the Davey Report in 1970, the
Kent Commission in 1981, the Lincoln Report in 2003 and the Fraser Report in
2006.
LISTNUM
1 \l 19 The
concern over media concentration is not limited to Canada. Many other
jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, are
currently studying this issue, and Australia has recently passed new
legislation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 110 Pourquoi
la concentration des médias fait‑elle l'objet d'une telle attention ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 111 Tout
simplement parce que la présence d'une diversité de voix s'avère essentielle au
bon fonctionnement d'une démocratie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 112 Lorsque
les personnes ont accès à l'information à partir de différents points de vue, elles
sont mieux en mesure de participer aux débats publics et de devenir des
citoyens bien informés et engagés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 113 C'est
la première fois que le CRTC tient une audience pour examiner la politique
globale de son approche sur la propriété des médias et son incidence possible
sur la diversité des voix accessible aux Canadiens, et ce, au moment où la
vague de fusions que connaît l'industrie de la radiodiffusion fait en sorte que
les entreprises contrôlent non seulement un large éventail de médias
traditionnels, mais également le contenu qu'elles peuvent diffuser sur leurs
plateformes numériques.
LISTNUM
1 \l 114 The
main purpose of this proceeding is to
ensure that the broadcasting system provides Canadians with the greatest
possible diversity of voices, and especially editorial voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 115 Any
policy guidelines that may be developed as a result of this proceeding should
be simple, consistent and clearly articulated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 116 As
you are all aware, the three major ownership transactions announced prior to
March 13, 2007, will be considered under the existing rules and will not be
affected by the guidelines arising from this proceeding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 117 The
hearing starting today will focus on three key issues: the plurality of commercial editorial voices,
the diversity of programming choices and the safeguards for journalistic
content in situations where different media outlets in a given market are
controlled by a single entity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 118 Those
are our three major concerns.
LISTNUM
1 \l 119 When
speaking of the plurality of voices, the Commission is referring to the number
of editorial voices, including news and current events programming, owned by
separate entities.
LISTNUM
1 \l 120 In
Canada, the broadcasting system is divided into public, private and community
elements, and each plays a role in informing the perspectives of Canadians on
local, national and global affairs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 121 During
this hearing, we will only examine the most effective means of ensuring that
private broadcasters offer Canadians an appropriate num ber of different
editorial voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 122 The
diversity of programming choices, on the other hand, refers to the content
available to Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 123 The
Commission has different regulatory tools at its disposal to ensure that our
broadcasting system offers diverse content to listeners and viewers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 124 We
will be taking a broader look at our regulatory tools during upcoming
proceedings, such as the review of our policies for discretionary services and
BDUs and the licences renewal hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 125 Enfin,
nous étudierons également l'efficacité des dispositifs en place concernant
l'indépendance journalistique, ainsi que le Code d'indépendance journalistique
que le Conseil canadien des normes de la radiotélévision a proposé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 126 The
Commission will accept additional comments on the areas identified by the panel
at the end of the oral hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 127 Parties
will have until October 5 to submit their final written comments.
LISTNUM
1 \l 128 Now
we have five very full days ahead of us.
I will not bother you with any more speeches.
LISTNUM
1 \l 129 We
will go right to the various interveners.
LISTNUM
1 \l 130 Madame Boulet,
over to you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 131 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, et
bonjour à tous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 132 Seulement
quelques petites annonces d'ordre procédural.
LISTNUM
1 \l 133 I
would now ask you, if you have a blackberry or a beeper or a cell phone, if you
could please turn it off. I would
appreciate your cooperation throughout the hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 134 The
simultaneous translation is available is available during this hearing. There are receivers available from the
commissionaire outside this hearing room.
LISTNUM
1 \l 135 The
English translation is on channel seven, and the French translation on channel
eight.
LISTNUM
1 \l 136 We
expect the hearing to take one week.
LISTNUM
1 \l 137 We
will begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. and every other morning, and adjourn
each afternoon at approximately 4:30 p.m.
LISTNUM
1 \l 138 We
will take one hour for lunch, a break in the morning and in the afternoon.
LISTNUM 1 \l 139 Pendant
toute la durée de l'audience, vous pourrez consulter les documents qui font
partie du dossier public pour cette audience dans la salle d'examen qui se
trouve dans la Salle Papineau, située à l'extérieur de la salle d'audience à
votre droite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 140 Une
transcription est aussi disponible sur notre site Internet à la fin de
l'audience, ou vous pouvez vous en procurer une copie auprès de la compagnie
Mediacopy en parlant peut‑être avec le sténographe qui est situé à ma
droite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 141 Veuillez
noter qu'un intervenant a été ajouté à l'horaire de cette audience pour
mercredi. Il s'agit du Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information du Journal de
Montréal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 142 We
will now proceed with the presentation of CBC/Radio‑Canada. Appearing for CBC is Mr. Sylvain Lafrance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 143 Monsieur
Lafrance, une fois que vous aurez présenté vos collègues, vous aurez dix
minutes pour votre présentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 144 Merci.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 145 M.
LAFRANCE : Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 146 Monsieur
le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, au nom de la Société Radio‑Canada,
il nous fait plaisir d'être présents ici ce matin pour discuter de cette très importante question qui est la
diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 147 Je
suis Sylvain Lafrance, donc, vice‑président principal des Services
français.
LISTNUM 1 \l 148 A
ma gauche se trouve Jane Chalmers, vice‑présidente de la Radio anglaise.
LISTNUM 1 \l 149 Et
à ma droite de monsieur Richard Stursberg, vice‑président principal de
CBC télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 150 Et
à la droite de monsieur Stursberg, Bev Kirshenblatt, première directrice,
Affaires réglementaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 151 Dans
le cadre de ses audiences, le Conseil examine l'un des objectifs fondamentaux
de la réglementation sur la radiodiffusion au Canada, soit la promotion d'un
système de radio diffusion qui reflète la composition démographique du pays et
qui garantit que les auditoires ont accès à une diversité de voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 152 Comme
nous l'avons expliqué dans notre mémoire, nous pensons que, dans le cadre de
cet examen, le Conseil devrait porter une attention particulière à la
contribution des diffuseurs publics pour assurer la diversité des voix,
contribuant ainsi à la santé du système de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 153 L'étude
que nous avons faite de la situation dans d'autres pays ainsi que les études de
portée internationales effectuées par d'autres parties dans le cadre de ces
audiences confirment la reconnaissance du rôle important des diffuseurs publics
en cette matière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 154 La
présence d'un diffuseur public solide dans le système de radiodiffusion d'un
pays constitue un contrepoids important à la concentration des médias et permet
de s'assurer que la diversité des voix est bel et bien présente.
LISTNUM 1 \l 155 A
titre d'exemple, dans une seule semaine de diffusion en 2007, la radio de Radio‑Canada
dans ses seules émissions d'information reçoit près de 1500 invités différents.
La télévision de Radio‑Canada, près de 900 invités différents.
LISTNUM 1 \l 156 Ça
parle beaucoup de ce qu'est la diversité à la radio et à la télévision de Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 157 Ce
matin, nous aimerions discuter plus en détail de ce concept avec vous et vous
donner des exemples concrets de la manière dont CBC/Radio‑Canada
contribue à promouvoir la diversité des voix au Canada sur diverses plateformes,
enrichissant ainsi la vie démocratique et culturelle des Canadiens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 158 J'aimerais
m'arrêter un instant sur deux points cruciaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 159 Premièrement,
le caractère singulier du marché québécois, qui, de par sa taille réduite, son
environnement médiatique hautement concentré et sa proximité avec les marchés
anglophones qui l'entourent, constitue un défi pour le maintien d'une saine
diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 160 Vous
savez déjà que l'intégration verticale entre les distributeurs et la télévision
est très présente au Québec. Québécor contrôle Vidéotron, TVA et LCN. Cogeco
contrôle TQS.
LISTNUM 1 \l 161 On
sait aussi que le niveau de concentration des médias est particulièrement élevé
sur le marché québécois.
LISTNUM 1 \l 162 Il
n'est pas surprenant que le rapport de Nordicité conclut que, si on applique le
système australien de calcul de concentration des médias, le marché
métropolitain de Montréal est déjà en dessous du seuil acceptable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 163 On
note cependant que cette méthode australienne de calcul n'inclut que les
groupes de médias privés commerciaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 164 Il
ne tient donc pas compte de Radio‑Canada, qui joue un rôle absolument
essentiel pour maintenir une diversité des voix dans un contexte où les médias
au Canada, tout comme ceux de plusieurs autres pays, se concentrent de plus en
plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 165 Dans
ce contexte, les avantages qu'apporte la radiodiffusion publique au système
sont doublement importants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 166 Je
me ferai un plaisir de discuter plus avant de ce point avec vous pendant la
période de questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 167 Le
second élément est un point essentiel défini par le Conseil dans son avis
public : le critère de l'accès raisonnable au système pour les entreprises
canadiennes de programmation afin de promouvoir un système de radiodiffusion
diversifié et sain.
LISTNUM 1 \l 168 Le
défi que constitue la promotion de l'accès au système de la programmation
canadienne n'a jamais été aussi grand, surtout dans le cas de la télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 169 Et
soyons clairs sur ce point : il n'y a pas de liberté de parole sans la
liberté d'être entendu. Il n'y a pas de diversité des voix sans une
distribution équitable de ces voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 170 La
tâche du Conseil sera colossale, car plusieurs défis se présentent. D'abord, la quantité et la variété
grandissantes de contenu étranger que l'on peut trouver sur Internet et sur les
plateformes multimédias, puis la domination croissante de la programmation
étrangère à la télévision canadienne anglaise, le contrôle accru du contenu des
nouveaux médias par les distributeurs et par les entreprises de
télécommunications qui distribuent ce contenu, et enfin les contraintes
incessantes, liées à la petitesse du marché, auxquelles est soumise la programmation
canadienne de langue française.
LISTNUM 1 \l 171 Nous
discuterons avec vous plus en détail de certains de ces points dans le contexte
de prochaines audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 172 Toutefois,
nous souhaiterions souligner aujourd'hui au Conseil qu'il ne doit pas envisager
la diversité des voix dans le seul contexte des genres de programmation ou des
choix éditoriaux et de propriété, mais aussi dans le cadre plus large d'assurer
un accès raisonnable au système pour la programmation canadienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 173 La
question de l'accès n'est pas une question technique ou une simple question de
tuyaux. Elle est au coeur de la partie sociale et culturelle du mandat du CRTC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 174 Jane
?
LISTNUM
1 \l 175 MS
CHALMERS : Thank you, Sylvain.
LISTNUM
1 \l 176 As
we noted in our submission, UNESCO and the Council of Europe in their
assessment of diversity and the role of public broadcasting services have
characterized four specific qualities of public broadcasting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 177 These
are:
1) universality of access to every
citizen throughout the country;
2) independence from commercial or
political influence;
3) diversity in program type, in
audiences targeted and in subject matter; and
4) distinctiveness from other
broadcasting services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 178 First,
universality of access to public broadcasting services is an essential
precondition to the provision of a diversity of voices in any broadcasting
system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 179 CBC/Radio‑Canada
has established near universal access to service in the analog world.
LISTNUM
1 \l 180 Our
analog over‑the‑air TV and radio services are available to 99 per
cent of Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 181 In
the digital world, the challenge is greater as Canadians consume media across a
variety of different platforms ‑‑ both regulated and
unregulated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 182 We
continue to work to secure a place for our services on traditional media
platforms by extending over‑the‑air distribution and securing
access to satellite and cable distribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 183 As
well, we are broadening our reach onto emerging platforms like the Internet,
mobile TV, podcasting and now the potential of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 184 We
have to reach every citizen in Canada as best we can and we have to do that on
every available platform.
LISTNUM
1 \l 185 The
second characteristic of public broadcasting is its independence from
commercial or political influence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 186 CBC/Radio‑Canada's
capacity to provide a distinct and unique perspective in the Canadian broadcasting
system is rooted in that independence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 187 In
radio we offer a commercial‑free service:
no one else is able to provide such a service.
LISTNUM
1 \l 188 In
television while we do compete for advertising revenues, we insulate news and
current affairs from the pressures of the advertising marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 189 We
also enforce the highest standards in respect of journalistic accuracy and
accountability across all of our services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 190 Our
Parliamentary Appropriation provides the base on which our services are built
and it gives us freedom to provide services that are unique in the system and
to program in ways that simply is not possible in the private sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 191 I
would like now to turn things over to Richard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 192 MR.
STURSBERG: Thank you, Jane.
LISTNUM
1 \l 193 The
third characteristic of public broadcasting that Jane mentioned is diversity in
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 194 CBC/Radio‑Canada
provides a diversity of programming both within its network services and in
combination with its more niche‑oriented services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 195 For
example, within our network services we cover a range of program genres from
comedy to drama to sports to variety to performing arts to news and current affairs
and documentaries to an extent no other conventional broadcasters do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 196 There
is something for everyone on the schedule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 197 Our
niche services also play to our strengths as a public broadcaster and enhance
our contribution toward our mandate ‑‑ performing arts
programming on ARTV, Canadian music on Radio2, news on Newsworld and RDI and
documentary programming on The Documentary Channel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 198 With
respect to the fourth characteristic of public broadcaster ‑‑
distinctiveness from other broadcasting services ‑‑ CBC/Radio‑Canada's
public service obligations are, as they should be, greater than that of other
broadcasters and that makes its contribution to a diversity of voices that much
more vital.
LISTNUM
1 \l 199 For
example, CBC Radio and Radio de Radio‑Canada's prime time schedules are
home‑grown and distinctively Canadian.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1100 CBC
Television and Television de Radio‑Canada's schedules are similarly
distinctive and overwhelmingly Canadian at 80 per cent and 88 per cent in prime
time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1101 To
sustain this high level of content, 95 per cent of CBC/Radio‑Canada's
programming budget is expended on Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1102 CBC/Radio‑Canada
provides a level of distinctiveness that is simply not possible from the rest
of the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1103 For
example, we operate 13 international bureaus around the world; CTV has, I
believe, two bureaus outside this country, Global has none, and TVA has one
individual in Washington.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1104 Canadians
simply would not have an original Canadian perspective on international events
without us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1105 We
do more current affairs, more documentary, more international news and more
Canadian drama programming than any other player in the system and we do it
when Canadians are watching and listening ‑‑ in the heart of
prime time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1106 For
economic and commercial reasons, this is just not available from other
broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1107 Because
of simultaneous substitution, CTV and Global simply cannot consistently put
Canadian shows in deep prime time. Only
we can.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1108 CBC/Radio‑Canada
provides a range of Canadian programming, across this country, including in the
North in French, English and nine native languages and to Francophone
communities outside of Quebec. No one
else can do this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1109 In
conclusion, we believe CBC/Radio‑Canada as Canada's national public
broadcasters in an essential counterweight to the effects of consolidation and
concentration of ownership within the private broadcasting industry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1110 We
also believe therefore that the strength and vitality of public broadcasting
should continue to be a key concern of the Commission and CBC/Radio‑Canada
should be considered by the CRTC as a key pillar in the Commission's efforts to
encourage a diversity of voices in the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1111 Thank
you. We would be pleased to answer your
questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1112 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1113 I
would like to go to your submission because what you told us this morning is
very interesting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1114 It
basically deals with CBC and its vital role as a Canadian broadcaster, which is
not really the key focus of this hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1115 As
I told you, the key focus is plurality of voices, diversity of programming and
journalistic code.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1116 If
I understand your submission correctly, you basically make two
suggestions. You suggest that we have a
very rich, diverse system and that no drastic overhaul is suggested.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1117 But
your first rule is a simple rule on ownership relation over discretionary
services and basically you said no person may own or otherwise control more
than 33 percent of licence discretionary services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1118 Can
you explain to me what the rationale is for the first rule and on what basis
you picked 33 percent?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1119 MR.
STURSBERG: We don't maintain that the 33
percent is any sort of magical number.
It could be 25 percent, it could be 40 percent. But what we are saying is that if you are
going to have diversity then you have to establish some kind of rule that is
relatively clear with respect to the maximum number of channels that any party
could own.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1120 But
as we say, whether this is like 33, whether it is 25, whether it is 40, we
don't have a strong view about that but we do think it is essential that there
be some minimum floor established.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1121 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You are focusing only on 33
percent of licence discretionary services.
So I presume that this rule is mainly ‑‑ does it apply
to broadcasters as well as BDUs or is that different?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1122 MR.
STURSBERG: Actually, we have two
different rules that we have proposed and I might just take you to them in our
submission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1123 First
of all ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1124 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, my question was
discretionary services can be owned by both BDUs or broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1125 MR.
STURSBERG: Correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1126 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So the 33 percent would
apply to both of them?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1127 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1128 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And then on BDU ownership, you said no person
should own or otherwise control more than two BDUs serving a single
territory ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1129 MR.
STURSBERG: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1130 THE
CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ that is within the Canadian market and a
single BDU should control no more than a certain portion such as again 33
percent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1131 MR.
STURSBERG: That is right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1132 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you could explain to
me the rationale for this rule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1133 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, the rationale for the
rule is that we take the view that the BDUs become more and more important in
terms of the control of content, that what you want to do is you want to
establish a rule that is going to ensure that there is not one, two BDUs who
are completely dominant in the marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1134 The
capacity of the BDUs now, it is not just their ability to be able to determine
in very large measure which discretionary services win or lose in terms of
their ability to establish price or establish position on the dial, it is that
the BDUs now are, of course, extending much further into other areas with
respect to their control over internet and high‑speed internet
particularly, with respect to those of them that are involved in mobile devices
of one variety or another.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1135 Then
what happens now is that their ability to be able to influence the distribution
of content, whether it is sitting on the internet or whether it is sitting on
mobile and hand‑held platforms, increases accordingly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1136 So
we think it prudent under the circumstances to establish again some simple
rules as to what would constitute reasonable levels of diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1137 M.
LAFRANCE : Si je peux ajouter une chose sur le principe, parce qu'on suggère
ces deux questions là, puis on dit que le reste dans le fond du système fait un
peu la job en matière de protection de la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1138 Mais
sur le principe, il y a une chose importante, c'est qu'on dit, il faut une
certaine forme de réglementation pour freiner la concentration, et ça s'inscrit
dans un contexte plus global au Canada, comme partout dans le monde,
d'ailleurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1139 Vous
savez, ce qui trouble un peu mon sommeil, ce n'est pas le phénomène de la
concentration en soi. Ce qui trouble un
peu mon sommeil, ce n'est pas non plus le phénomène de la déréglementation. Ce qui trouble mon sommeil, ce n'est même pas
le phénomène de la mondialisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1140 J'avoue
que ce qui m'empêche parfois de dormir, toutefois, c'est de voir arriver de
front la concentration, la déréglementation, et la mondialisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1141 Ça,
ça pourrait poser une véritable menace à l'identité culturelle canadienne, et,
à long terme, il y a vraiment lieu de se poser des questions sérieuses pour
s'assurer qu'on n'est pas en train de préparer un terrain pour que, à long terme,
il y ait vraiment une érosion de l'identité culturelle canadienne dans cet
univers là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1142 THE
CHAIRPERSON: If I understand your two
rules correctly, they are really prospective.
If, for argument's sake, the Commission would say: CBC, brilliant, we adopt your rules, they
wouldn't bite, nobody would be offsite, so to speak. It would, however, ensure that the situation
does not become more concentrated than it is now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1143 I
understand that nobody has more than 33 percent of discretionary services, and
adopting this rule regarding BDUs, the net effect would be that Shaw could not
buy ExpressVu.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1144 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, what you say is
correct, that they are forward‑looking rules, they are not backward‑looking
rules.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1145 With
respect to the BDU markets, I think ‑‑ well, first of all, I
think, generally speaking, we have to see both the discretionary services
markets as falling into two camps. There
is a French market and there is an English market and so the one‑third
rule should apply to the French market, as it should apply to the English
market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1146 When
it comes to BDUs, I think we should think of it as being effectively four
markets. There is the major metropolitan
markets, the urban markets, and then there is the rural and remote
markets. Satellites effectively compete
in the rural and remote markets. Their
capacity to put competitive pressure on the cable companies in the urban
markets is much more limited.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1147 So
I would say that when we think about the BDU markets, we should actually think
about them as being the French urban, and then rural and remote, and the
English urban, and rural and remote.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1148 So
to come back to your question, Chairman, the way it would work is that Shaw
could not buy ExpressVu because then ExpressVu and Star Choice in the rural and
remote markets would breach the rule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1149 By
the same token, Shaw and Rogers could not buy each other because then they
would breach the rule in its totality.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1150 THE
CHAIRPERSON: They would breach the 33
percent rule?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1151 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes. In the English markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1152 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1153 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1154 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I understand.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1155 Then
lastly, Mr. Lafrance, you mentioned the Australian model and that applying it
to Montreal, the situation already is beyond what Australians find an
acceptable level.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1156 You
are speaking about the French market in Quebec or the English market?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1157 MR.
LAFRANCE: We are talking about the
French market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1158 THE
CHAIRPERSON: The French market?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1159 MR.
LAFRANCE: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1160 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And how did you come to
that conclusion? Because the Australian
model is sort of intellectually very fascinating but the key is in how you
apply it, how you assess the points and what you consider markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1161 MR.
LAFRANCE: Yes, I think I will ask Bev
to ‑‑ she is our specialist of the Australian market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1162 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1163 MS
KIRSHENBLATT: The reference there was
with respect to the CFTPA's filing. They
filed an appendix with respect ‑‑ it was filed by Nordicity,
and in applying the Australian model, the five‑point model, in looking at
various markets, in the French market there was a concern.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1164 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm. The Australian model is very peculiar to
Australia because they talk about capital cities and it so happens that the
capital cities are also the largest cities in Australia. And then they have a little problem with
Tasmania, so they say only as far as continental Australia is concerned because
Jojoba doesn't fit the bill.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1165 So
how do you translate this to Canada?
Wouldn't you have to ‑‑ since we don't have most
provincial capitals in the largest cities, we have to adopt that rule and if we
wanted to go the Australian way we would have to find some other
threshold. And what would be the logical
threshold?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1166 MR.
STURSBERG: I think that the issue ‑‑
we don't argue that you should necessarily adopt the Australian model but
rather that the point of the example is to illustrate the level of
concentration in particular markets given some international tests.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1167 The
Australian model actually applied to the English market in Montreal, the
English market would also fail on the five‑point test.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1168 If
you took their other test, the two‑out‑of‑three test, i.e.,
that you cannot own more than two of radio, television and newspapers, then
Toronto would fail because Bell Globemedia owns, obviously, a newspaper, radio
stations and television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1169 In
our report we summarize a series of other measures that are used in other
different countries in terms of acceptable levels of concentration and I think
it would be fair to say that whatever the measure that you use, this country
has levels of media concentration that would be in many instances unacceptable
in other countries.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1170 THE
CHAIRPERSON: It is interesting you
mention the two‑out‑of‑three rule that the Australians have
superimposed on their point system. I
notice in your submission you don't comment on that at all.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1171 What
is your view of this?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1172 MR.
STURSBERG: I think our view is that
generally speaking the level of concentration is already too high and that if
the Commission wanted to adopt the two‑out‑of‑three rule, I
think that would be prudent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1173 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1174 I
don't want to dominate the questions, I know my other colleagues have interest
in this matter very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1175 So
I will ask Michel Morin, our newest Commissioner. This is your first hearing, so allez‑y.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1176 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1177 Monsieur
Lafrance, je vous ai entendu plusieurs fois dire, finalement, qu'il y a
beaucoup de gens qui sont interviewés chaque semaine à Radio‑Canada, et
que, finalement, vous assumez un peu la diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1178 Ma
question est la suivante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1179 Pendant
les campagnes électorales, on tient à Radio‑Canada, minutieusement, un
registre des interventions des différents participants, de manière à s'assurer
que le mot * diversité + ‑‑ que vous et vos
collègues avez prononcé ce matin je ne sais pas combien de fois ‑‑
est vraiment réalisé que tout le monde a sa part de l'opinion politique,
disons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1180 Dans
les autres sujets, qui sont aussi intéressants, parce qu'il n'y a pas que la
politique, le réchauffement de la planète, la privatisation du système de
santé, de grands enjeux sociaux, est‑ce que, à Radio‑Canada/CBC,
est‑ce que vous tenez, vous faites, ponctuellement, des recherches, des
relevés, pour vous assurer vraiment qu'il y a cette diversité?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1181 Je
pense au réchauffement de la planète. Il
n'y a pas que les Nations‑Unies, mais il y a bien d'autres théories qui
acceptent ou qui accepteraient partiellement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1182 Est‑ce
que vous pouvez vous assurer que sur des enjeux majeurs qui ne sont pas
politiques, vous pouvez dire, Radio‑Canada, la diversité en ce qui
concerne le réchauffement de la planète ou tout autre sujet que vous pouvez
choisir, nous l'avons?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1183 M.
LAFRANCE : Bien, il existe, d'abord, plusieurs outils pour s'assurer qu'on le
fait, et il existe plusieurs outils pour assurer les citoyens qu'ils ont droit
aussi de nous poser des questions là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1184 D'une
part, on tient compte de l'ensemble des entrevues qui sont faites sur une
journée de production, pas seulement aux émissions dites d'information, mais
sur l'ensemble d'une grille, que ça soit la radio ou la télé, et je peux vous
dire qu'il y a une très grande gamme d'opinions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1185 Est‑ce
que, sur chaque dossier, il y a toujours une assez large gamme d'opinions? C'est une préoccupation qu'on doit toujours
avoir. C'est une préoccupation qu'on
doit toujours garder, et je dirais que c'est une préoccupation qu'on a de plus
en plus, parce qu'il y a plusieurs débats sociaux aujourd'hui qui n'existaient
pas il y a 10 ans et sur lesquels il faut s'interroger.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1186 Cela
dit, un coup qu'on a appliqué nos politiques journalistiques, un coup qu'on a
fait certaines analyses de nos antennes, il existe aussi des moyens pour les
citoyens, s'ils se croient lésés ou s'ils croient qu'il y a des opinions qui ne
sont pas représentées, ils peuvent aller à l'Ombudsman, ils peuvent aller à
différents endroits pour dire, écoutez, je pense que Radio‑Canada ne fait
pas sa job là‑dedans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1187 Moi,
je pense qu'on tient généralement compte de l'ensemble des opinions, et je ne
vois pas beaucoup de sujets actuellement sur lesquels je ne serais pas tout à
fait à l'aise de dire que Radio‑Canada reflète l'ensemble des opinions
existantes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1188 Cela
dit, on n'est pas dans une science exacte, hein, ce n'est pas tout à fait
simple, et, selon les régions, parfois, nous exprimons des idées qui sont plus
exprimées que d'autres. Donc, on n'est
pas dans quelque chose de simple, mais je peux vous assurer de la grande
responsabilité des journalistes et dirigeants de l'information à Radio‑Canada
pour s'assurer qu'il existe une grande diversité d'opinions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1189 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais ce matin, par exemple, vous ne pourriez pas, comparativement à la
couverture politique, arriver ici avec un bilan, disons, le réchauffement de la
planète, voici, on a le spectre entier qui a été respecté?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1190 M.
LAFRANCE : Bien écoutez, je peux vous affirmer qu'oui, mais je ne pourrais pas
vous déposer un document sur les entrevues qu'on a faites sur le réchauffement
de la planète. Je peux vous dire qu'il y
en a eu sûrement des centaines dans les trois derniers mois, et qu'il n'y a
sans doute pas eu une seule opinion là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1191 Encore
une fois, on n'est pas dans une science exacte.
Mais c'est une préoccupation qu'on doit toujours avoir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1192 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Dans votre exposé, vous parlez que Radio‑Canada assume cette
diversité en tant que diffuseur public, et vous avez bien raison, c'est, je
pense, un objectif que tout le monde doit avoir. J'ai un petit problème, c'est vos cotes
d'écoute. Quand vous citez l'Allemagne,
quand vous citez la Grande‑Bretagne, quand vous citez la France, leur
part de marché comme diffuseur public est vraiment très important.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1193 Donc,
est‑ce qu'on peut se demander si Radio‑Canada, avec les cotes
d'écoute que vous avez, est‑ce que vraiment vous êtes une sécurité dans
le système, si vous voulez? Est‑ce
que vraiment, avec vos cotes d'écoute, vous pouvez dire : Nous, on assume
la diversité que le secteur privé ne peut pas assumer?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1194 M.
LAFRANCE : Bien, tout à fait! Elles ne
sont pas tout à fait gênantes les cotes d'écoute de Radio‑Canada en
télévision, c'est peut‑être 16 pour cent.
En radio, c'est assez élevé aussi.
Certaines de nos stations sont premières dans leur marché. Donc, c'est important.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1195 Je
vous dirais sur cette question‑là que, quand on compare avec l'Europe, il
faut faire attention, il y a plusieurs grosses différences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1196 La
part du service public en Angleterre est plus grande, mais le service public a
beaucoup plus de chaînes. Je crois que
Radio France a sept chaînes publiques de radio en France. Nous n'en avons que deux. Alors, quand on additionne les sept, ça donne
une part de marché beaucoup plus grande.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1197 Les
moyens consacrés per capita aux services de radio‑télévision publique
dans la plupart des pays européens sont énormément plus élevés qu'au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1198 L'historique
des services publics en Europe, l'histoire est beaucoup plus longue. Il existait en France... jusqu'en 1980, il
existait à peu près que des services publics.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1199 Donc,
toutes ces choses‑là font que c'est différent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1200 Mais
moi, je peux vous dire que la radio de Radio‑Canada est écoutée chaque
semaine par environ un million de citoyens.
Ça peut faire une assez grosse différence dans la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1201 Quand
une émission comme * Tout le monde en parle + attire jusqu'à un million et demi
de personnes qui suivent des débats à la télévision, ça fait, fatalement, une
différence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1202 Quand
on additionne l'ensemble des gens qui, à l'intérieur d'une journée, vont
chercher un bulletin de nouvelles à Radio‑Canada, à la radio, à la télé,
sur l'internet, sur RDI ou ailleurs, ça fait pas mal de monde, et je pense
vraiment que ça peut faire une différence énorme.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1203 MR.
STURSBERG: May I just add something to
what Sylvain said because I think the question is a very good question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1204 The
strength of the counterweight that the public broadcaster can provide is
obviously a function of its presence in the market and what Sylvain says is, of
course, quite right, that in many European markets, particularly in Britain and
in France, the public broadcaster has many other channels and, indeed, that the
level of public financing for the public broadcaster is substantially greater.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1205 One
of the things we put in our presentation ‑‑ it is in our
presentation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1206 MS
KIRSHENBLATT: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1207 MR.
STURSBERG: No. All right, it doesn't matter. I brought it along in any event.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1208 We
can give you copies of it but we filed this with the Commission before, which
is the Nordicity Report on government support for public broadcasting, which
says that per capita public funding for public broadcasters across a whole
range of European countries, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, U.K., Denmark,
Sweden, Finland, Austria, France, Belgium, et cetera, is about $80 Canadian per
person. In Canada, it is about $33.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1209 But
it illustrates, I think, and this is the really fundamental point, that if we
want to be able to have a good counterweight to the increased consolidation of
the system, then it is very important that the public broadcaster be strong whether
that has to do with its financing or that it be strong whether it has to do
with the number of channels that it disposes of.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1210 M.
LAFRANCE : Peut‑être ajouter aussi, Monsieur Morin, en radio que la radio
de Radio‑Canada ‑‑ écoutez, je m'excuse, je n'ai pas les
chiffres toujours en tête ‑‑ je pense, est environ
15 pour cent de part de marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1211 Si
on enlève les stations qui ne sont que musicales et qu'on regarde dans le
marché de l'information radiophonique, Radio‑Canada sur Montréal occupe
probablement, et je le dis là à peu près de mémoire, 35 ou 40 pour cent du
marché des radios d'info. Alors, ça fait
naturellement une assez forte différence en matière de diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1212 CONSEILLER
MORIN : L'indépendance des salles de nouvelles, on va sûrement en parler au
cours des prochains jours, notamment, avec les entreprises du secteur privé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1213 L'an
passé, vous avez fait un exposé à l'Association professionnelle des
journalistes à Québec, je pense c'était en novembre 2006, et vous aviez acheté,
peut‑être pas le mot, mais au moins l'esprit de la convergence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1214 Ma
question est la suivante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1215 Dans
la mesure où vous avez une salle de nouvelles radio, une salle de nouvelles
télé, le secteur affaires publiques, et qu'une information d'une émission
d'affaires publiques est diffusée à la radio, et puis ensuite à la télé, vous
ressemblez beaucoup à l'entreprise privée, d'une certaine manière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1216 Ma
question : Est‑ce que vous avez mis en place des mécanismes pour
vous assurer qu'au point de vue journalistique, on ne fait pas que reprendre ce
qui est diffusé sur une plate‑forme, mais qu'il y a vraiment une
vérification d'un certain nombre d'informations à partir du moment où cette
nouvelle est issue, par exemple, du secteur public ou inversement?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1217 M.
LAFRANCE : J'avais mentionné à Québec que l'intégration à Radio‑Canada,
ce n'est pas vraiment une question de convergence, c'est une question de gros
bon sens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1218 Ça
se fait déjà à l'intérieur d'une seule organisation où il y avait déjà un seul
patron, un seul conseil d'administration, et donc, sur ce plan‑là, on n'a
pas changé la nature même de l'organisation.
Ce qu'on a fait, c'est qu'on a dit, puisqu'on est une même marque et une
même entreprise, on va travailler un peu plus ensemble pour l'efficacité du
système.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1219 Ça
n'a, d'ailleurs, jamais visé des objectifs d'économie de coûts. Ça fait qu'on n'a pas, par ça, réduit le nombre
de journalistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1220 Ce
qu'on a fait, c'est que là où c'est très coûteux, par exemple, dans le
journalisme quand on va à l'étranger, quand on va dans des régions éloignées et
tout ça, on s'assure que, effectivement, l'information puisse servir l'ensemble
de nos plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1221 Pour
moi, l'obsession, de toute façon, de cette intégration‑là n'est ni une
obsession économique, ni une obsession technologique, et sur ce plan‑là,
ne menace pas les salles de nouvelles.
C'est une obsession de marque.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1222 Moi,
je veux que, quelle que soit la plate‑forme sur laquelle les Canadiens
écoutent leur information, que ça soit de la radio, de la télé, de l'internet,
de la téléphonie cellulaire ou autre plate‑forme qui puisse exister, on
reconnaisse toujours les valeurs et la qualité du service public. Pour moi, c'est ça qui est fondamental.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1223 Alors,
ça n'a pas changé les lignes de décision éditoriales. Il y a toujours des chefs de pupitre radio,
des chefs de pupitre télé ou des chefs de pupitre web qui décident de ce qu'ils
vont diffuser. Ça n'a pas changé la
ligne éditoriale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1224 Mais
ce que je veux, c'est que, vraiment, les valeurs du service public et la
qualité du service public transcendent les plates‑formes et qu'on les
retrouve partout pour que le Canadien comprenne bien ce que ça représente pour
lui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1225 Je
pense qu'il y a une certaine efficacité dans les couvertures très coûteuses,
comme l'Afghanistan ou des choses comme ça, de demander à des journalistes qui
sont, de toute façon, sur place d'intervenir sur différentes plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1226 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Dernière question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1227 Évidemment,
quand on parle de diversité, on parle de différentes sources, et ces sources
sont d'autant meilleures en matière de journalisme que les journalistes ont un
beat, un secteur d'activité, parce que c'est généralement un spécialiste de
l'économie, de l'environnement, de la santé, qui va générer beaucoup de
nouvelles et, donc, beaucoup de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1228 J'aimerais
savoir si CBC/Radio‑Canada a une politique pour développer... compte tenu
que vous êtes un diffuseur public, compte tenu que vous êtes largement
subventionné par l'État, est‑ce que vous avez une politique pour
développer des beats, pour développer des journalistes dans des secteurs
spécialisés qui, dans leur univers médiatique, vont faire autorité?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1229 M.
LAFRANCE : Non seulement la réponse est oui, mais on est de loin ceux qui en
ont le plus, parce que je vais donner l'exemple des émissions d'affaires
publiques. Nous sommes sans doute les
seuls à présenter de façon hebdomadaire deux émissions sur la science.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1230 On
va lancer jeudi le 26 septembre (sic) une grande émission sur l'information
internationale. Ça sera un beat où il y
a aura beaucoup de journalistes spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1231 On
a une émission sur les ressources de la terre, l'agriculture, qui est
spécialisée, qui est sur trois plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1232 Donc,
si on prend simplement l'exemple des affaires publiques, ça constitue des beats
spécialisés en matière d'information, où on a là des ressources extrêmement
compétentes pour faire le travail.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1233 A
l'intérieur des salles de nouvelles, il y a aussi des journalistes spécialisés,
naturellement, pour suivre différents beats.
Ça se retrouve, comme il y a des généralistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1234 Est‑ce
que l'équilibre va changer ou pas? Je ne
le sais pas, mais je peux vous dire que quand on regarde la dizaine d'heures
d'affaires publiques qu'on fait en télévision, quand on regarde, de mémoire,
une trentaine d'heures d'affaires publiques qu'on fait en radio, ça fait
beaucoup, beaucoup, beaucoup de beats spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1235 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais j'aurais dû préciser, au service des nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1236 M.
LAFRANCE : Au service des nouvelles, il y a des beats spécialisés. Est‑ce qu'il y en aura plus, est‑ce
qu'il y en aura moins, je ne le sais pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1237 Je
vous dirais là‑dessus que la question de l'intégration n'y change
rien. C'est‑à‑dire que, pour
nous, les journalistes spécialisés sont là, ils doivent travailler, et la
question de l'intégration ne change pas, encore là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1238 Il
n'y a pas d'économie de ressources dans notre stratégie d'intégration. On ne veut pas diminuer le nombre de
journalistes. On veut, au contraire,
s'assurer que le citoyen qui paie pour les services de Radio‑Canada peut
trouver son information là où il la veut.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1239 Écoutez,
je n'ai pas une indication ‑‑ puis, je serais content de
l'entendre ‑‑ qu'il y a eu, par cette politique‑là,
depuis deux ans la moindre diminution de la qualité de notre information ou la
moindre diminution de la quantité de beats spécialisés qu'on a à la salle des
nouvelles. Je ne le crois pas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1240 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1241 Rita,
I believe you had a question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1242 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1243 Good
morning. I just want to go back for a
second on your suggestion on limiting the ownership of discretionary
services. Let us just use 33 percent for
the sake of argument.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1244 I
understand that existing services are to be grandfathered, to be applied in the
future.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1245 Does
this mean, therefore, that any further consolidation we would have to look at
the 33 percent as the benchmark?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1246 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1247 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: And that would apply too to
companies who would want to apply for new services?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1248 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1249 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: In paragraph 84 of your
submission, you say:
"Among other things, the
opportunities for independent producers, each with a diverse voice could be
limited." (As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1250 Are
you suggesting that the safeguards that we currently have for specialty
services, where specialty services have COLs that say a certain percentage of
their programming must come from independent producers, that that is not sufficient
to ensure diversity from independent producers?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1251 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes, and the reason for that
is that when it comes to ‑‑ there are two things that are of
concern to me.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1252 One
is that when it comes to negotiating with independent producers, your capacity
to make deals and the position that you can put yourself in within a deal can
vary widely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1253 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1254 MR.
STURSBERG: The more powerful you are in
your negotiations, the better a deal you can make for yourself.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1255 The
second thing is that if you are very powerful, then your capacity to be able to
tie up talent, i.e., tie up the most gifted independent producers against
others, increases.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1256 So
for both reasons, I think that it would be unwise to allow people ‑‑
and these are things that you cannot get at with conditions of licence, if you
follow me. You can't get there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1257 So
for both of these reasons, I think when it comes to the independent production
community, the wiser thing is not to allow any of the services to become so
powerful that they can dictate terms that advantage them significantly more
than any other broadcaster and/or tie up the talent in a way where it is denied
to others.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1258 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: And because you started that
sentence with "among other things," I am going to ask you what are
the other things that you feel would constrain diversity if we weren't to set a
limit on the ownership of discretionary services?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1259 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, I think we are going to
get into this a little bit more in the next round of hearings but there's a lot
of issues around this, some of which have to do with the diversity of editorial
voice that we have been talking about, some of which have to do with economic
power and with market power.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1260 When
I am talking about the independent producers and the relationship of the
services to the producers, I am really talking about the extent of their market
power. Market power will reflect itself
not just in the relationship to producers, it will reflect itself in your
capacity to be able to make deals with BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1261 So
if you are very, very powerful, then your capacity to be able to strike those
deals ‑‑ in other words, if you own a vast array of services
that they absolutely must have, your capacity to be able to extract rents from
the BDUs that will be higher than normal will be increased.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1262 But,
of course, then what happens to the other services, because the BDUs have to
maintain their margins, is that creates pressure on them then to lower what it
is that they pay by way of fees to the other services who are not part of the
larger group.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1263 The
other way you would see it, of course, is in terms of advertising revenue ‑‑
and we have talked about some of these things in other hearings ‑‑
but to the extent that people are dominant in the advertising market, then what
economic dominance means is, of course, your ability ‑‑
precisely what it means is your ability to be able to price higher than would
happen in a normally competitive market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1264 So
again, you will see those kinds of effects.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1265 So
to avoid those kinds of effects, whether it is economic dominance vis‑à‑vis
the production community, economic dominance with respect to advertising
revenue or economic dominance vis‑à‑vis negotiations with BDUs, we
think it prudent to be able to maintain some kind of limit on size.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1266 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: And while the vast majority of
specialty services are national in scope, there are a handful of regional
services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1267 Would
you apply the rule to both?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1268 MR.
STURSBERG: We think issues of ‑‑
yes. I don't think it is going to be
much of a problem, frankly, at the local level but we think, obviously,
diversity issues are important at the local level, as they are at the national
level.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1269 Obviously,
we think that diversity with respect to local views and issues, whether those
are news issues or whether they are lifestyle issues or whatever they happen to
be, it is very important there as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1270 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1271 Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, those are my questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1272 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1273 Stuart,
you had a question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1274 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1275 I
want to come back to what I take to be the kind of main thrust of your
argument, and by that I do not mean your comments on BDUs or limits on
diversity ownership, because if I have got it right the main thrust of your
argument is don't worry about what the private sector does within the sort of
limits, we will take care of diversity, a strong CBC will do the job.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1276 Essentially,
is that it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1277 MR.
STURSBERG: I would say that ‑‑
let me put it slightly differently but in a similar vein.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1278 Subject
to some reasonable limits with respect to concentration on the private side,
what we are saying is that the public broadcaster can be an important
counterweight to further consolidation in the private sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1279 We
take this view ‑‑ you know, it is not just our view. As we cited in our stuff, the Council of
Europe, UNESCO and various others believe exactly the same thing, that if you
want to have a healthy policy with respect to concentration of media, it is
very important that you have a strong public broadcaster.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1280 Now,
having said all that, I wouldn't say that we would say, "Leave it to
us," partly for the reasons that Sylvain mentioned earlier and partly
because ‑‑ and I sort of expanded on it a bit in English ‑‑
when you look at those public broadcasters in other countries that are really
powerful counterweights to private sector consolidation, whether in France or
in Britain, those are public broadcasters that are better financed and have
more channels at their disposal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1281 So,
if you want to use the public broadcaster ‑‑ and we think you
should, and we think that is consistent with practice in other countries ‑‑
as an important counterweight, then all we are saying is, be sure that you try,
to the extent that it is within the Commission's power to do so, to make sure
the public broadcaster is strong.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1282 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: You have foreseen my second
question, because, with respect, we can't do it. That's the problem, isn't it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1283 On
the one hand you are saying: Try to
leave it to us. Do what you can to leave
it to us. That's the solution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1284 On
the other hand you are saying: In Europe
it is $80 per person, approximately, that goes to the public broadcaster. Here we are being starved at $33.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1285 If
that is the case, if you need seven channels, like France, and you don't have
them, and if you need $80 per capita and you don't have it, and we are not a
taxing authority, how precisely do you expect us to take the risk of following
your main point, when there is practically no way we can guarantee that type of
environment?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1286 MR.
STURSBERG: Commissioner, maybe I can
come back to your findings in the Television Policy hearings.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1287 As
I understood what the Commission's finding was, it said: We do have the power to establish subscriber
fees for conventional broadcasters, if we want to.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1288 If
we want to.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1289 Then,
you kind of left it at that. You had
some further views as to whether the advertising markets for conventional
broadcasters were sufficiently eroded, et cetera, et cetera.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1290 Our
position had been, quite apart from the erosion of the advertising markets,
that one of the things we may want to come and talk to you about in the future
is whether it would be prudent to put in place such a fee that would be
applicable to the satellite and cable companies to finance other kinds of
activities, and we set out a number of the kinds of things there might have
been: more Canadian content, high‑definition
television, et cetera.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1291 So,
there, I think you have found yourselves that you have the power to be able to
do that in the first instance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1292 In
the second instance, I would just say that, frankly, I think it is too bad that
the CBC finds itself now, after the great round of licensing of specialty
channels in the past, in a situation where it has so few specialty channels.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1293 There
is nothing much that can be done about that.
We are where we are. But I would
say that, to the extent that we can acquire or grow specialty channels of one
variety or another, the Commission could be helpful there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1294 We
were very pleased, obviously, when you agreed to the transfer of the
Documentary Channel from Corus to us. It is a small thing, but it was
helpful.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1295 M.
LAFRANCE : Si je peux aussi ajouter, je n'adhère pas au résumé un peu bold que
vous faites du rapport en disant Radio‑Canada est une réponse, donc, on
peut déréglementer joyeusement et tout ça.
Je ne pense pas que c'est ce qu'on dit du tout.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1296 Ce
qu'on dit ici... et, d'ailleurs, je ne crois pas du tout que le libre‑marché
pourrait régler en lui‑même les questions de la concentration. Si le libre‑marché était une réponse
aux grands enjeux de culture et de démocratie dans le monde, ça se saurait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1297 Alors,
il y a, donc, d'autres outils qui sont nécessaires, et on le dit dans le
rapport. On dit, la réglementation
actuelle, par exemple, est très utile.
On suggère même d'ajouter d'autres réglementations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1298 Donc,
on ne dit pas que le diffuseur public est en lui‑même la seule réponse et
qu'en dehors de ça, on peut, donc, tout faire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1299 Ce
qu'on dit, c'est que c'est quand même une réponse importante puisque ses forces
sont précisément dans le domaine de l'information, dans le domaine de la
création dramatique, dans le domaine de la création variétés. Donc, effectivement, il y a là une force qui
est importante et qu'il ne faut pas abandonner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1300 Ça,
on le dit. On précise très bien partout
qu'il y a un certain nombre de réglementations non seulement utiles, mais
fondamentales, pour qu'il y existe des formes de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1301 Donc,
je n'adhère pas du tout au résumé que vous avez fait un peu du rapport.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1302 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, I would say this. I take your point, Mr. Stursberg ‑‑
and I did hear your eloquence, sir ‑‑ that we could, for example,
give you fee‑for‑carriage.
We could tax every cable and ExpressVu satellite viewer or DTH viewer in
Canada. We could add a tax to it and
give you a fee, and increase, but what would you give us in return?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1303 I
think that would be a fair question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1304 For
example, I would say that, if we are looking for diversity of voices, when I
look at the amount of money ‑‑ and we don't know your budget
right down to the dollar, but some things are publicly stated ‑‑
when I look at the amount of money that goes to hockey, for example, even
though people like hockey, it doesn't add that much diversity. They can get it on TSN, as well, and it's a
huge amount of your budget.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1305 When
I look at the guarantees that we thought we had for local news at the last
licence renewal ‑‑ and then there was a process a number of
years ago where CBC began to gut local news.
That has been reversed somewhat now, but one would think that wouldn't
happen if you were going to come to us and say:
Get us more money. Make Canadians
pay more for our service, and we will handle diversity for you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1306 What
is the quid pro quo? What do you do for
us?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1307 By
the way, this isn't an attempt to beat up on the CBC; this is an attempt for us
to say, "If we are going to buy into this guarantee, there has to be a
guarantee," and I don't see the other side of it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1308 MR.
STURSBERG: I don't mind beating up on
the CBC. I do it a certain amount
myself.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1309 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: That's because you are paid to
do it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1310 MR.
STURSBERG: Can I come back through it
very quickly?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1311 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Just make sure we come back
to diversity of voices. This is not a
CBC renewal hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1312 I
heard the question, but keep it focused on diversity of voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1313 MR.
STURSBERG: I understand, but I have to
respond to one little thing, which is:
Hockey makes money for the CBC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1314 One
of the reasons why we like hockey is precisely that it contributes margin that
allows us to finance the things that would otherwise lose money, whether that's
news or whether that's Canadian dramatic programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1315 To
your more general question, I think it is perfectly fair that you say: What would we do for a sub‑fee?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1316 We
have not actually made an application on that yet, but we agree with you that,
were we to do so, the fee would be tied to concrete deliverables.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1317 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Only the fee.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1318 So
what you are saying is: Add more, and we
will do more. But if we don't do a fee,
and if we can't, for some reason, persuade the government to give you more,
then your offer to guarantee diversity, and to allow the market forces to take
off on the other side, shouldn't give us that much comfort, should it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1319 MR.
STURSBERG: I agree with you on
that. I completely agree with you on
that. I think that was the point we were
making earlier when we said: The extent
to which the public broadcaster can be a useful counterweight for your purposes
in terms of diversity is a function of the strength and vitality of the public
broadcaster.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1320 I
completely agree with you about that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1321 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: We will have to be looking for
some other answers then.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1322 Those
are my questions, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1323 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1324 Andrée.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1325 COMMISSIONER
NOEL: Mr. Stursberg, you mentioned that
CBC/SRC is a counterweight ‑‑ and I heard you mention it again
a few seconds ago ‑‑ a counterweight to the concentration of
media in Canada, and you mentioned this morning, at page 8 of your oral
presentation ‑‑ and I will quote you:
"We do more current affairs,
more documentary, more international news and more Canadian drama programming
than any other player in the system, and we do it when Canadians are watching
and listening, in the heart of prime time.
For economic and commercial reasons, this is just not available from
other broadcasters. Because of
simultaneous substitution, CTV and Global simply cannot consistently put
Canadian shows in deep prime time, only weekend." (As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1326 When
you mentioned that, were you referring to the English CBC, or were you
referring to both sides of the equation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1327 MR.
STURSBERG: With respect to simultaneous
substitution, obviously the English side.
But with respect to other matters, including documentaries, current
affairs, et cetera, in deep prime time that would be true of French, as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1328 COMMISSIONER
NOEL: Could you tell us if all of these
investments in developing content ‑‑ Canadian drama, for
example ‑‑ pays in terms of viewership in prime time?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1329 I
know the answer for the French side; I am looking for the answer on the English
side.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1330 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes. Over the course of the last little while we
have put a particular emphasis on trying to redo our drama and entertainment
strategy to focus on building audiences for Canadian shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1331 Our
view is the fundamental cultural challenge in English Canada is to make popular
Canadian television shows, whether it is drama or comedy. We have not done this very well over the
course of many, many years. I can think,
maybe, of three or four shows in the last 15 or 20 years that have managed to
get more than a million viewers on a consistent basis ‑‑ Due
South.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1332 And
I would say to the people at CTV that they have done a very good job with
Corner Gas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1333 Most
recently it was Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is our show.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1334 We
think it is very, very important to put particular emphasis on actually building
audiences for Canadian shows on television, so we have changed a lot of our
strategy. We have changed how we go at
things, how we develop them, whether we want a series versus a mini‑series
or MOWs, and we are starting to have some success.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1335 I
hope very much that we will have more success with this coming season, and more
success with the season after, because I think that would be good.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1336 But,
as I come back to it again, we are the only broadcaster, which is not hobbled
by simultaneous substitution in English, that can put Canadian shows
consistently on in deep prime time, when Canadians are actually viewing. So those shows will have a chance of actually
getting some successful audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1337 COMMISSIONER
NOEL: Merci, Monsieur Stursberg.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1338 Monsieur
Lafrance, voudriez‑vous commenter pour le réseau français?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1339 M.
LAFRANCE : Bien, naturellement, la situation est très différente, comme vous le
savez. Les émissions canadiennes ont
beaucoup de succès. Les francophones du
pays sont très attachés à leur télévision, que ça soit Radio‑Canada, TVO
ou TQS, d'ailleurs, ou les autres chaînes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1340 Alors,
la situation se présente énormément différemment en matière de dramatiques,
quoique c'est vrai qu'en matière d'affaires publiques, Radio‑Canada joue
un rôle assez unique, avec 10 heures d'affaires publiques par semaine.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1341 En
matière de créations dramatiques, on a lancé, l'an dernier, je pense, 11
nouvelles créations dramatiques. C'est
cinq fois plus, je pense, que notre plus proche concurrent. Donc, en matière de créations dramatiques, on
est de loin devant tout le monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1342 Et
je dirais qu'en matière de création de diversité, si on pense aux émissions
spécialisées scientifiques, religieuses ou autres, à l'antenne de Radio‑Canada,
c'est une télévision de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1343 Pour
la radio, je pense que je n'ai même pas besoin de le mentionner parce que c'est
évident qu'en arrivant à l'antenne de la radio de Radio‑Canada, on
reconnaît tout de suite le service public.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1344 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1345 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Michel, you have a
correction to make?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1346 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I heard Mrs. Kirschenblatt
stating data based on the Nordicity study, trying to show that the Montreal
French market is already below the threshold that has been established for
Australia.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1347 I
think if we were to make the real count, based on the Australian system, the
diversity index would be 10 rather than 4, because Nordicity forgot to put
Gesca, "La Presse," "Le Devoir," three other radio groups,
Radio Nord, le Groupe Azulé, la station de monsieur Coallier. Puis on pourrait même ajouter * Métro + de Transcontinental. Donc, on passerait même de 10 à 11.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1348 Donc,
je fais le commentaire juste au cas où d'autres voudraient aussi se servir de
l'étude de Nordicity pour essayer de montrer que, dans le marché francophone de
Montréal, il y a une lacune de diversité, basé sur le modèle australien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1349 Il
pourrait y en avoir, mais basé sur un autre modèle. Basé sur ce modèle‑là, je pense qu'il y
a eu des oublis majeurs dans le décompte fait par Nordicity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1350 Donc,
c'était ma contribution à votre comparution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1351 THE
CHAIRPERSON: In speaking of that, Mr.
Stursberg, when you threw out 33 percent for discretionary service, you said
that would be if it doesn't bite anybody, if it doesn't affect anybody. Is that the same for the English and the
French markets?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1352 I
am getting a message here that, actually, in the French market, somebody may
already be over 33 percent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1353 Would
you suggest the same 33 percent for both language markets, or do you think it
would be appropriate to have a different one for the French market, as we can
under the Act?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1354 MR.
STURSBERG: It is also a forward‑looking
measure, right?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1355 We
are not suggesting that anybody, even if they were to breach the 33 percent
rule, needs to be rolled back. We are
just saying that, as a going‑forward matter, you should ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1356 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And for the existing years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1357 MR.
STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1358 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Those are our questions. Thank you very much for a very interesting
presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1359 Madame
Boulet, who is next?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1360 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1361 I
will now invite the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to come forward for
their presentation.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM
1 \l 1362 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr. O'Farrell, have you
brought your entire association?
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1363 MR.
O'FARRELL: We are still a little more
numerous than that, sir.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1364 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madame Boulet, over to you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1365 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1366 The
Canadian Association of Broadcasters will be introduced by Ms Charlotte Bell.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1367 If
you could please introduce your panel, and then you will have 10 minutes for
your presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1368 Ms
Bell.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1369 MS
BELL: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1370 Bonjour,
Monsieur le Président et membres du Conseil.
Je m'appelle Charlotte Bell, et je suis présidente du conseil
d'administration de l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs et vice‑présidente
Affaires réglementaires pour CanWest MediaWorks.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1371 J'ai
le plaisir de m'adresser à vous, aujourd'hui, au nom de l'ACR, au sujet de la
diversité dans l'environnement canadien des médias.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1372 Permettez‑moi,
d'abord, de vous présenter les personnes qui m'accompagnent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1373 Commençant
à l'extrême droite :
LISTNUM 1 \l 1374 David
Goldstein, vice‑président Affaires réglementaires, CTVglobemedia;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1375 Sophie
Émond, vice‑présidente Affaires réglementaires et gouvernementales,
Astral Média;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1376 Lyndon
Friesen, vice‑président exécutif et chef des opérations, Golden West
Broadcasting; et
LISTNUM 1 \l 1377 Glenn
O'Farrell, président et chef de la direction de l'Association canadienne des
radiodiffuseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1378 A
ma gauche :
LISTNUM 1 \l 1379 Pierre
Lampron, vice‑président Relations institutionnelles, Quebecor Média;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1380 Gary
Maavara, vice‑président et avocat général, Corus Entertainment;
LISTNUM
1 \l 1381 Debra
McLaughlin, Consultant, Strategic Inc.;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1382 Pierre‑Louis
Smith, vice‑président Politique et agent en chef de la réglementation,
Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1383 Monsieur
le Président, mesdames et messieurs les conseillers, j'aimerais demander à
Glenn O'Farrell d'entamer notre présentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1384 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1385 Mr.
Chair and Commissioners, I will focus on three issues that you have identified
as priorities: first, the diversity of
commercial editorial voices in Canadian markets and the most effective means of
preserving that diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1386 You
will hear me say that a strong and vibrant journalistic culture anchors
editorial diversity in Canadian media.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1387 Secondly,
the diversity of programming choices on offer, and whether additional
regulatory tools are necessary to preserve it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1388 On
this you will hear me argue that policy measures in place have fostered an
abundance of diversity in programming choices across diverse formats and
demographic segments, and that the best way of preserving this and sustaining
this is to provide regulatory support to players who risk their capital to
provide Canadian media choices in an increasingly competitive marketplace,
including a new unregulated market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1389 You
will hear me say that the current system is working very well and no new rules
are necessary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1390 Furthermore,
it would be a huge mistake to borrow on proven regulatory models developed
elsewhere, for different policy reasons, than those that exist in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1391 Finally,
our views on the effectiveness of the proposed Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council's code as a means of sustaining editorial independence in cross‑media
ownership situations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1392 On
this issue you will hear our views that this code has a proven track record,
and has effective outcomes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1393 Let's
begin with the diversity of commercial editorial voices, also described as
editorial pluralism or viewpoint diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1394 This
is a subjective notion and, thus, hazardous, in our view, for policy makers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1395 The
British regulator, Ofcom, admits that there is no accepted way of measuring
viewpoint plurality, and rejects the idea that media ownership is an acceptable
proxy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1396 For
example, differently owned media outlets use the same news sources.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1397 This
is the case in Canada with Canadian Press and Broadcast News.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1398 Although
it defies quantification, editorial diversity is a cornerstone of democracy in
Canada as elsewhere. There is no body of
research to demonstrate that editorial diversity is in trouble in Canadian
media, because, quite simply, it is not.
It is alive and well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1399 No
evidence exists or suggests any demonstration that consolidation or
concentration can strain editorial diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1400 What
is more, the explosion of internet use has promoted new outlets for viewer‑generated
content and citizen interaction.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1401 Canadian
television and radio broadcasters enrich their stories by engaging audiences
interactively online, adding the audience's voice to the editorial orchestra.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1402 Let
me turn to diversity in programming choices, which is more plentiful in all
media formats today than at any time in our history.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1403 It
springs from the depth of format and demographic diversity in Canadian markets,
and the investments of broadcasters in Canadian content and choices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1404 The
depth of format diversity in the regulated component of the Canadian
marketplace is without parallel. In the
Toronto market alone, over the course of the past decade, there has been a
greater than 200 percent increase in the number of television services
available to viewers, from 82 in 1996 to more than 260 services today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1405 The
level of ownership diversity has also risen.
Twenty‑one new companies have entered the pay and specialty
sectors since 1997.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1406 Barriers
to entry have come down in radio, as well, with new entrants coming onstream.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1407 In
total, Canada today can boast over 1,590 private radio and television stations,
in addition to the national public broadcaster and networks of campus and
community stations across the country.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1408 These
developments have resulted in audience fragmentation on an unprecedented
scale. As a response to this phenomenon,
ownership consolidation has occurred.
Consolidation enables media companies to reaggregate fragmented audiences
to preserve the economies of scale that are necessary to sustain program
acquisition and content creation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1409 While
critics suggest that consolidation undermines format diversity, we believe the
opposite is true. Owners of multiple
outlets in a given market have an economic interest in covering as many diverse
niches as possible, without duplication.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1410 Evidence
that this model naturally encourages diversification can be observed in the
Ottawa‑Gatineau market here, where three ownership groups operate ten
highly diversified radio stations in two languages.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1411 Demographic
diversity is enshrined in the Broadcasting Act, but it has also been stimulated
by the economic realities of Canada's ever‑changing population. The regulated broadcasting sector offers
services in 45 languages today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1412 From
1996 to 2006, Aboriginal, ethnic and multicultural broadcasters have
flourished, with tuning to multilingual programming in major Canadian markets
rising from 163 percent in Toronto to an even more significant increase in
Ottawa.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1413 Such
levels of demographic diversity make Canada the envy of the world.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1414 Diversity
in programming choices is facilitated by consolidation. With economies of scale that provide critical
mass, consolidated media companies can acquire or create programming which they
then can exhibit sequentially in windows across multiple platforms.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1415 Large,
well‑funded companies are vital to Canadian content production, as
several stakeholders on the creator side acknowledge in their submissions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1416 Spending
on Canadian content has increased, not decreased with consolidation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1417 Between
2001 and 2006, private conventional television increased total expenditures on
Canadian programming by almost $100 million.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1418 Pay
and specialty Canadian program expenditure increases are to the tune of $283
million over the same period.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1419 New
rules, therefore, limiting ownership of multiple broadcasting properties are
not necessary to improve this output.
Broad public policy measures support a robust program rights market in
Canada, producing $8 billion in direct revenues and over 26,000 jobs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1420 While
it is to be expected that certain stakeholders will argue for incremental financial
commitments from broadcasters to support their particular businesses, it is
important to remember that labour market stimulation is not one of the
objectives of the Broadcasting Policy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1421 Moreover,
in an age of declining profitability, introducing new micro‑regulatory
oversight of content spending will simply constrain multiplatform content
creation at a time when original Canadian content production has never been
more expensive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1422 MME
BELL : Nous avons vu d'autres pays tentés, sans succès, de formuler des règles
pour limiter la concentration. Ce simple
constat devrait déjà nous mettre en garde, mais si le Conseil en venait à
penser qu'il faut absolument des règles, s'inspirer de l'expérience de ces pays
serait, à notre avis, commettre une grave erreur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1423 Les
règles dont se dotent d'autres pays répondent aux conditions particulières qui
caractérisent ces pays et ne sont pas conçues pour les Canadiens.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1424 Take
Australia for an example. We share a
common language but our broadcasting systems could not be more different. Australia developed its own point system for
measuring concentration to respond to changes in the business environment
produced by easing restrictions on foreign ownership. That was the driver of change. There is no such change in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1425 I
could go on but I think the point has been made. No new rules are necessary and rules from
elsewhere will not work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1426 J'en
arrive maintenant au Code d'autoréglementation du CCNR à l'usage des médias de
propriétés mixtes. Ce code a bien réussi
jusqu'à maintenant à garantir l'indépendance éditoriale, qui est, comme je l'ai
dit, profondément ancrée dans la culture des salles de nouvelles de tous les
médias. Il n'y a rien qui incite à
penser le contraire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1427 Dans
les activités de collecte de nouvelles, il est courant de voir des réseaux
concurrents de partager le même avion nolisé ou l'alimentation par
satellite. On ne redoute jamais la
contamination éditoriale lorsque les réseaux rivaux font des partages
logistiques. Alors, pourquoi se mettre à
imposer des restrictions aux entreprises de médias mixtes?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1428 Le
code maintiendrait la séparation structurelle des nouvelles et de la gestion
éditoriale, mais il éliminerait les restrictions improductives sur la collecte
des nouvelles au Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1429 Un
des syndicats s'oppose à l'adoption de ce code sous prétexte qu'il n'a pas été
écrit par les journalistes. Là n'est
vraiment pas la question. Ce qui
intéresse les Canadiens, c'est d'avoir davantage de nouvelles qui viennent de
régions difficiles d'accès comme l'Afghanistan et de ne pas être limité en cela
par une réglementation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1430 MR.
O'FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, this hearing is
timely. It allows the Commission to
confirm and, we believe, revalidate its approach to diversity. To do so, we submit that a mature conception
of the public interest in this new environment is required, an environment
consisting of an ever‑expanding unregulated media component, and a
regulated media component that was conceived on the basis of controlled market
entry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1431 A
mature conception in this regard, in our view, should deal with two fundamental
principles: what is in our interest to
prevent, first of all; and second of all, what should we seek to accomplish?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1432 To
the first question we answer: It is in
the public interest to prevent consumers or to encourage consumers from not
checking out of the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1433 To
the second question we answer: It is in
the public interest to strengthen all Canadian programming services, both
public and private, to ensure that they are given every opportunity to remain
relevant to the Canadian audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1434 We
recommend that these principles guide you in your deliberations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1435 This
concludes our remarks, and we would be pleased to take your questions and offer
all answers that are available to us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1436 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1437 First,
a preliminary issue. You probably are
aware that some of the intervenors have criticized us for holding this hearing
and not providing the necessary background, especially financial, et
cetera ‑‑ and especially as it concerns broadcasters; that
disclosure on large broadcasters is not the same as on specialty and pay
services, suggesting that, really, this hearing cannot be held unless such
disclosure was made.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1438 We
have notified everybody, including you, that we would ask the question: How would you feel, not for this hearing, but
generally, if the CRTC were to adopt a rule for the disclosure of financial
information for broadcasters similar to specialty programming?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1439 Could
you comment on that, please?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1440 MR.
O'FARRELL: I will ask my colleague
Pierre‑Louis Smith to give you the details, but our submission and our
position, I think, is quite clear in our response, and I think it is consistent
with how the Commission should conceive its role, in terms of regulating the
system going forward on a basis of fairness.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1441 Pierre‑Louis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1442 MR.
SMITH: Yes, we believe that it is
important to have information for the public, but that providing detailed
financial information per services, including for radio and for television,
wouldn't be warranted. And we believe
that the Commission has decided that it would apply it for specialty services
because they were in a situation of one per genre, which is not the case for
conventional television nor radio.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1443 Does
that answer your question, Mr. Chair?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1444 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So you basically are
putting our rationale to me and saying it is valid rationale and continue as you
have done in the past?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1445 MR.
SMITH: That is right, that is correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1446 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. In terms of plurality, I must say I am
somewhat surprised by your answer. You
basically suggest we don't need to do anything in terms of plurality, that
there is no accepted way of measuring plurality and essentially we do not have
a problem in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1447 Does
it suggest, for instance, the Australian has this two out of three rule,
implying it goes to national and local markets?
Let us take a local market. If I
understand you correctly, we don't need such a rule, so you don't see any
problem in a local market, the same company owning radio stations, TV stations
and dailies?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1448 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we frankly see no diversity deficit in
the Canadian broadcasting system first and foremost. We see a diversity surplus.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1449 Secondly,
if we look at the numbers, I think they speak for themselves. If you look at where we are today in 2007 as
opposed to where we were in 2002 and look at the growth in number of services
available to Canadian consumers ‑‑ and I won't walk you
through all the numbers, but I will give you just the bottom line ‑‑
in the total Canadian picture we saw overall an increase over that period, 2002
to 2007, five years, a 45 per cent increase in services available to
Canadians. Now, that is the big picture.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1450 If
you want to take it market by market across the country, as many of my colleagues
on this panel will tell you, there is no diversity deficit in our view. There is a diversity of programming surplus,
which is why we feel that there are no new rules required and why we think that
this is an opportunity for you to revalidate what you have done because you
have done it well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1451 It
has been a public policy test that you have applied consistently, different
generations of commissioners have done so in licence renewal hearings, in
licence application hearings and in transfer of ownership hearings
overwhelmingly to the satisfaction of what we would call the public interest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1452 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let us not confuse
terms here. I was talking about
plurality, I was not talking about diversity of programming. I was talking plurality, which we explained
quite clearly, to me, talking about the availability of professional editorial
voices and I am talking about a given market.
The CBC may have said basically, we are fine where we are right now, but
we have to watch out for the future and let us make sure ‑‑ if
I understood them, and you were here, you heard yourself ‑‑
make sure it does not get worse.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1453 And
this whole hearing was sparked partially because of the fear that the ongoing
consolidation in the industry would diminish the number of voices which express
different viewpoints. And therefore, I
am asking the plurality, not diversity of programming, plurality of voices and
I am talking about professional editorial voices, that is how we made it quite
clear.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1454 You
do not feel we need a whole, like the Australian for instance, just to take one
example, we don't need to do anything, the situation is fine and can go
on. And we do not have a cross‑ownership
rule, so therefore having a single owner in a local market owning all three
professional editorial outlets, be they TV, newspapers or radios, in your view,
does not cause a problem?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1455 MR.
O'FARRELL: That is correct, Mr.
Chairman. We do not believe that new
rules are required. Looking at the
Australian example, and I think Vice‑Chair Arpin qualified the situation
correctly, in our view, with regard to the situation in the market that was
referred to in the earlier presentation, we do not believe there is a diversity
deficit there either.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1456 But
as to the usefulness of taking a model such as the Australian model, conceived
in a very different marketplace as we all know, that we don't need to go
through those details, and bringing it here and seeking to give it currency or
application here simply is not a useful exercise.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1457 THE
CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't my
question. I am just purely thinking
whether should we do something on plurality of voices or not
prospectively? That is really what ‑‑
and I think you answered it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1458 Commissioner
Arpin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1459 MR.
O'FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, with your
permission, I believe Mr. Maavara would like to add a word on that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1460 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Sure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1461 MR.
MAAVARA: I just wanted to add, Mr.
Chairman, that in fact you already have an extensive set of rules. And when one looks at the application of any
test I would submit that you have started in the right place, which is the
particular market that you are looking at.
And I would submit that you have to drill down even deeper and, in fact,
look at what is the viewer getting, because that is where the Broadcasting Act
starts and ends, it is about Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1462 In
terms of the rules that you have now, in radio you have limits on the ownership
of AM and FM frequencies. In television,
as you are well aware, we have just had an extensive hearing testing the one‑stick
rule and there have been some exceptions to that. But that, again, promotes
plurality of voices within a given market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1463 And
then there are a host of other tools that you have; the first one being, of
course, licensing and the ability to introduce new voices, the second being
approval of transfers. So we would
submit that the toolkit that you have now is quite extensive and
effective. When you start from a market
basis, the fact of Canada is that every single place in Canada is different and
the Commission has, over its regulatory life, chosen to look at each market as
being distinct and the rules have to be distinct. There isn't a cookie cutter rule that you can
apply across the nation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1464 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, I couldn't agree more
with you, we do have rules. I mean, my
question to Mr. O'Farrell was very simple and I was somewhat astonished by the
position of your association that on plurality, even going forward, you did not
see any problems. But, I mean, none of
us has a crystal ball, so it is your view and I appreciate it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1465 Michel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1466 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start my questions where Mr. Pierre‑Louis
Smith left us regarding access to information regarding radio and television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1467 I
heard your reply saying it was not warranted.
The thing is that most of the players that we are talking about here are
publicly traded companies who in their financial notes are divulging most of
that information, at least in an aggregate way.
And what the Commission is seeking from you and discussing here is the
opportunity to release them through the system that the Commission has put in
place over the years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1468 Very
few of the companies that are represented at this table are not publicly
traded. I can see CTVglobemedia being one and Golden as being another one. But all the others here are publicly traded
companies where a good portion of the financial information that we are talking
of here is available, at least annually and sometimes on a quarterly basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1469 There
is also other sources of information that from time to time gives us some
leads. I know that some of your members
have a rep house which from time to time are publishing news releases and in
which they gave some indication to the trade.
So I don't think that what the Commission wants to release in terms of
information is hurtful in any way to your members. But I surely wish to hear
more about it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1470 MR.
MAAVARA: Mr. Vice‑Chair, Corus
Entertainment is a publicly traded company, we are traded both in New York and
on the Toronto Stock Exchanges. And the
information that we provide to the market, and perhaps we are talking about how
this information would be divulged, but obviously we have no objection to the
provision of information to the CRTC itself.
The question is how the information is displayed to the public on a per
station basis. That is what our concern
is.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1471 In
terms of our disclosure, we disclose information on a segment basis, in our
case a radio segment or a production segment or a television segment. The difficulty that we have when we go to
capital markets if we have disclosures that are different than either untraded
companies or companies that don't have to disclose this kind of information, is
that it impinges on our ability to raise capital. And in that sense, we would make the argument
that in fact the regulation, because it is not uniform, is actually hurting us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1472 I
guess the second point is that as a regulated entity certainly the CRTC has the
right and the ability to understand how we are doing. But we deal everyday with large segments of
players who don't in fact have to disclose, for example, the carriers who carry
us and even for an over‑the‑air broadcaster that is an important
issue these days, as you are aware. And
the suppliers who supply us with programming also don't have to disclose. So again, it goes to the matter of fairness
and our ability to conduct business successfully.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1473 We
make the position that it is enough for the regulator to understand how we are
doing, but if we are forced to disclose ‑‑ and I might add our
stations have gone 50 years without having to do so and we are submitting that
this is not the time to start doing that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1474 COMMISSION
ARPIN: Well, I think the way the
Commission is contemplating releasing the information, and that is what we said
in our letter, is that we were looking to release aggregate numbers, not on a
per station basis, but based on a very similar model that we are using for
specialty services. But not on a per
station basis, but by group; I will say radio, television and BDUs. We will have an opportunity to discuss with
the carriers, later on in the winter, and it is also our intention to raise a
similar issue with them at that time. So
it will put everybody on the same footing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1475 And
while you were saying that you were concerned about having two sets of numbers
coming up, the Commission has been releasing your discretionary services
numbers for years now and, to my knowledge, it hasn't forbidden Corus to raise
any capital when they sought the need to go to the market to raise new capital.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1476 MR.
O'FARRELL: Mr. Vice‑Chairman, if I
may. I think to the broader question
that you ask and I thank you for adding the additional information that you did
in your follow‑up, and that is it is a matter of fairness across the
system that concerns us fundamentally.
And you made reference to the other opportunities the Commission will
have to bring that fair approach to other sectors so that we have a model of
disclosure across the system that works for each of its individual
segments. That is really what is
motivating us in our response, which is moving to that model.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1477 And
yes, it is appropriate for the Commission to raise this question in this
proceeding because you had the suggestion made to you and felt that it was
appropriate to bring it forward for discussion.
But having these discussions one off here for this sector and there for
that sector does not necessarily give us a sense of comfort that we are looking
at this with one set of eyes that is going to be fair across all sectors that
is going to make sense for the system.
That is the first point I wish to add.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1478 But
we are not philosophically or in principal opposed to more transparency, that
certainly is not our position. The
second point though is there are multiple members in this organization. Yes, the representation of this table has it
weighed more to the publicly traded constituency than the non‑publicly
traded constituency. But there are a
good number of privately‑held companies that are operating broadcasting
undertakings and that are members of the CAB and they have other levels of
concerns that are not quite those of the large publicly traded companies that I
feel have to be reflected also and should be reflected in that broader fairness
discussion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1479 Charlotte
I think wanted to add something.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1480 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I really hear you but, as we said
in our letter, we were talking about major players, not, obviously, the
operator of a sole radio station in a remote location. We are talking here major players. I will say those at your table.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1481 MR.
O'FARRELL: But I think the question
is: when do we have the full discussion
and when do we put this issue broadly to bed one time ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1482 THE
CHAIRPERSON: We clearly will have that
situation, Mr. O'Farrell, in the BDO hearing, but because it was raised by
several intervenors, we thought it was fair to find out from you right here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1483 MR.
O'FARRELL: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1484 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Our question is, Mr. Arpin
point out, multi‑station owners, aggregated basis, and I gather you are saying
even on that basis your answer is no.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1485 MR.
O'FARRELL: That is correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1486 MS
BELL: As a multi‑station group,
and one of the groups who received that letter, I think there is a distinction
that should be made between the speciality sector and the conventional
television sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1487 For
example, there are much fewer players on the conventional side and there are
probably two large multi‑station groups on the conventional side.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1488 I
don't know if Rogers or...well, you haven't approved that transaction yet, but
if we found ourselves in a situation where, for example, CTV and Global now had
access to each others spending by program category for both foreign and
Canadian programming, I would suggest that would put us both at a bit of a
competitive disadvantage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1489 We
like to collaborate on certain things, I'm not sure that we want to be sharing
that information with each other.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1490 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: My guess is that Mr. Brace may
not know by the dollar how much Global is spending on foreign programming, but
he has a fairly good idea. So
maybe. So anyhow ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1491 MS
BELL: We don't want to help them.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1492 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Anyhow, we have your answer for
the record, so I thank you very much for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1493 Obviously,
we will have similar questions with the individual players that will appear
before us over the next couple of days.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1494 M.
LAMPRON : Excusez‑moi, Monsieur Arpin.
Juste pour bien comprendre la dynamique, est‑ce que vous avez
envoyé la même lettre à CBC/Radio‑Canada pour recevoir le même genre
d'informations?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1495 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Nous publions les données financières de Radio‑Canada à
chaque année.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1496 M.
LAMPRON : Et vous y trouvez quelque chose de significatif?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1497 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Écoutez, nous publions ce que nous recevons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1498 C'est
une question, d'ailleurs, qui n'est pas sans intérêt, et maintenant, en vertu
de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information, peut‑être que Radio‑Canada
sera dans l'obligation de rendre public davantage d'information financière dans
l'avenir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1499 MME
BELL : Est‑ce que je peux juste vous rappeler aussi, Monsieur le
Vice‑président, à l'occasion des renouvellements de télévision
conventionnelle en 2001, le Conseil a publié de l'information plus détaillée à
ce moment‑là pour aider justement les intervenants dans ce processus‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1500 Je
ne sais pas si c'est nécessaire de faire la même chose à tous les ans, et puis
je pense que l'information n'étais pas aussi détaillée que l'information que le
Conseil publie pour les services spécialisés.
Mais en tout cas, c'est encore une autre façon peut‑être de
regarder la question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1501 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Écoutez, je pense qu'on va passer à d'autres questions, mais on
aura l'occasion de revenir avec chacun des joueurs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1502 A
review of other jurisdictions on pluralism of voices indicates that their
concern deals with the local media that are radio, television and newspaper, I
think.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1503 In
your submission, you are suggesting that the Commission take a wholistic view
of the media landscape.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1504 Why
Canada shall have a different approach to countries such as the U.S., the U.K.,
France, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Australia, taking into consideration that
these countries are confronted with the same unregulated sector? What is so different in Canada to deal with
this issue in a different way?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1505 MR.
O'FARRELL: Mr. Vice‑Chairman, we
are not suggesting that our realities are any better or any more difficult or
any more challenging than other realities, but they are our realities. I think that we all recognize when we speak
about the Australian model, for instance, that the first glaring distinction
that can be made is that 70 per cent of Australians receive their television
services over the air.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1506 How
does one take a model built in a reality defined by that kind of an element and
bring it into a reality such as ours and start making any sense of it? You can take each international model that
was developed, we know, with tremendous effort, and I'm sure very thoughtfully,
but find equally difficult circumstances to overcome, which is why we suggest
that this Commission revalidate its approach which it has been using, which is,
in our view, a useful approach because it has produced a surplus in diversity,
not a deficit in diversity?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1507 If
there were a problem maybe we would have a different view that there are
answers elsewhere that have been found and applied to the same problem that can
be imported, but there is no evidence on the record that suggests there is a
problem. What some of the intervenors
are suggesting in the way of recommendations to the Commission are solutions
looking for a problem that doesn't exist, largely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1508 Therefore,
what we think we need to do is step back and say, "What has this system
done well?". Not to say that there
aren't things that can't be improved, but it has applied a public policy test
based on, as Mr. Maavara was saying earlier, some rules that are on the books,
whether it's in television or in radio, and then circumstances and the dynamic
of a public dialogue, where parties will present themselves at the time of
licensing applicants for a new radio licence or renewal of licence in a
television market or transactions on changes of ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1509 We
believe that the Canadian model has worked well, we believe that it has
produced the surplus and diversity, and we don't believe that there is anything
on the record that we have seen that shows that Canada has a diversity problem.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1510 And
I'll add one last comment, which is to say ‑‑ and I'm talking
television here ‑‑ if you look at the number of Canadian
indigenous services available to Canadian consumers today, on a per capita
basis, there are more Canadian indigenous services available to Canadians on
that per capita basis than there are American indigenous services available to
Americans on a per capita basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1511 I'm
not sure that same test applies in every jurisdiction across the world, I
haven't done the exercise, but right now, if you look at it, that is the state
of our condition. There is no diversity
deficit; there is a diversity surplus.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1512 Our
point to you, frankly, is how do we sustain that diversity? How do we make sure that Canadian voices and
Canadian operators can continue to have circumstances that allow them to stay
in play so that Canadian consumers aren't encouraged to check out of the
system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1513 That's
why we suggested two principles: what
can we prevent and what can we accomplish going forward? Preventing people from finding encouragement
to check out of the system would be dramatic, in our view. We need to prevent them from checking out of
the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1514 What
can we do to accomplish? We need to
create situations where both public and private broadcasters can use every tool
available to them to remain relevant in a world that exploding with choice
every day.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1515 MS
BELL: Can I just add one point on the
Australian model? I apologize for
interrupting, but you made a very valid point earlier this morning, Vice‑Chairman
Arpin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1516 On
the Australian model, in fact, the Nordicity study did not apply the criteria
appropriately. We did analyze every
major market in Canada using the criteria and applying it appropriately. Mr. Goldstein, who'll be appearing with
CanWest, on our panel, actually did this, we are happy to file it if it's of
any use to the Commission, but there's not one single market where, in fact, there
would be a diversity problem based on the Australian model. We have done it across the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1517 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I could mention Iqaluit.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1518 MS
BELL: That wasn't a major market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1519 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But it's a capital.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1520 UNIDENTIFIED
MALE SPEAKER: A capital city.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1521 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: It's a provincial capital.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1522 MS
BELL: I stand corrected.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1523 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Or a territory. And I would
suspect Whitehorse probably has the same problem, but...well, I think if you
want to file it, we could compare notes.
I think everybody has done the exercise for the very purpose of this
hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1524 You
are saying that there is no deficient diversity, to the contrary there is
surplus diversity. Obviously, it's not a
view that is shared by every intervenor in this proceeding and some are drawing
our attention to the weakest component of the broadcasting system, which is
not, obviously, the private nor the public system, but the community sector and
also the ethnic component of the private sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1525 There
has been a suggestion that the Commission should put in place a mechanism in
order to grow these voices. Does the CAB
have any suggestions to make on these interventions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1526 MR.
O'FARRELL: Yes, we do. We, again, believe that you should hold the
course of your public policy test, and let me give you one example.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1527 You
all are familiar with the CEO of South Asian Television Network, who would have
liked to be here with us today but was not able to be here, Shan
Chandrasekar. Ten years ago, Shan
Chandrasekar wasn't a broadcaster. South
Asian Television Network was not a licensee, roughly speaking.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1528 Today,
in that ethno‑cultural market, that company operates 14 discretionary
services in 20 languages ‑‑ and I'm sure even Shan doesn't
know how many dialects sometimes ‑‑ to a diverse community
that is growing and is very much looking for services from the Canadian
Broadcasting System across the country, located in markets everywhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1529 There
is an example of how the system served not only that marketplace well, but
served the economic model, which was aggregation of services in a situation
like that was the only way, frankly, to develop services for that marketplace,
because it would be hard to imagine how 14 different players could be viably
operating 14 different discretionary services without the economies of scale of
aggregation through common ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1530 That
is an example of the kind of measures that this Commission has taken in its
licensing decisions, in its attribution of licensing policies, and we think
that should be maintained.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1531 On
the topic of discretionary services, I think that Sophie Émond may want to add
something, and perhaps Pierre‑Louis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1532 There
she is. Hi, Sophie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1533 Vas‑y,
Sophie, de l'avant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1534 MME
ÉMOND : Merci, Glenn.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1535 Bien,
je pense c'est un des meilleurs exemples où justement une propriété aussi
regroupée a permis de maximiser une diversité de l'offre de services dans le
domaine multiethnique, ce qui m'amène un petit peu aussi à parler de la
propriété commune, généralement, en spécialisés payants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1536 On
a entendu les commentaires ce matin de Radio‑Canada, et je pense que ce
qui nous apparaît vraiment fondamental comme radiodiffuseur, si on veut avoir
une diversité des voix, ce qui est primordial, c'est qu'il y a un accès à ces
voix là ‑‑ et c'était, d'ailleurs, un des commentaires de
monsieur Stursberg ce matin ‑‑ donc, ce qui nous apparaît plus
important que le critère de propriété, qui en soi n'est pas gage de
programmation plus variée ou moins variée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1537 On
le voit, par exemple, dans le marché francophone. Je peux parler du cas de notre propre
compagnie, Astral, où on a des genres extrêmement variés et différents avec des
natures de services très distincts, et chacun de ces services là aussi a,
évidemment, été autorisé par le Conseil après un processus où le choix du
Conseil se portait sur le service qui apporte le plus de diversité en terme de
programmation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1538 Donc,
en terme de diversité des voix, on pense que, essentiellement, c'est plus la
question de l'accès qui est primordiale plutôt que la propriété en soi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1539 M.
SMITH : Et en ce qui a trait au premier volet de votre question par
rapport à l'appui au secteur communautaire, je pense qu'il faut noter que le
Conseil a déjà fait un pas dans cette direction‑là dans sa révision de la
politique sur la radio, en permettant au secteur communautaire d'avoir accès à
des contributions au développement de contenu canadien, et à ma connaissance,
il n'y a pas eu de démarche de la part du secteur communautaire auprès des
entreprises de radiodiffusion ou de l'ACR pour les inciter à contribuer à ce
fonds‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1540 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Vous m'ouvrez la porte.
Vous ouvrez la porte de la grange pour faire sortir le cheval.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1541 Vous
venez de dire qu'il n'y a personne qui a approché l'ACR. Or, s'ils approchent l'ACR, vous allez leur
dire quoi?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1542 M.
SMITH : Que c'est ouvert, qu'il y a plusieurs possibilités pour les
intervenants du système d'avoir accès à des contributions au développement de
contenu canadien, qu'ils ont à faire des propositions en ce sens‑là pour
inciter les radiodiffuseurs à faire des choix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1543 Le
Conseil a déterminé de façon statutaire que 60 pour cent des contributions
devaient aller à FACTOR et à MUSICACTION.
Autrement, c'est une liste de récipiendaires potentiels qui peuvent
avoir accès, et dépendamment aux propositions qui vont être mises sur la table,
les radiodiffuseurs pourront se prononcer là vers où ils souhaitent apporter
leur soutien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1544 CONSEILLER
ARPIN: Ça, c'est chaque radiodiffuseur
individuel, mais vous avez vous‑même dit que si on approchait l'ACR, que
l'ACR pourrait être le... canaliser ces demandes‑là ni plus ni moins,
donc, devenir peut‑être un instigateur d'une solution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1545 Or,
quelle sorte de solution vous seriez prêt à apporter?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1546 M.
O'FARRELL: Nous n'avons pas envisagé de
solution détaillée ou articulée à vous soumettre ici ce matin. Je pense que ce que mon collègue vous a dit,
c'est une démonstration de l'ouverture d'esprit et puis de l'approche que nous
serions prêts à prendre devant de telles demandes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1547 Mais
pour aller plus loin que ça, nous n'avons pas autre chose à rajouter.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1548 CONSEILLER
ARPIN: Quand je reviens sur le... I'm coming back to the ethnic component.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1549 Obviously,
you draw to our attention the situation of ATN, but the deficiency and
diversity that is also mentioned is the ownership by the visible minority in
the more traditional broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1550 Obviously,
they are late comers, but they do not seem to have ‑‑ to the
ownership and in many areas where there is no more frequency left. So, that is a big issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1551 But
do you think that the Commission should be concerned by the fact that the
current broadcasting model doesn't give rise to minority ownership?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1552 MR.
O'FARRELL: We don't think that there is
any problem with the current broadcasting model. We think the circumstances in prior
proceedings have dictated outcomes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1553 I
think there is a new sensitivity both on the Commission's level and in the
industry's level to take every favourable action possible to ensure that
diversity is alive and well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1554 And
we feel that within the framework that is already there applying, what the
Commission applies when it is considering applications for new licences, that
is it all the discretion required and all of the authority required to take the
right decisions on the basis of the particular circumstances that will be
before it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1555 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you. We will now move to the other aspect of this
hearing, which is more the diversity by itself.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1556 In
your submission, you have mentioned that scholars identify three types of
diversity : diversity of format, demographic diversity and I.D. diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1557 Then,
in developing this third type of diversity, you have written that, and I quote
:
"The larger media companies are
still big, but then audiences have been considerably reduced inside. As a result, today's dominant voices are far
weaker than in the past."
LISTNUM
1 \l 1558 To
support your evidence, you suggest that the lost audience has moved to the
conception of unregulated parallel content market and that this market is
becoming a driver in I.D. diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1559 For
example, you state that now bloggers have been accepted in the Parliamentary
Press Gallery where, previously, only the members of the more formal press were
accepted as working journalists.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1560 Could
you tell us who are these bloggers and generally speaking, aren't they working
for the main existing media?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1561 MR.
O'FARRELL: I think the simple answer is
some are and some aren't.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1562 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Because a study I think that was
conducted last July by Comscore tells us that of the 12 online news sources
consulted by Canadians, half of them were Canadian and as a matter of fact, the
first four were operated by Canadian broadcasters, which are CBC, Quebecor, CTV
and CanWest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1563 From
this evidence, could we conclude that the lost audience of the major Canadian
broadcasters is recuperated by their non regulated service?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1564 MR.
O'FARRELL: I think there are many
dimensions to that answer and I'm going to ask Sophie Émond to speak to that
and then, maybe Linden Friesen can also speak to it on the level of local radio
station and the transfer of audience or the extension of audience to radio and
the new media operations that GoldenWest is involved in.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1565 But
as a preliminary view, very quickly, if I may, I think that we have to be
careful about what statistics we are looking at in terms of most popular web
sites in Canada on the basis of one filing or another filing because it doesn't
seem to be a standardized approach yet that meets everybody's expectations as
to what the criteria should be or what the measurements should be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1566 We
were looking at material this morning again that showed that there was no
Canadian site in the top 25. And then,
in another piece, two Canadian services are in the top 25 : one is the CBC and
the other one, Telmorex.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1567 So,
I think that there are a whole variety of measurements out there of what
Canadians are using in the online world that has been developed. I don't say can thrive, but developed with an
outlooking line that doesn't necessarily fit the same purpose or doesn't
necessarily migrate to all applications.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1568 So,
Sophie, would you take it from here?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1569 Mme
ÉMOND: Bien, Glenn, essentiellement,
c'était le... l'évidence qu'on se faisait c'est tant mieux s'il y a des services
canadiens parce que, comme on se disait de plus en plus, il y a cette migration
possible vers les nouveaux médias.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1570 Au
Canada, on est quand même parmi les pays du G‑8, celui où il y a la plus
forte pénétration de broad band et on a quand même 60 pour cent des Canadiens
qui utilisent l'internet haute vitesse.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1571 Et
le fait d'avoir au moins des voix canadiennes, quelques‑unes déjà c'est
bien, mais en même temps c'est très inquiétant de constater que parmi les 25
sites les plus populaires, il y en a très peu qui sont Canadiens.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1572 Alors,
il faut, selon nous, au contraire, encourager la présence canadienne tant, oui,
des joueurs des voix éditoriales existantes et d'autres voix aussi.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1573 MR. FRIESEN: Well, I think in
small markets I am not sure it's that much different than in large
markets. We've really been thinking a
lot these days about the isolation of small markets in rural Canada and because
of the new technologies and the new media, you know, I don't know that we're
isolated any more. We have as much
choice and as much diversity and as much input.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1574 The
thing that sets us, I think a part in smaller parts of Canada have more to do
with the kind of content that we add and I think it's imperative even in a
small company such as ours, that we join the online and not only recycle all
that effort that we've put into gathering local information for local
communities, we have to put that online and we have to make it available for
the communities to join that forum so that there is a place to talk in small
communities.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1575 So,
I think it's all part of the business plan for the future that I think even in
small markets where it may be even more imperative there to do that work,
everybody becomes kind of a voice or has a place to voice it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1576 You
know, certainly in our operation we have places where people can take video and
place it online and do the cross promotion with radio. We just think we have to do that and I think
in small markets the impact is as great as it has been in large markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1577 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Friesen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1578 Numerous
interveners in this proceeding are suggesting that the main concern is the service
reduction in local news in the electronic media. These interveners are seeking numerous
measures to correct this situation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1579 What
does the CB have to say to those interveners?
So, the Commission considers rules regarding local news and if so,
should these rules be concerned with news gathering?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1580 MR.
O'FARRELL: I think that Charlotte and I
want to add a point on this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1581 Our
answer simply is that we don't see that evidence. We don't see evidence to support those claims
is what I should say.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1582 We
don't see empiric evidence that we can point to with any certainly that carries
the weight of ‑‑ describing a problem that is in need of a
solution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1583 There
are no doubt, Mr. Vice‑Chairman, situations where an issue locally,
regionally, provincially or nationally, may not have been covered the way all
the audience members would have liked it to be covered.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1584 There
is no doubt there are many of those and I am not sure that we would want to
engage in a discussion about how they actually add up once against the other,
who was the most deprived of proper journalistic or diversity coverage in a
given situation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1585 There
is no doubt, but that is because it is such a subjective analysis and
subjective measurement that one must bring to this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1586 We
think that when you step back and you look at the overall diversity in local
markets, there is more today than there ever was before and we say to this Commission,
respectfully, this Commission has had to deal with one universe and that was
the regulated universe where market entry was a controlled phenomenon, but that
is not the singular defining feature of the media landscape any more.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1587 We
all know that there is this other world out there where the Commission does not
control market entry that is defining the landscape.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1588 So,
we frankly do not agree with those submissions because we don't understand the
evidence to be conclusive in that regard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1589 Charlotte,
you want to add anything?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1590 MS
BELL: Well, just a couple of points to
supplement what Glenn said.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1591 I
think there is ‑‑ I am not sure if I understand if the problem
has been posed correctly, I guess, by some of the interveners.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1592 If
there is a lack of local programming in certain markets, I am just going to put
my ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 1593 CONSEILLER
ARPIN: On ne parle pas de programmation
locale, mais d'information locale.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1594 MME
BELL: D'information locale.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1595 CONSEILLER
ARPIN: Plus spécifiquement chez la
majorité des intervenants et non de programmation locale comme telle. On parle d'information locale.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1596 Je
noterais, par exemple, que... évidemment, des unions font cette représentation‑là,
mais dans le cas de la radiodiffusion de langue française, le Ministère des
communications et de la culture du Québec fait exactement la même remarque.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1597 Donc,
ce n'est pas uniquement une situation peut‑être de relations de travail,
mais on a là un intervenant qui est lui‑même en tout cas plus indépendant
et dans le cas du marché francophone fait le même type de remarque que les
unions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1598 MME
BELL: Si vous vous adressez au marché
francophone, je pense que Pierre Lampron pourrait en discuter.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1599 Mais
il y a juste un point. Sur le côté
anglophone par exemple, je dois dire qu'il y a de l'information locale qui est
produite et qui est diffusée et qui n'est jamais vue par des grands nombres de
Canadiens parce que, par exemple, on n'a pas accès au DTH dans certains
marchés.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1600 Et
quand la pénétration, comme à Montréal, Montréal anglais en particulier,
atteint un niveau de 34 pour cent, ça veut dire que CanWest, par exemple, va
diffuser 18 heures par semaine de programmation régionale qui a été conçue pour
cet auditoire‑là puis déjà 34 pour cent de l'auditoire n'a même pas accès
à cette information‑là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1601 Alors,
je pense que ce n'est pas une question de...
On ne peut pas juste regarder le montant d'information qui est là dans
le système. Il faut regarder aussi si
cette information‑là est accessible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1602 Pierre?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1603 M.
LAMPRON: Oui. Je voudrais peut‑être ajouter deux
choses.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1604 La
première, c'est que le CRTC a plusieurs occasions de mesurer les efforts qui
peuvent être faits en terme de programmation locale, je dirais, région par
région, station par station.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1605 Et
à chacune des fois qu'on se présente en audience, cette question‑là est
soulevée et à l'analyse des faits, à la lumière des décisions qui sont prises
par le CRTC, on s'aperçoit que l'effort maximum qui puisse être demandé est
l'effort qui est livré.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1606 Le
deuxième point qui nous désole beaucoup en particulier de la part du
Gouvernement du Québec, c'est que l'affirmation qui est faite est une
affirmation qui est fondée sur aucun fait qui puisse être vérifiable,
mesurable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1607 L'information
locale se porte mieux qu'elle ne s'est jamais portée. Pour peu que les gens se promènent au Québec,
fassent des tournées ‑‑ j'en parlais d'ailleurs à un
politicien qui était engagé actuellement dans une grande tournée de toutes les
régions de Québec pour des objectifs que vous pouvez imaginer ‑‑
et je lui posais la question : est‑ce
que vous trouvez qu'il y a un déficit d'information dans chacune des régions
que vous faites?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1608 Est‑ce
que vous trouvez que par rapport à ce que vous aviez connu avant, vous vous
retrouvez dans une situation de manque d'accès ou de capacité de ne pas ni
transmettre votre message ni recevoir?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1609 La
vérité, c'est qu'il y a une fragmentation des auditoires qui existe en région
comme partout ailleurs dans le monde, que cette fragmentation des auditoires
affecte un certain nombre de médias traditionnels, que l'ensemble des médias
traditionnels concoure ensemble à cette diversion d'information et que,
heureusement, il y a une consolidation des entreprises pour pouvoir transporter
en région plus de qualité d'information et pouvoir en retirer davantage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1610 Heureusement
qu'il y a ça parce que dans toutes les régions du Québec, vous allez observer
que l'addition des médias écrits, des médias électroniques, je dirais les
médias spécialisés, de ce qui se retrouve via les nouveaux médias d'internet,
les gens semblent imaginer que parce que tu viens d'une région, que tu ne te
renseignes pas et que tu n'accèdes pas à l'information par les moyens usuels de
ceux qui viennent si vous voulez dans les grands centres.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1611 C'est
une des grandes grandes faussetés et qui a été entretenue dans malheureusement
beaucoup de mémoires.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1612 Notre
témoignage ici c'est que, à l'heure actuelle, la diversité d'information et la
diversité des voix et la capacité, si vous voulez, d'être lu, d'être entendu,
de s'informer et d'informer, n'a jamais été aussi importante que c'est là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1613 Et
une des causes de ça, bien, c'est ce que vous analysez dans l'ensemble de
toutes les instances dans lesquelles les gens se présentent, où les gens vont
intervenir pour se vanter qu'il y a tant d'heures de programmation de plus,
tant de sources d'information davantage que la fragmentation des auditoires est
une problématique qui va causer un certain nombre d'autres décisions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1614 Et
s'il y a fragmentation d'auditoire, dites‑vous bien que cette
fragmentation d'auditoire est le plus bel exemple de la progression de la
diversité des voix.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1615 MR. MAAVARA: If I might, Mr. Vice‑Chairman,
just add to what Pierre said and add some regulatory fact to the allegation by
the interveners.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1616 When
CORRUS and ASTRAL did the swap, there was some discussion of this subject and
you will recall that the Commission placed a local programming condition on the
CORRUS Quebec based stations. And, of
course, we are in compliance with that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1617 But
what has also happened during the period since we took over those stations is we've
introduced ‑‑ well, we've introduced just before the transfer,
a new FM based news radio station in Montreal and since then, we have also
introduced a new news web site CORRUS Nouvelles, which is doing quite well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1618 And,
in fact, if one were to take it on a purely statistical basis, one would find
that the news coverage in the Quebec local market has increased since that
transaction. So, we're at a bit of a
loss to understand what Pierre said.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1619 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: We move to the journalistic code
and only one question. Obviously, the
code that is before is a code that deals with the electronic media and
newspaper.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1620 Some
interveners have suggested that similar code should apply between radio and
television. Has CB any opinion on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1621 MR.
O'FARRELL: We see as we responded in
writing, no need for that. Mr.
Goldstein, David, may have some additional comments on the code itself, but as
we responded in writing to that question, we don't see a need for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1622 MR.
GOLDSTEIN: Only in that, and we won't go
through the history because I think it was well laid out in the Public Notice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1623 But
I think we tried to deal with the cross media ownership or the perceived cross
media ownership issues that could flow through from the last licence renewal.
These were the mechanisms that we brought forward. There haven't been, as the Commission well
knows, complaints in this area.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1624 As
far as extending that to other TV or radio properties, because of the
distinct ‑‑ the already distinctiveness of those two medias, I
don't think that there is the same concern or it should be regulated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1625 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I have a few questions regarding
the benefits test because, obviously, you made a statement that the benefits
test has outlived its usefulness and some of your member companies are making a
similar argument, but some others are not suggesting this ‑‑
are not going that far at least.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1626 Could
you expand on your views and why you're saying that the benefits test is
outlived?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1627 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice‑Chairman. I have an excerpt here that I won't read
entirely because it's too long, but I am drawing from Public Notice CRTC 1996
69 entitled "Call for comments on a proposed approach for the regulation
of broadcasting distribution undertakings" dated May 17th 1996. I believe the operative component is :
"In light of the above
considerations and because the Commission has already begun to license
competitors to cable using DTH and MVS technologies, the Commission has
concluded that it is no longer necessary to apply the benefits test in the case
of transfers of ownership or control of distribution undertakings."
LISTNUM
1 \l 1628 The
rest of the excerpt basically deals with :
"We are introducing
competition, we are introducing new forms of distribution undertakings as
competitors to cable, therefore, should the transfer of ownership of cable
undertakings still be under the benefits test in light of that competition?
Answer is "no".
LISTNUM
1 \l 1629 Here
we are 11 years later and we still have a benefits policy that applies to radio
transactions and television transactions, albeit a different test in terms of
the percentage of the transaction.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1630 We
do not believe that the application of this benefits policy should be continued
for the obvious reasons that those obligations are over and above the purchase
price of any undertaking.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1631 We
believe that they constitute a financial burden on the parties to the
transaction that is unwarranted for the same public policy reasons that brought
you to this conclusion here, and that is competition in the sector should be
the prevailing trigger to bring the Commission to the same realization and the
same conclusion it did in 1996 for cable transfers, and that is where there is
competition, the benefits test should no longer apply.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1632 And
as you know, Mr. Vice‑Chairman, it was introduced by two points or three
points, it was eliminated and we are suggesting that its time has come here
too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1633 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, if the Commission was
to ‑‑ well, I am amazed by your proposal because we just heard
or will be hearing very shortly, a total of four major transactions and none of
the applicants have proposed there be no benefits test.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1634 To
the contrary, they all came with a proposal that were within the framework that
it was established and they are coming with very substantial amount of money
and non challenged ‑‑ none of them has challenged the
principle of the benefits test.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1635 MR.
O'FARRELL: I believe that that's
absolutely consistent, sir, on the basis that those applicants come forward and
comply with the rules as they are written and expect you to apply them as they
are written.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1636 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1637 MR.
O'FARRELL: And seek your approval on
transactions that they put before you based on those rules and to challenge the
rules would be perhaps the wrong way to start the discussion about getting
approval on the transaction.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM
1 \l 1638 MR.
O'FARRELL: It wouldn't be the advice I
would give them if they were soliciting it from me.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1639 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I guess your proposal is only
prospective as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1640 MR.
O'FARRELL: Well, the fact of the matter
is that we think it's not a matter of personalities or challenge in positions,
it's a matter of philosophical ground and public policy principle, which is if
it was the principle that triggered the Commission to remove it and eliminate
it from cable distribution undertakings transfers in 1996, that is there is
competition, it surely shouldn't apply here any more.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1641 But
I don't think that you will see applicants frankly coming forward in
applications to seek your approval to transfer control, challenging it, because
they are here seeking your approval and they must comply with the rules and
conform to all of the policies and expectations to put the very best likelihood
of that approval on their side.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1642 But
here we are in this discussion on policy matters today and the question I think
has its valid place. Whether or not you are
convinced that competition is sufficient in the sector, we would hope you are,
but certainly competition is there. It's
not only the regulated competition, it's the unregulated competition.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1643 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Mr. O'Farrell.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1644 As
you know, in its report, the CTF task force makes the case that there is still
need for more financial for the CTF and made a recommendation that the
Commission contemplates having the television broadcaster contribute part of
their benefits towards the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1645 I
don't know if you had a chance to canvass your members or if your members or
the CAB has a position on that, but if you have something to volunteer as a
comment, I think we surely welcome your comments.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1646 MR.
O'FARRELL: Mr. Vice‑Chairman, we
don't have a position per see though we respect the individual who chaired that
task force for all of the noble efforts that were invested to bring about the
right recommendations.
‑‑‑ Rire /
Laughter
LISTNUM
1 \l 1647 MR.
O'FARRELL: We don't have a point of view
o that here today, but we do have a point of view on the benefits policy
generally going forward and that it should be eliminated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1648 THE
CHAIRMAN: Let us stay on the topic. We are not on CTF here, so, please. And so, the question I think we should stay
on the diversity. Have you any question,
Michel?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1649 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: No. Those are my last, all my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1650 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Michel Morin?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1651 CONSEILLER
MORIN: J'aimerais vous parler de votre
code d'auto‑réglementation. Dans
un premier temps, les journalistes ont été éliminés; je passe là‑dessus.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1652 Mais,
dans un deuxième temps, dans la mesure où on fait ça dans une perspective
d'auto‑réglementation de l'industrie, est‑ce que, éventuellement,
au niveau des plaintes, et caetera, est‑ce que éventuellement, les
journalistes, pour donner un peu plus de crédibilité d'une certaine façon à
votre code et à son application au niveau des plaintes, est‑ce que,
éventuellement, les journalistes pourraient être associés davantage à ce code‑là
que l'industrie a mis sur pied?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1653 M.
O'FARRELL: Merci, monsieur Morin. Je vous assure que les journalistes ont été
impliqués directement ou indirectement dans le processus qui a mené à ce code.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1654 D'ailleurs,
il y a eu plusieurs étapes d'un processus où je ne peux pas vous donner
exactement où il y a eu des interventions singulières d'un journaliste ou d'une
journaliste, mais où les syndicats sont intervenus et où il y a eu...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1655 Madame
Bell a un détail complet de la démarche qui a été faite.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1656 Donc,
je voudrais juste vous assurer qu'il y a eu, effectivement, beaucoup beaucoup
beaucoup d'intervenants non pas seulement du secteur du journalisme tel quel,
mais bien du secteur at large des personnes intéressées qui avaient un point de
vue à faire valoir sur la chose.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1657 Donc,
dores et déjà, la représentation du point de vue journalistique, nous sommes de
l'avis qu'elle y ait en raison de cette démarche‑là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1658 Charlotte,
veux‑tu rajouter quelque chose?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1659 MME
BELL: Bien, tout ce que j'ajouterais
monsieur Morin, c'est que le code... en fait, le code qui est proposé dans ce
processus ici, c'est vraiment... c'est le même code auquel on adhère déjà pour
CTV et Global, qui fait partie des renouvellements de nos licences qui ont pris
place en 2001.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1660 À
ce moment‑là il y a eu un processus public incroyable. Il y a eu des centaines d'intervenants. Le National Newspaper Guild, je crois que
c'est le nom de l'organisation, est intervenu et a comparu devant le Conseil, a
proposé certaines recommandations. Il y
a eu un processus complètement ouvert.
Il y a eu des académiques de Carleton University, York University, qui
sont venus aussi devant le Conseil, qui ont fait des propositions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1661 Alors,
il y a eu vraiment un processus très ouvert et très public; 69 intervenants
sont comparus pendant ces audiences publiques là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1662 Puis
l'ironie de notre renouvellement en 2001, c'était que l'audience devait être
pour renouveler nos licences puis on a passé la majorité du temps à discuter
justement de ce code‑là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1663 Alors,
moi, je pense qu'il y a déjà eu un "input" comme on dit de ce côté‑là.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1664 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Je m'en doutais bien, mais dans
un deuxième temps, au niveau des plaintes et tout ça, est‑ce qu'il y a
une place pour les journalistes?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1665 M.
O'FARRELL: Dans la façon que le CCNR
fonctionne ou accomplit son mandat, si ce n'est déjà suffisant, il y aurait
sûrement moyen de regarder comment, effectivement, il y aurait une place peut‑être
plus en vue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1666 Il
n'y a rien à exclure, mais je pense que ce qui est à retenir, c'est que la
démarche que le Conseil a suivie jusqu'à présent, après bien des années, puis
j'aimerais que monsieur Goldstein peut‑être revienne là‑dessus,
c'est un processus qui a produit des résultats non seulement transparents, mais
des résultats qui ont été pour la plupart, et puis je n'ai vraiment pas en
mémoire une seule instance où il y a eu des récriminations ou des griefs qui
ont été formulés par quiconque, et incluant les journalistes, suite à une décision
du processus et du Conseil.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1667 Donc,
je pense qu'il est juste de dire que le processus d'inclusion, jusqu'à présent,
n'a pas été mis en jeu ou n'a pas été mis en doute par un quelconque groupe
d'intervenants, à ce que je sache.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1668 David,
veux‑tu rajouter?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1669 M.
GOLDSTEIN: Monsieur Morin, si vous me
permettez, en anglais.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1670 First
of all, you will have the opportunity, I believe, the CBSC will come forward
and you will have an opportunity to speak to them, but I think there were some
issues that were raised about the arm's length nature of self‑regulation
and we have seen in other very very touchy areas, whether it's sexual
portrayal, language, violence, that the CBSC has demonstrated itself to be an
extremely arm's length organization.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1671 I think we were all quite ‑‑ my colleagues and I were all quite stunned by how many times they rule against broadcasters on a regular basis, but I think they have shown their independence in the past and I think there is a great deal of ability for journalists and members of the public, viewers, listeners and readers to have their input as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1672 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Mais, monsieur O'Farrell, je
pense que vous venez d'ouvrir la porte en fait.
Peut‑être que, éventuellement du point de vue formel, il pourrait
y avoir quelque chose un peu à l'exemple, du Conseil de presse, par exemple, au
Québec?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1673 M.
O'FARRELL: Je ne dirais pas que je
voudrais ouvrir la porte ou vous laisser avec l'impression que le modèle du
Conseil de presse nous attire particulièrement et ce n'est pas parce que je
veux mettre en jeu la crédibilité du Conseil de presse, mais plutôt pour dire
que nous avons un organisme qui, lui, a non seulement gagné ses titres de
créance, l'a fait d'une façon qui est adaptée au système de radiodiffusion
canadien parce que c'est dans ce secteur‑là qu'il habite et qu'il
fonctionne depuis sa création.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1674 Donc,
je veux vous dire qu'on n'est pas ici, comme disait monsieur Gauthier, le CCNR
comparaîtra lui‑même et il aura ses propres commentaires et explications
à vous formuler.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1675 Mais
j'insiste sur le fait qu'il faut reconnaître que jusqu'à présent, et si je me
trompe là‑dessus qu'on me corrige, mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait eu
une seule instance ou une décision où le processus qui a mené à la décision du
Conseil, a été reproché par quiconque, provenant d'un quelconque groupe
d'intérêt, y compris les journalistes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1676 Donc,
sur la base de ce track record‑là, je me dis, il y a quand même du bon à
retenir.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1677 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
I think that will conclude. I
just want to make sure I did understand you correctly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1678 You
said several times we are suffering from a surplus of diversity. Now, you are using those terms somewhat
interchangeably. We have talked about
plurality, purely plurality, and by plurality we mean professional editorial
voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1679 Are
you also suffering from a surplus of plurality?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1680 MR.
O'FARRELL: We are celebrating the
surplus of diversity and the surplus of plurality. We are not suggesting that we should shut
anybody down.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1681 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no. But you feel ‑‑ sorry, I
didn't mean to imply that ‑‑ you mean, we have a surplus of
plurality as well as a surplus of diversity in this country?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1682 MR.
O'FARRELL: In the broadest sense of the
media landscape today, absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1683 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
We will take a 15 minute break.
Thank you.
‑‑‑ Suspension at
1117 / Suspension à 1117
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 11:32 a.m.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1684 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1685 THE
SECRETARY: I would ask if you could
please take your seat, we are about ready to start.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1686 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madam Boulet, who is next?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1687 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1688 I
would now call on the next intervener, CTVglobemedia.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1689 Excuse
me, we are ready to start. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1690 Mr.
Rick Brace will be appearing on behalf of CTVglobemedia. Mr. Brace, if you could introduce your panel,
and you will have 10 minutes for your presentation. Please go ahead.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1691 MR.
BRACE: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission,
Commission staff, my name is Rick Brace and I am the President of CTV.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1692 Before
we begin, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our panel. On the far right, to your left, is Robert
Hurst, President of CTV News; to Robert's left is Sarah Crawford, Vice‑President,
Public Affairs, CTVglobemedia; seated beside Sarah is Paul Ski, President of
CTVglobemedia's radio division; on my left is Kevin Goldstein, CTVglobemedia's
Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs; seated beside Kevin is Paul Sparkes,
Senior Vice‑President of Corporate Affairs for CTVglobemedia; and on the
end is Richard Gray, Head of A‑Channel News.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1693 Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you at this hearing. At the outset we would like to note that we
played an active role in the development of the CAB's position in this
proceeding and we generally support their submission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1694 At
CTV we are aware of how difficult it has been to build a distinct and truly
diverse Canadian broadcasting system.
Given our geography, demography, linguistic and cultural diversity and
physical proximity to the cultural behemoth that is the United States it is
clear that market forces alone would not have created this system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1695 The
Canadian broadcasting system, which is envied internationally, exists because
of the marriage between private investment and smart public policy. Today, Canadians have access to an incredibly
wide range or programming choices, both from home and abroad, regardless of
where they live.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1696 However,
the media universe is changing and changing rapidly. Over the last 20 years we have watched
specialty television grow dramatically while conventional television, once the
primary choice for Canadians, is now a sector in decline.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1697 Today,
Canadian listeners have access to a greater number of radio stations and
formats than ever before. Furthermore,
the emergence of the internet and other developing platforms, which are
unregulated and do not respect our boarders have forced traditional
broadcasters to re‑examine their existing business models, which bring us
to this hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1698 In
the last 14 months four significant transactions have been announced in the
broadcasting sector. These transactions
are a clear manifestation of a global trend toward consolidation brought on by
the sweeping changes affecting the media industry. In light of this wave of consolidation the
Commission announced that it would conduct this proceeding to consider a
variety of issues relating to the diversity of voices in Canada. Furthermore, the Commission indicated that it
intended to specifically focus on three issues with each appearing intervener
in this proceeding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1699 The
first issue relates to the plurality of commercial editorial voices available
in the local and national markets. As
noted in the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting system is a single
system comprised of public, private and community elements. Each of these components, including CBC,
educational broadcasters such as TVO and community‑based media, play an
essential role in ensuring that a plurality of editorial voices are available
to Canadians and any examination of editorial diversity must take this into
consideration.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1700 With
respect to your question, we do believe that Canadians currently have access to
a diverse range of Canadian editorial voices, both at the local and the national
level, and the number of voices is increasing.
In fact, on a daily basis most Canadians have access to a local news
from at least three and sometimes more over‑the‑air television
stations and an even greater number of local radio stations and one, if not two
or more, local newspapers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1701 Moreover,
they have access to foreign national newscasts on television, five speciality
services that focus entirely on news and public affairs programming and
countless other print and electronic sources for national news. And this is only a summary of Canadian
editorial voices. There are multiple
other non‑Canadian sources available.
In fact, it is interesting to note that there are only four national
newscasts in the United States, the same number as in Canada, despite the fact
that their population is nine times our size.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1702 Looking
at a specific Canadian market helps put this into perspective, take the
Edmonton market as an example. In 1970
there were 12 local English‑language broadcasting options, by 2000 this
number was 22 and today it is 27. In
fact, in total there are 111 Canadian English‑language broadcasting
choices available to Edmontonians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1703 Certain
participants in this proceeding have tried to argue the consolidation of
ownership lessens diversity. In fact,
consolidation of ownership can actually result in increased diversity. For example, the consolidation of ownership
that has occurred in radio since the ownership limits were changed nearly a
decade ago has helped to revitalize the radio industry. This, in turn, has meant that more resources
can be devoted to certain formats such as news or talk radio on AM that may not
be viable as a standalone operation or even as part of an AM/FM combination.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1704 In
addition, we have an economic incentive to make the programming provided by our
different services appeal to different tastes.
Providing more of the same to the same viewers or listeners dilutes the
audience. Simply put, homogenization
destroys value.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1705 The
second issue the Commission indicated it wanted to discuss was the diversity of
programming choices offered to Canadians.
We believe that Canadians have an incredibly diverse array of
programming choices available to them.
The growth of speciality television has resulted in an exponential
increase in the amount of programming that is being produced in many genres.
Furthermore, the changes to radio ownership rules a decade ago have actually
increased the range of niche formats available.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1706 The
Commission's policies have resulted in a good balance between the amount of
Canadian and foreign programming that is available. Furthermore, the policies in place relating
to Canadian programming and the flexibility given broadcasters have resulted in
a production of high‑quality Canadian programming that most importantly
appeals to Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1707 In
this regard, CTV has been the leader. We
have used our scale to further the objectives of the Act by creating top‑rated
English‑language Canadian programs in virtually every genre. We don't believe that there is a problem with
respect to programming diversity in this country and we are not aware of any
evidence to support such a viewpoint.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1708 The
third and final area that the Commission stated it wanted to canvass was the
effectiveness of existing and proposed safeguards with respect to journalistic
content in cross‑media ownership situations. Our view on this issue is relative
straightforward. We believe the measures
in place are very effective.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1709 The
CTVglobemedia's statement of principles and practices, which was first
introduced in 2001 and extended twice since then, has ensured editorial
diversity. In practice, it is the
editors, writers and journalists who play the central role in setting a
station's editorial direction by maintaining editorial independence between our
groupings of assets through separate management and presentation
structures. By this, we ensure that
distinct voices continue to be available.
Moreover, since implementing our statement of principles we have had no
complaints.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1710 With
the safeguards we have agreed to and implemented relating to programming
overlap and the proposed CBSC journalistic independence code, which we have
supported, we have a multi‑pronged approach to dealing with any perceived
problem relating to cross‑media ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1711 We
recognize that periodic regulatory reviews of this nature are both essential
and valuable. As we noted in our written
submission and our presentation today, we believe that the policies currently
in place to encourage the existence of a diversity of voices have been
successful. In fact, no participant has
provided evidence to prove otherwise.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1712 At
CTV we are strong supporters of the Canadian broadcasting system, a system that
from the beginning has succeeded against the odds. It is essential that we have
a regulatory framework that allows us to build in this success.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1713 We
thank you for your time and welcome your questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1714 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1715 You
were here this morning when the CBC made their presentation and you heard them
basically saying the same thing as you and the CAB, that there is no issue in
the Canadian system. But the CBC went
one step further and said, we have to be prospective and I think that is a very
good point. We do have to be prospective.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1716 We
are not only taking a snapshot of what is today, but we are worried about the
future. And they sort of suggested three
very simple rules, one of them was no owner should have two out of three in any
market. And the two out of the three
that they are talking about is television, radio and newspapers. The second one is no owner should no owner
should have more than 33 per cent of specialty.
And the third one, no owner should have more than two BDUs in any market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1717 They
felt that prospectively going forward, even if somebody is offside those rules
right now, they would ensure that the state of the market that we have now
would stay in place.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1718 Would
you care to comment on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1719 MR.
BRACE: I would like to make a couple of
comments on that, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1720 Firstly,
we believe that what we have seen historically and what we continue to see is a
growth in diversity. And by the way, we
don't fully support the notion of the surplus in diversity, we don't think
there can be enough diversity. We think
that that is something that should continue to grow. So that is number one. We are seeing that increasing on a regular basis.
And we examined that, certainly through Edmonton, across many markets that we
can talk about if you like.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1721 Number
two, I would say that it oversimplifies the situation to simply say that we
impose these rules without considering whether or not what is currently in
place is working and we believe it is.
The safeguards that exist in the consolidated world, the safe guards
that we have in place in terms of the plurality of editorial voices are all, I
think, working effectively.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1722 The
last point I would like to make on that is that we don't see barriers to
entry. That, you know, in point of fact
with Category 2, speciality licences, it seems that there is an opportunity for
new entrants to come into the market as well.
And as such, we think that the system is in fact working. And to arbitrarily impose ‑‑
and it was arbitrary, I mean, it was 33 per cent, it was 25 per cent, there
really wasn't a defined number, it was just some number that needed to be
determined ‑‑ really doesn't hit the point.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1723 So
we would oppose that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1724 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1725 Stuart,
I believe you have some questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1726 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1727 Thanks
for your presentation this morning. I am
glad you don't want to oversimplify things, Mr. Brace, because up until now I
suspect maybe you have. At least, I have
understood it to be an overly simplified approach and that essentially is just
let it rip seems to be your approach, because everything is fine. And there is perhaps not a surplus of voices
you say, because there never can be enough, but there certainly are many voices
today and you point to the Edmonton market and the overall number of voices
available, but what bothers me about your approach is you don't seem to weigh
the voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1728 Is
your approach so simple that you take all voices to be equal, whether you are a
Category 2 or a seasoned over‑the‑air broadcaster like CTV or
whether you are a blog or whether you are a speciality news channel? Are they all equal voices when we are looking
at diversity?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1729 MR.
BRACE: No, that would be oversimplifying
it, but the issue with trying to put a pin in that, to trying to focus on that
and establish a weighting system is that we live in such a dynamic environment,
and so what may be true today may not be true tomorrow.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1730 I
would use the example of specialty television, and the rapid increase in
viewership that it's enjoyed over the last few years, as compared to what's
happened in the conventional side of the equation. So that, you know, establishing a weighting
would have to be an ongoing process. It
would have to be something that's monitored.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1731 I
mean, in the dynamic world we live in, and looking at it from a holistic
approach, which would take into account not just commercial television, but
private television ‑‑ or public television, rather, community
television, beyond that the foreign services that are coming in, and even
beyond that the new media platforms, the dynamics at play make it very
difficult to establish kind of a focused way of putting a pin in it, as I say,
especially when it's changing so rapidly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1732 That's
why I think that rather than saying, "Okay, here are the rules of the
road", because I think they're going to be changed by tomorrow or will
need to be changed by tomorrow, that what works better is to take inventory of
where we are today, look across our system, and do the research, establish
whether or not, number one, we believe there's diversity existing, whether it's
growing, and what complaints are we receiving, what feedback are we getting,
and do that on a regular basis to determine where we need to go down the
road. That would be the more effective
approach, I believe.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1733 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But when you take inventory,
do you not weigh the value of the inventory?
Even in your own shop you have got a newspaper, plus one of your owners
has got a hunk of another newspaper, so that gives you a piece of the Toronto
Star, as well as all of the Globe and Mail, I suppose, some influence there
anyway, you have got two over‑the‑air networks, you have got lots
of specialities, you have got radio now, commercial radio.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1734 Before
we just step back and say, "My goodness, that's a lot", do you count
them all equally? Are all of them of
equal influence when it comes to the impact of their voices on the Canadian
public?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1735 MR.
BRACE: I wouldn't say we are naive
enough to say that we count them all equally, Commissioner. What I would say, that it's a moving target,
and that's the issue. To put a pin in it
today, to kind of define it, to kind of set a value to it is extremely
difficult because, as we know, policies get put into place, rules of the road
stand for a fairly long length of time, and I just worry that, in the
environment that we live in and as rapidly as it's changing, it would be
hobbling as we move down the road. I
mean, how do we continually revisit that and make sure that it's up to date,
that's the issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1736 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But isn't there some place
where even you would say, and even the CAB would say, "Well, there's got
to be a point beyond which we won't go".
I mean, is that where we start, then?
If you want to count everything equally, not put a pin in it, as you
say, not weigh anything, not evaluate and assess as to impact, and you want to
just look at the full package, where does the full package get to big?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1737 We
are down to three, perhaps four over‑the‑air broadcasters in
television, to use that example. So if
that reduces to three or two or one, where do the hairs on the back of your
neck begin to send you danger signals?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1738 MR.
BRACE: I don't have an answer for that,
other than to say that it's when we start to recognize, when people start to
raise the issues, when the red flags start to be raised.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1739 Someone
this morning, I think used an example of what if, you know, the vast majority
of radio and television, and potentially newspapers, were owned by one
owner? That's one end of the scale, and,
you know, that probably is not a good thing.
Conversely, at the other end of the scale, is everything is
independently owned.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1740 Well,
we know that in the environment we live in it's going to take strong, and is
taking strong consolidated companies to compete with the marketplace because we
are no longer just competing domestically.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1741 So,
you know, it is very hard to determine that.
I wish that we could. I wish that
I could give you an answer that said, "Yeah, here's the formula that could
work", but I don't know how we establish it, quite frankly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1742 What
I would say is that one of the good benchmarks for us is looking now, taking a
snapshot in time and saying what currently exists, what are the problems? And is there a problem, because the premise
of where we started is we are not really seeing the problem, so we don't know
what to fix.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1743 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, let me give you some
problems, as I see them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1744 In
commercial radio, personally, I don't speak for the Commission, I would say the
quality of news is appalling on commercial radio in Canada. It's almost nonexistent. And to add it up by numbers is one thing, but
to look at the quality of it, in my view, it's shocking. So that's one statement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1745 Let
me make another statement, that we have no guarantee under our present over‑the‑air
television policy that there will continue to be news of any sort because the
last time around we accepted the position of intervenors such as yourself, and
others, that news, particularly at the local level, on television, was such a
good competitive edge that no thinking broadcaster would ever give up on it,
and yet we know for a fact that City did give up on the traditional view of
local news, as we have known it, for years:
the 6 o'clock newscast, the 11 o'clock newscast, locally.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1746 So
that happened. We know that almost
simultaneously with the announcement that CTV would purchase CHUM, 280
journalists and people working in journalism in the CHUM enterprise were given
their notice. So it looks like we may
have been wrong in our 1999 policy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1747 And
for you to say, "Wait for a problem" would be cold comfort, I would
think, to those 280 journalists, would be cold comfort, perhaps, to people
listening to commercial radio hoping to get some news, some real news, and
might be, by the time we saw the real problem you are looking at, cold comfort
right across the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1748 So
I come back to my statement: surely it
isn't enough for you today to enjoy the use of the amount of public spectrum
your company enjoys, and that the CAB, of which you are a member, enjoys overall,
all the CAB members, with absolutely no guarantees that at a certain point, if
diversity of voices started to be a problem, some kind of policy wouldn't click
in to protect Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1749 I'm
sorry to be so long in the asking, but those are the sorts of problems I think
I can identify and how do you respond to that?
Surely, we want to operate and act before we have a calamity on our
hands, not when we have got a calamity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1750 MR.
BRACE: I think what I would say to that,
Commissioner, is that we have some of those remedies in place. They are the safeguards that exist within our
licences, our statement of principles that we abide by, that ensure, I think,
editorial independence and diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1751 You
know, plurality of editorial voices doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be
make better news. It doesn't necessarily
mean the product is going to be better.
I mean, what we would argue is that, through consolidation and the
building of strong companies, we have a better chance of making that product
better.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1752 In
the radio example, you know, with the direction we have gone and our ability
now to provide resources to Paul Ski, who runs the radio division, I think
that, you know, we can give some examples of where that is actually going to be
an opportunity to improve where we are going.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1753 Similarly,
in news, with the A Channels, once again with the resources. In fact, I would like to have these folks
comment on that because it may be beneficial to hear, in practice, what's
happening and why we believe that the consolidation that we have seen happen
here is actually improving the product and it may be addressing some of what
you are talking about.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1754 Maybe
we will start with Paul.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1755 MR.
SKI: Thanks, Rick.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1756 Commissioner
Langford, I think just a couple of things.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1757 One,
the Canadian public has more news choices on radio than every before. I think your comment was the quality of the
news on radio is quite shocking.
Respectfully, I disagree with that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1758 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: I'm not surprised, Mr. Ski.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1759 MR.
SKI: Well, yes. I think what we have to look at is that there
are more news choices now than there have ever been before, but also different
radio stations provide different types of information and different types of
news depending on the particular demographic that they are trying to
reach. So what might be quality news to
you, may not be quality news to someone else.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1760 People
have moved away from radio as a primary news source. It was a primary news source at one time, it
isn't so much any more. For some people,
who listen to three or four stations, they will listen to a station that plays
all news, then go to a station that plays music. So there's quite a bit of diversity, in terms
of what they listen to. The average
person listens to 2.5 stations. But what
we are trying to do is appeal to different types of information, desires and
needs from the listening public.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1761 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But, surely, if we can stick
with radio for a moment, and I know that when I get into quality I somewhat
cross the line, and I can see my chair's ample eyebrows quivering slighting,
and I'm not insensitive to that, but still quality has to be part of the test.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1762 As
I said, it doesn't seem logical to me to say just because there are bloggers
out there, to take another example, we can drop our news. And it doesn't seem quite enough to me, Mr.
Ski, to say, "Well, different news for different folks, you know. We have got young people listening to our
radio, so the news for them is, you know, what are the movie stars wearing this
month". That's not going to do much
for them if world war three is declared that day.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1763 I
mean, I take your point, it's something of a moveable feast, but at the same
time you got some pretty nice properties there and the public has a huge
interest in them. Other than giving back
to the public the kind of music they want, don't you feel that in the sense of
a diversity of voices we should be able to ask for more?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1764 MR.
SKI: Well...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1765 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Because information counts.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1766 MR.
SKI: Of course, it does, and all of our
stations have a certain spoken word/information component. But as I said, different people want
different things. I'm quite proud of
what we have accomplished. Our radio
stations have won awards for the quality of their news over and over and over
again. So, obviously, somebody believes
that there's quality there and that's what makes the hairs on the back of my
neck stand up, because I, quite frankly, think we are doing a very good job.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1767 MR.
BRACE: And I guess just before I pass it
along to Richard for a comment on just what's happening with the A Channels,
which you may find of interest in respect to how they are using CTV as a
resource, I guess, Commissioner, you know, we endeavour to give not people what
we think they should, but what they want and what they respond to. That is why we have different formats, it's
why we schedule differently.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1768 I
would say it's no less true in news. I'm
not from the news department, I don't have any editorial jurisdiction over the
news, but it seems to me to be the direction that you would want to go.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1769 Maybe
I will pass it along to Richard just for a comment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1770 MR.
GRAY: Thanks, Rick.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1771 The
really important thing with respect to the A Channel's move into CTVglobemedia,
in terms of improvement of the news product, has to do with now our ability to
access far greater national and international resources.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1772 You
know, under CHUM these television stations, if a national story happened in
Saskatchewan, if a national story happened in Quebec, if a national story
happened in the maritimes, we either couldn't get access to interviews, we
couldn't get access to video from those stories or it was extraordinarily
costly for us to go out and acquire that material.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1773 Now,
by virtue of the fact that we are part of a much bigger empire, we are able to
access that material and provide those stories to our viewers in a unique way,
in a way that is different in every local market that we are in.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1774 The
same thing holds true with respect to international news, and I'm going to use
Afghanistan as an example. In the past,
you know, when we have seen the unfortunate death of a Canadian soldier in
Afghanistan, we never had the ability to get video, we never had the ability to
get interviews from Afghanistan of soldiers who served alongside of that dead
soldier.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1775 What
we had to do to tell that story to our local audience was to take a photo off
the Department of National Defence web site and create a graphic, and that's
how that story was told. Now, we can
tell that story much more effectively to viewers on Vancouver Island, to
viewers in Barrie, in London, in Windsor, in Wingham, in Pembroke, in Brandon,
Manitoba, because of that access that we now have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1776 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But if I could stop you there,
that's the good side of it, and I understand that, with growth comes synergies,
come access to resources. But isn't the
other side of what you are telling me that the A Channel is now giving the same
news as CTV?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1777 MR.
GRAY: No, I think the really important
point to make is that we are not devoting any more time in our newscast to
those stories, we are just telling them more effectively. What we are still doing on the A Channel
stations is separate local newscast for separate local markets. The only market where we have got two
stations, a CTV station and an A Channel station, is in Ottawa, and those
stations are very distinctly different.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1778 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But if they were owned by
different people, just pushing this forward a bit, different owners, so that
you were denied access to the CTV film library, CTV assets, all the goodies
that you have now got access to, and I don't in any way minimize the importance
of these things, but if there were different owners, separate owners, wouldn't
you get these stories told from different perspectives, with different
resources? Wouldn't that make available
to Canadians two different slants on a story?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1779 If
we take something more complicated, not more important, but more complicated
than a death in Afghanistan, some big public policy initiative, say, the budget
or something, which people want to look at, want to know what's going to happen
to their tax base and what not, isn't it helpful to have different experts,
different expertise coming at these stories, different viewpoints, different editorial
approaches?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1780 MR.
GRAY: It is ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1781 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: All right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1782 MR.
GRAY: ‑‑ and that does happen. Those differences don't flow from ownership,
they flow from the journalists, themselves.
They flow from the reports in a newsroom, they flow from the producers
in a newsroom, they flow from the news directors who are operating these
systems.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1783 Take
the provincial election example in Ontario.
We, on the A Channel stations, are going to produce radically different
election‑night broadcasts than the CTV stations are. We are going to interview different experts,
we are going to cover different ridings, we are going to cover different
candidates, we are going to cover different issues because we are in different
markets. It doesn't flow from ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1784 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: That's Ontario. What about nationally, though? What will happen nationally at the next
national election?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1785 MR.
GRAY: Well, the next national election,
A Channel will use its resources, in terms of on‑air presence, to cover
that show the same way that we will the provincial election. You know, we will cover the national election
in Victoria and on Vancouver Island from a very different perspective and in a
very different way than CTV will in Kitchener or CTV will in Montreal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1786 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: And when Mr. Harper gives a
major speech in Saskatoon, say, or in Toronto or in Quebec City, will you have
an A Channel camera there and an A Channel reporter and a CTV camera there and
a CTV reporter?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1787 MR.
GRAY: Not in Saskatoon, necessarily, but
what will happen ‑‑ and in cases where we won't, what will
happen to that material is that the play and the prominence and the
interpretation of that particular story is going to be presented by, you know,
the folks who are in individual newsrooms.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1788 So
the news director in Victoria, the news director in Barrie, the news director
in London, along with their associated producers and their associated
presenters, will interpret that story, will present that story about Mr.
Harper's announcement in Saskatoon in a way that is specifically targeted,
specifically geared to their particular audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1789 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: And if the story is some
announcement which has a huge impact on such entrepreneurs as the Thompson
family, the Toronto Star, pension funds of some sort of another, how do we
guarantee that the message they prefer doesn't spread through from CTV and the
Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star to the radio stations and to the A Channel?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1790 MR.
HURST: Can I pick up on this one?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1791 MR.
GRAY: Sure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1792 MR.
HURST: Because ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1793 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: I think he'd be grateful if
you did, actually.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1794 MR.
HURST: Let me answer that question
first, because it's a critical question and it's an important question, and
it's a question that has been around since journalism began.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1795 We
have in place at CTV and across our various groups, including the Globe and
Mail and the A Channel, absolute policies in place that say you treat reporting
about your owners in exactly the same way that you will report on any other
third party. You are to be careful and
factual and make sure that individual, be it the owner or an affiliated
company, is treated and given the exact right to respond as any third party.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1796 This
is written down in our own policies and manuals internally and it is also
backed up by the various codes that we, as broadcasters, stand by, the RTNDA
Code of Ethics and the CAB Code of Ethics.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1797 But
I don't want to ‑‑ and it's a very good question and it's a
question that should be asked continually and repeatedly of private and public
broadcasters because of all the pressure we get. Most of the pressure we get comes from
politicians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1798 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So when it comes to
covering the story, "Mr. Harper went here, Mr. Harper when there, Mr. Dion
when here, Mr. Dion went there" ‑‑ I take your point, you
have got your codes, you have got your standards, and I assume you have got
your remedies should any of your journalists or assignment editors or whatever
break them ‑‑ what happens when we get to that key time close
to elections, where particularly commercial news voices make a decision and
make an editorial decision as to which way they are going to go, what kind of
freedom exits there?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1799 MR.
HURST: You mean commercial news voices
making an editorial?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1800 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, ultimately, the Globe
and Mail supports one party or another, as does every newspaper.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1801 MR.
HURST: This is a very easy answer
because ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1802 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Ultimately, CTV will support
one party or another or a ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1803 MR.
HURST: Never, never.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1804 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, in my day, you could
usually tell from the way Bruce Phillips' eyebrows were going which way you
guys were going, but maybe you have got better eyebrow protection there now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1805 MR.
HURST: Well, I would tell you that at
CTV we have no editorials. On our local,
on our newsnet or our national news, there are no editorials. We banned these a fair time ago, for a whole
bunch of reasons: they were
counterproductive, nobody really cared in the voting booth what CTV thought.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1806 And
when it comes to the Globe and Mail, whatever the Globe and Mail does is up to
the Glove and Mail. We, at CTV News and
at the A Channel, have absolutely nothing to do with the management or the
editorial position or what is written in the editorial pages of the Globe and
Mail.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1807 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: So you are telling me, then,
you are sticking with your position that there's at no point a time where you
can see control mechanisms coming from a body like this, or some other
regulatory body, that would be necessary with regard to amount of ownership,
cross‑media ownership or even kind of a sense of a lack of diversity of
voices, in the sense of how those voices are weighed, the impact that they
have?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1808 MR.
HURST: I'm the news guy, I cover the
news, we chase the news. When it comes
to statistics and ownership questions, it's over to Rick.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1809 MR.
BRACE: I would say, Commissioner, that
provided we stick to the Statement of Principles and provided we subscribe and
adhere to the CBSC Code, when accepted and as proposed, that will be our
measure, that if there are issues arising from that then we need to review
it. But our intent at this point in
time, and our direction, is to maintain the heart of what those codes say, and
we think that they work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1810 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: One last question on another
subject. It wasn't clear to me reading
your thing, although I may have missed a clear statement reading your
submission, are you also a supporter of the CAB's position on benefits, on phasing
out, wiping out benefits?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1811 MR.
BRACE: What we believe on benefits,
Commissioner, is that we need ‑‑ I know we always smile when
we say this ‑‑ the level playing field. We feel that it should be, you know, across
the system, that we are kind of singled out at this point in time. So to the extent that the CAB has put forward
that proposal, yes, we feel that would be the approach to take.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1812 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: And would I be wrong, then, in
suggesting if you are in favour of level playing fields that you would be then
willing to donate 5 per cent of your gross revenues on an annual basis to the
CTF, as the BDUs are now doing?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1813 MR.
BRACE: I would say that any discussion
down that road is something that we would want to reserve for licence renewal
or for a future hearing. I don't think
that we have totally formulated our position and I'm not ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1814 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: So, essentially, your idea of
a level playing field is: let us out of
benefits, but keep the BDUs strapped to the 5 per cent contribution to Canadian
production?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1815 MR.
BRACE: No, I wouldn't suggest that at
all. I think that what we need to do is
formulate our opinion and either do it in reply or at a more appropriate
hearing that we would view more appropriate, like a licence renewal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1816 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You will get the chance
when we have a CTF hearing to ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1817 MR.
BRACE: Exactly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1818 THE
CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ formulate your decision.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1819 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: It's a problem with
compartmentalizing the way we do sometimes and it makes it difficult for us to
practice our cross‑process ownership, if I can key a phrase.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1820 Thank
you very much. Those are my questions,
Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1821 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I just want to go back to
your answer, because I don't quite accept that ownership has no effect at all
on newscasts.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1822 Several
submissions suggest there's such a thing as self‑censorship by
journalists, and you are partially owned by the Globe, so if there's a big
story about the Globe, let's say, negatively, et cetera, to what extent will
the common ownership have an effect on the newscast? Hopefully now, as you suggest, you know, it
is just looked at as any other company because that's the thing, but several of
the submissions suggested, unfortunately, that's Polyannish. Reporters do know who their owner is and
there will be a certain self‑censorship, and the only way to get around
that is to have diverse ownership. If
one of you would care to comment on that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1823 MR.
HURST: I would say the question about
self‑censorship is similar to the question about what pressures you are
from your commercial owners. It has been
around since the beginning of journalism.
It is a daily fact, you know.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1824 We
don't report the truth, we try to report the facts from the background of which
we have come to this position, so any of these questions about self‑censorship
are valid. But when we are approaching a
story, reporting on ourselves or reporting on the Globe and Mail, we never get
any instruction from the CTV owners about anything we do. And your question might be: well, are there hidden pressures?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1825 THE
CHAIRPERSON: It was purely talking about
self‑censorship, I was not talking about pressures.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1826 MR.
HURST: Right. There's no direct pressure, no indirect
pressure and, I would even suggest that, when we are reporting on ourselves, we
at CTV News go out of the way on reporting on ourselves so the appearance of
any self‑censorship is erased, if at all possible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1827 And
I can tell you I don't think we have really done any major investigation of the
Globe and Mail, but we have reported extensively on the Bell billing problems a
few years ago, and just last Thursday our Edmonton station did a tough consumer
story on a billing screw‑up with a Bell ExpressVu customer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1828 I'm
not sure if I have answered your question, sir.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1829 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So if I understand you
correctly, you are saying self‑censorship obviously may exist, it's a
fact of life, but you are doing everything, in terms of your company's
policies, to ensure there's no self‑censorship vis‑à‑vis your
owners?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1830 MR.
HURST: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1831 MR.
BRACE: And that is the policy of senior
management, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1832 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but, I mean, the
submissions which we have, and you will hear them as we go through the weeks,
suggests that's fine and that's how it should be, but, unfortunately, the will
only guarantee that you have that you don't have self‑censorship is
through separate ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1833 MR.
BRACE: And I guess I would ask that, you
know, is there going to be brought evidence brought forward to suggest that
it's not the case?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1834 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will see.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1835 MR.
BRACE: We will see.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1836 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1837 Rita,
did you have a question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1838 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1839 Mr.
Brace, you said in response to a question from Commissioner Langford that it
takes strong consolidated companies to compete, and, obviously, I mean, I
understand why CTVglobemedia takes this position: you have become Canada's largest
broadcasters. But you are also part of
the industry overall, so I'm going to ask you more of a philosophical question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1840 If
you were sitting up here, what would you do to perhaps strengthen smaller
independent broadcasters in the system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1841 Because
we have to think of those people, too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1842 MR.
BRACE: I agree. It becomes a question of managing a balanced
system, and how do we do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1843 We
are big. We believe that consolidation
is beneficial. We believe that it
creates more diversity. And all of those
are good things, we hope.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1844 But
it doesn't diminish the importance of the independents and the people who are
offering different opinions, diverse opinions, and offering more opinions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1845 I
think that, in that respect, what is really important is to make sure that we
keep an eye on barriers to entry; that we do everything we can in terms of
encouraging people to come on board, whether it is through the Category 2
licensing regime ‑‑ and, more specifically, that we look at
distribution, because I think that one of the keynotes we have heard from the
Chair and we have heard from the Commission is access. There is no point in starting something and
trying to build something if no one is available or you can't get it to
anyone ‑‑ if it falls out the end of a pipe and goes nowhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1846 When
we come to the pay and specialty review, and the BDU review, it is going to be
really important to talk about what we do about access. Obviously, it is going to be important for
us ‑‑ vitally important ‑‑ but it is
absolutely crucial for small independents.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1847 Those
are the two areas that I think we need to look at.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1848 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1849 Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1850 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Morin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1851 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: You are a big player in the
Canadian broadcasting system, and I would like to ask you about the idea of
having an ombudsman at CTV. Would you
say that it would be a good advantage for your listeners, for your clients?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1852 Many
big players have this kind of thing ‑‑ an ombudsman ‑‑
to improve diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1853 MR.
BRACE: If I understand your question
correctly, Mr. Commissioner, you are suggesting that we have an ombudsman that
would, on behalf of the public ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1854 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1855 MR.
BRACE: That would kind of monitor and
oversee suggestions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1856 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Exactly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1857 MR.
BRACE: What I would say to that is, that
is exactly the direction we go with the CBSC.
That is what they are in place for.
That is what their code would be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1858 We
can elaborate on our views on that ‑‑ I know that Sarah
Crawford would be happy to do that ‑‑ but we don't think that
is necessary, based on the fact that we have something in place that we are
going to subscribe to that will deal with that issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1859 MR.
HURST: May I add, Commissioner, that the
CBSC, in my view, is a much more public and transparent organization when
complaints about, especially, news broadcasting come to the fore.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1860 The
CBC ombudsman in English Canada is effective, but I think the CBSC does a
terrific job, and a transparent job, against several stated and published
codes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1861 MR.
BRACE: We did a little analysis ‑‑
and it is the kind of research that you sometimes wonder whether it's good or
bad, but I suppose, in this case, we would look upon it as a good thing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1862 What
we found is that, in 80 percent of the complaints that go to the CBSC, they
find against the broadcaster.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1863 So
they really are doing what we believe is an arm's length, non‑biased job
in determining where there are issues and dealing with them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1864 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Would you be open to having journalists
on the CBSC panel?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1865 MR.
BRACE: What I would like to do is ask
Sarah Crawford to comment on the format and the design.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1866 Sarah,
do you have a comment on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1867 MS
CRAWFORD: Sure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1868 My
general comment is that we do see the CBSC as having an impeccable track
record, and the codes that it currently administers also provide to address
some of the concerns that you are addressing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1869 The
Code of Ethics talks about journalistic independence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1870 The
RTNDA Code has much language about journalistic independence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1871 In
terms of your question about whether we would support journalists being
involved on CBSC adjudication panels, right now, as you know from their
submission, those panels are very carefully balanced panels. They are diverse in terms of regionality, in
terms of linguistic diversity, in terms of public and private.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1872 There
is equal representation there, and the people from the private sector come from
all walks of life ‑‑ and from the industry sector, for that
matter.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1873 Journalists
are, I believe, currently represented on many of the adjudication panels, and I
would accept, and we would certainly welcome if journalists were to be
represented on an adjudication panel regarding the proposed code.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1874 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Ron, do you have a
question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1875 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1876 Mr.
Brace, in your presentation earlier, and in some of your comments relating to
consolidation, you talked about a continuum being many owners and, then,
perhaps a scenario of where there would be a single owner, which may not be as
appealing as having some diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1877 Do
you think that less diversity of ownership as a result of consolidation would
result in less diversity of programming choices, and less plurality of
editorial voices?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1878 I
am mindful, in your presentation, that you said, simply put, that
homogenization of programming destroys value, but I would like you to elaborate
a bit on that, please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1879 MR.
BRACE: If I understand correctly, Mr.
Commissioner, in other words, there are more owners, and will that create less
diversity? Is that what you are asking,
or the opposite?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1880 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: No, I want you to follow up on
less owners.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1881 MR.
BRACE: Fewer owners?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1882 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Fewer owners. Yes, please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1883 MR.
BRACE: I think what we have demonstrated
is that consolidation, in the environment that we face, is absolutely necessary
if we are going to compete, because we don't compete just domestically any
more, we compete with everything that is coming in, especially through the
unregulated media. I think we all
recognize that issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1884 The
consumers ‑‑ the viewers and the listeners ‑‑
at the end of the day are the ones that are making the choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1885 We
see the fragmentation ‑‑ and I don't mean fragmentation
between specialty and conventional. We
know that is there. We know that we
compete in that environment. I mean the
fragmentation that is developing with the new platforms.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1886 We
need to be able to combat that because, at the end of the day, to meet the
objectives of the Act, we want to deliver quality Canadian programming. In our view, that is programming that
Canadians want to watch. It has to be
well funded, well resourced, well supported and well promoted.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1887 In
our view, consolidation can deliver that.
In fact, I think we have demonstrated that it does deliver that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1888 The
conversation here is: When does it reach
the critical point? When do you raise
the yellow flag and say, "All right, there is an issue"?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1889 That,
for us, is equally important. We need to
be able to determine that, but it's not simple.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1890 What
we have suggested is that, possibly, the place to start is looking at what is
available now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1891 Are
we agreeing wholeheartedly that there is a problem, or are we really examining
the situation to see if, indeed, there might be, and, therefore, do we have to
react to it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1892 I
guess our concern at this point is kind of establishing benchmarks, metrics,
and putting fences around the marketplace, understanding that it is changing so
rapidly and dynamically, without really first understanding if, in fact, there
is a problem.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1893 I
know that the CAB is going to put on the record the research they have done
that addresses that. We have done some
of our own. In every market, in every
major market across the country, what we have found is that the number of
choices ‑‑ just choices ‑‑ has grown
monumentally in the last 30 years, and the number of ownership groups, or
voices I will call them ‑‑ so voices and choices ‑‑
the number of voices over the last 30 years has actually grown, as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1894 We
are still seeing, for example, that in Winnipeg, currently, there are 31 ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1895 And
this is just television, by the way.
This isn't newspaper, this is television and specialty television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1896 ‑‑
there are 31 ownership groups.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1897 In
Edmonton there are 25, and so it goes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1898 Even
in Ottawa we have 19 independent voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1899 When
we look at those numbers, we say: That's
quite a few. There is a lot out there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1900 Are
we really in trouble? Do we really have
a problem? Are people raising the issue,
and where is the evidence to support that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1901 It
is managing the balance, which I spoke to with Commissioner Cugini. It really is:
When do we determine that there is a problem.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1902 Because,
right now, we don't see evidence of one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1903 THE
CHAIRPERSON: With all due respect, that
is not what this hearing is about. It is
not "Do we have a problem?"
You and everybody else has said that we are in a wave of
consolidation. You have to consolidate
and you have to become bigger.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1904 The
issue is, fine, we understand that, but, as we go forward, what rules do we put
in place so that, while you consolidate, we don't lose the diversity of voices,
or the plurality of voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1905 That
is the issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1906 MR.
BRACE: We agree wholeheartedly, but it
is what do those need to be, and let's identify what the problem is, and
understand the dynamics of the rapidly changing environment, so that we aren't
in a situation where our fences and our metrics are out of date almost as soon
as they are put in.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1907 We
believe that what we have now in place is working.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1908 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Just as a follow‑up,
you heard the CBC this morning. One of
the things they suggested, essentially, is that we adopt the Australian rule of
2 out of 3.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1909 That
would put you into a problem, if one counts the Toronto Globe and Mail as a
local paper rather than national. How
would you see yourself?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1910 Do
you see the Globe and Mail as a national paper or a local paper, or both?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1911 MR.
BRACE: I think we would determine that
the Globe and Mail is a national newspaper, but the notion of the Australian
system is bewildering to us, just by virtue of ‑‑ it really is
apples and oranges.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1912 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I am only talking about
this one aspect of the Australian system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1913 MR.
BRACE: We would declare that the Globe
and Mail would be a national newspaper.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1914 I
can't speak for the Globe and Mail, but I think that's what they would say.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1915 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Michel, you had a question
on financial reporting?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1916 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1917 You
heard me earlier today talking with the CAB regarding the divulging of
financial information by major broadcasters in an aggregate manner, and I was
wondering what were the views of CTVglobemedia.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1918 Do
you see any specific problems regarding the CRTC making publicly available your
over‑the‑air television and your radio financial information?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1919 MR.
BRACE: I think what we need to be sure
of ‑‑ and this may be the comfort we are looking for in the
discussion ‑‑ what we need to be sure of is that in no way
does this public information give competitors a chance to understand our rates
and our rights fees; and that competitive information, particularly in radio,
becomes a lot more sensitive, due to the local nature of radio.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1920 That
is number one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1921 Number
two, it is not happening across the board.
The CBC doesn't deliver this information, nor do producers, nor do BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1922 I
think, thirdly, we already provide the information to the Commission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1923 At
this point in time, I think we would want to think about this,
Commissioner. I think we would like to
take this under advisement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1924 I
know that you proposed, and in the letter it talked about some kind of
aggregate type of concept that might give us some comfort, but I wouldn't want
to really comment on that in terms of supporting it or defending against it at
this point in time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1925 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Could we expect to have your
reply by October 5th?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1926 MR.
BRACE: I think we could do that, yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1927 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1928 THE
CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1929 We
are right on schedule. Thank you for
your submissions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1930 MR.
BRACE: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1931 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madam Boulet, we will take
an hour break now, if I understand correctly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1932 THE
SECRETARY: Yes, that's correct, Mr.
Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1933 We
will break until 1:30.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1228 / Suspension à 1228
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1332 / Reprise à 1332
LISTNUM
1 \l 1934 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madame Boulet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1935 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1936 I
would now invite CanWest MediaWorks to make their presentation. Ms Kathy Dore will be introducing her panel,
after which you will have 10 minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1937 Ms
Dore.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1938 MS
DORE: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1939 Good
afternoon, Chairman, commissioners and Commission staff.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1940 My
name is Kathy Dore. I am President of
CanWest MediaWorks and oversee all of our broadcast operations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1941 I
would like to begin our presentation by introducing the members of our panel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1942 To
my immediate right is Steve Wyatt, Senior Vice‑President of News and
Information.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1943 To
his immediate right is Barbara Williams, Senior Vice‑President of
Programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1944 To
my immediate left is Charlotte Bell, Vice‑President of Regulatory
Affairs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1945 In
the row behind us, starting from my left, is Chris McGinley, Senior Vice‑President
of Broadcast Operations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1946 Next
to her is Kathy Gardner, Senior Vice‑President of Research and Promotions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1947 And
next to her is Ken Goldstein, President of Communications Management, who
prepared the study attached to our submission in this proceeding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1948 And
seated next to Ken is Jonathan Medline, Director of Regulatory Affairs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1949 First
and foremost, we would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to
participate in this proceeding examining diversity issues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1950 We
believe that this review is both timely and forward‑thinking in light of
the pace of change in our industry and we are pleased to appear before you to
share our views.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1951 Over
the years, the Commission has carefully developed policies and regulations that
have allowed consolidation to occur in order to create strong Canadian media
companies better able to compete in an increasingly complex and competitive
environment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1952 At
the same time, the Commission has imposed safeguards and conditions on a case‑by‑case
basis to allow the benefits of consolidation while still enhancing diversity of
voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1953 This
flexible approach has been in the public interest as it has afforded the
Commission reasonable latitude to assess each case on its own merits and take
appropriate actions accordingly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1954 In
fact, we believe that the Commission already has the tools it needs to move
forward without resorting to rigid policy‑making that might impede its
ability to assess and react to changing circumstances in an environment that is
anything but static.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1955 In
the last decade there has been an unprecedented amount of licensing of both
conventional and discretionary services as well as the addition of dozens of
foreign services authorized for carriage in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1956 If
a customer subscribes to cable or DTH, they have access to hundreds of
programming choices in every genre imaginable and the option to watch those
programs when they want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1957 This
option, a result of BDU‑inspired time‑shifting, is a uniquely Canadian
phenomenon. It simply isn't allowed
elsewhere, and for very good reasons.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1958 And
today, of course, choices are no longer limited to traditional
competitors. They now include names no
one had heard of a decade ago: Google,
Yahoo!, Facebook and YouTube.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1959 Diversity
cannot be assured by adding more television services and simply hoping they
will survive in this environment. We
have already witnessed how companies like Craig and CHUM have had to respond to
these pressures.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1960 Consolidation
is not so much a choice as it has become a necessity. It is no surprise that we are in the midst of
a new wave of consolidation in Canada and, indeed, throughout the world.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1961 The
fact is Canadians today have access to one of the richest and most diverse sets
of media choices in the world. This is
one reason why simply parachuting in ownership models from other countries
would not recognize the vast differences in broadcasting systems across the
globe or reflect Canada's geographic placement atop the world's largest
exporter of electronic entertainment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1962 Ironically,
despite all this choice, there are Canadians who do not receive their local
stations because DTH operators do not have to carry local stations, despite the
fact that we produce high levels of local programming specifically for those
viewers in each local market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1963 Diversity
means more than making programs, it requires making them accessible to
viewers. To this end, we share the
Chairman's view that access should be a key priority for the Commission going
forward.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1964 CanWest
has been a significant contributor to the diversity of the Canadian
broadcasting system. We have grown from
a small regional broadcaster to one of the largest integrated media companies
in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1965 In
2000, the Commission approved our transaction to acquire the television assets
of WIC. As part of that transaction, the
Commission allowed us to operate stations in smaller markets adjacent to
Canada's two largest English‑language television markets: Toronto and Vancouver.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1966 In
exchange for this, we committed to broadcasting high levels of local
programming directed at viewers in Hamilton and in Victoria and we launched a
new national newscast out of Vancouver.
We also accepted certain safeguards to ensure diversity of our overall
program offerings in those markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1967 I
would like to invite Steve Wyatt and Barbara Williams to tell you about the
ways in which we are living up to our commitments.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1968 MR.
WYATT: Commissioners, CanWest's
acquisition of WIC seven years ago did not lessen editorial news diversity in
Canada. In fact, it enhanced it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1969 As
Kathy just mentioned, one of the benefits of that transaction was to add a much
needed third national news voice in this country and I am proud to say that
after six years of building, investing in and refining Global National, we are
now the most watched national newscast in the country Monday through Friday.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1970 Even
more impressive is the fact that the introduction of Global National actually
increased overall viewing to national news in Canada. This was no small accomplishment given the
historical stronghold of both CBC and CTV in this area.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1971 Global
National required major investments in infrastructure and talent in order to
compete. In fact, since we launched, our
spending has almost tripled from the original investments we made. Over time, we have also almost doubled Global
National's staff. The results were well
worth it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1972 To
illustrate, we have appended a chart to our presentation showing the impact of
Global National to national news viewing since 2000‑2001.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1973 As
you can see, total viewing to national news has increased by 36 percent but
none of this would have been possible without Global consolidating with WIC in
2000.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1974 As
a regional broadcaster, Global simply did not have the necessary resources or
reach to compete in the national news market and was limited to offering a
national news program in Ontario through its flagship station out of Toronto.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1975 In
Hamilton and Victoria, our newsrooms are managed separately from our stations
in Toronto and Vancouver. All editorial
decisions are driven locally.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1976 As
part of our commitment to diversity, we promised to greatly increase local news
presence in both Hamilton and Victoria.
In Hamilton, we added significant hours of local programming. In Victoria, we eliminated the historical
rebroadcast of the Vancouver news program on CHEK‑TV and added more local
hours.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1977 As
you will see from the attached charts, 83 percent of the viewers watching our
supper hour newscast on our Hamilton station reside in Hamilton. Similarly, 93 percent of the audience
watching our supper hour newscast on our Victoria‑based station reside on
Vancouver Island.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1978 The
reason is simple. Our newscasts are
intensely local and are designed to reflect issues of importance to residents
in Hamilton and Victoria, not the metropolitan markets of Toronto and
Vancouver.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1979 It
has been six years now since CanWest acquired its newspaper assets. During this time, our television news
operations have maintained a fiercely independent editorial voice both locally
and nationally.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1980 We
have expanded our local news programming in some markets and nearly doubled our
financial commitment to Global National.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1981 In
some markets, we have on occasion teamed up with our print colleagues to embark
on special joint investigative projects where the two media will provide
distinctively different angles on important issues to the community, and at all
times our television news operations set their own editorial agenda and assign
their own crews.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1982 It
is because of this determined independence in generating, assigning and
producing our own content that neither the CBSC nor the CRTC have received a
single complaint in the past six years about common ownership diluting or
inhibiting the array of news choices in the communities we cover.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1983 MS
WILLIAMS: Commissioners, as you know,
CanWest operates the Global Television Network which is seen in most markets
across Canada, as well as another smaller group of conventional stations which
is available in a more limited number of markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1984 As
part of our commitment to programming diversity, we have always programmed these
two entities distinctively, and frankly, it is also in the best interest of our
business to do so.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1985 Given
the challenges facing conventional television, especially in light of the
growing popularity of specialty services, it is important for us to stand out
in each market where we operate and ensure that our content is unique and
distinctive on both networks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1986 We
need to provide diverse programming alternatives so that both services can be
successful, not one successful only at the other's expense.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1987 That
is why on September 7th we re‑branded and re‑launched our CH
network of stations under the E! banner, to provide a distinct and diverse
programming lineup from that which is on Global, and equally important, why on
those newly branded E! stations we have made the decision to bring back the
heritage call letters of the stations and provide distinct local news to the
communities of those local stations, again providing a clear alternative to
what Global is providing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1988 The
same theory holds true in specialty television.
Success is found by ensuring that each service is providing something
different, something unique, not by duplicating what is already there. In fact, in the specialty world the current
commitments to genre, Canadian content and program categories ensure this
approach.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1989 From
a programming perspective, while it is true that increasing ownership allows
for some operating efficiencies, it would be detrimental to the overall
business if we allowed it to lessen program diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1990 MS
DORE: Commissioners, in closing, we
share your interest in ensuring that policies and regulations promoting
diversity have desired outcomes for the system and that they continue to serve
important public policy goals.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1991 We
welcome this review and hope that our comments will be helpful in your
deliberations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1992 Thank
you for your attention.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1993 I
would now like to invite Charlotte Bell to lead us through the question and
answer portion of our hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1994 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1995 You
were here this morning when we heard the presentation from CBC. CBC put forward what they described as simple,
straightforward rules and they made the point that I have made too, that, in
effect, we are looking forward. It is
not a question of problems in the market now but if this consolidation that we
witness goes forward, do we need any rules, do we need any other safeguards
than we have already.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1996 CBC
put forward three rules: one was that no
owner should have two out of three in any local market, the three being radio,
television and newspapers; secondly, that no owner should have more than 33
percent of specialty television; and no owner should own more than two BDUs in
any market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1997 I
wonder whether you could comment from your point of view how you see these
rules, whether you think they make sense, whether you think they ‑‑
what would be your reaction if the CRTC decided to adopt the CBC proposal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1998 MS
DORE: We believe that the CBC proposal
is somewhat arbitrary in terms of the numbers proposed, that the system that is
in place is actually working, that there is diversity in the Canadian
broadcasting system, and that the Commission should work within the rules in
place in order to ensure that, as we enter and compete in a world that is
quickly changing, we don't, again, come up against arbitrary rules that will actually
weaken the Canadian broadcast system against unregulated competitors and
against a very powerful foreign competitor to the south.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1999 Charlotte,
do you want to add anything?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11000 MS
BELL: Mr. Chairman, with your permission,
I would like to make a couple of points.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11001 I
think, as we discussed in detail this morning with the CAB, we strongly believe
that the Commission already has the tools it needs in place right now to
address any areas of concern.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11002 You
have policies on conventional television, and you also have policies to address
the radio sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11003 I
think one of the reasons, in fairness, that you don't have any policies
concerning ownership concentration on the specialty side is that, obviously, no
transaction can occur without you approving it, so you always have the option
to take a look, if there are any issues of concern that arise from a particular
transaction.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11004 More
importantly, they are national services.
They are a little bit different.
There are a couple of new services, but editorial diversity is not
something that is prevalent in the specialty world as much as it is in conventional
and on the radio side.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11005 Even
CBC admitted that it could be 25 or it could be 33. It really was very arbitrary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11006 I
wonder, unless we have really thought this through ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11007 And
I appreciate your point, Mr. Chairman, that maybe we haven't identified a
problem, but I think that to put limits in place, if we don't really know what
they might be addressing, or a potential problem that they are going to be
addressing, might be a little dangerous.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11008 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Put yourselves in our
place. When the last three mega deals
were announced, lots of people suggested that we should say "stop"
and have this Diversity of Voices Hearing first, and then approve the deals.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11009 We
didn't do that because we thought it would be fundamentally unfair, having
negotiated a deal on existing rules, to change the rules in midstream.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11010 But,
by the same token, we said: Before we go
any further, you make a valid point, we should look at Diversity of Voices,
which is what we are doing now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11011 And,
if there is further media concentration in the communications sector, if there
are new rules, now would be the time to adopt them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11012 So
I am somewhat left adrift with your answer, which suggests: You have everything. You can face the future.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11013 So,
if tomorrow there was the suggestion of a major merger, let's say, CanWest and
Shaw, the present rules are perfectly okay.
They will deal with it, you don't have to do anything.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11014 I
just use that as one example. You could
use whatever example you want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11015 Don't
we have to be a bit more prudent as regulators and try to envision the various
combinations, and if there are any that would cause us problems, and, if so,
then adopt rules now that would prevent those problems?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11016 MS
BELL: We appreciate the fact that you
are judging the present transactions before you based on the present rules.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11017 Quite
frankly, even if you implemented the recommendations that CBC proposed this morning,
they wouldn't affect our transaction, or our proposed transaction, or the
positions that we have currently, because we don't have three different media
in any given territory.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11018 So
it is not because we are directly impacted at this point.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11019 I
think there is a fear, however ‑‑ and I think it is justified.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11020 The
Commission has announced, also, another policy review. You have announced a BDU review and a
discretionary services review. If the
rules of carriage ‑‑ if every rule that applies to that sector
right now changes, and changes our landscape dramatically, we may want to have
some flexibility down the road. We just
don't know what that outcome is going to be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11021 You
have just released the Dunbar/Leblanc Report, and, again, that may result in
other policy reviews.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11022 What
we are saying is, we just don't think it is prudent to have rigid rules at this
point, when there is an awful lot of uncertainty before us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11023 I
don't know if Mr. Goldstein would care to add anything.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11024 No,
he wouldn't.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11025 MS
BELL: I'm on my own.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11026 THE
CHAIRPERSON: All right. I think I have made my point.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11027 Rita,
you have some questions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11028 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11029 I
am going to go at the same question in a different way. Of course, you did say that one of the
richest and most diverse sets of media choices, that is what Canada has today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11030 I
heard you this morning with the CAB, and I have read your submission,
obviously, but, in your opinion, do the current rules impede or promote further
consolidation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11031 MS
BELL: I don't know if they do either of
those things. I think they allow
consolidation to happen, where it's appropriate, but I think we have seen,
also, that the current rules allow you to say no.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11032 The
current rules allow you to say "Yes, but not this part of it," or
"Yes, with certain safeguards."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11033 We
like that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11034 It's
not a certain environment, because you don't always know if the Commission is
going to say yes or no, or if the conditions they may or may not impose are
going to be to your liking.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11035 The
fact is, you have the ability to do that right now, and I think that's a good
thing for the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11036 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: And you would apply that to all
aspects of the industry, not just, obviously, CanWest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11037 MS
BELL: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11038 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: You heard us talking with CTV
before lunch, and, based on your submission, I think you agree with them when
you say that, in order to compete in this global environment, Canada needs strong
consolidated companies.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11039 MS
BELL: Absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11040 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: I will ask you the same question
that I asked CTV. What do we do about
the small independent broadcasters?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11041 Do
we come up with a set of rules that are triggered toward making them even
stronger?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11042 Do
we have two sets of rules, one for multi‑station owners and one for small
independents?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11043 MS
BELL: We do. We do, and I think we probably need to
continue to do that in some areas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11044 You
are absolutely right, they are not in the same position as large, multi‑station
groups.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11045 Our
licences are renewed as a group. We have
priority programming commitments in prime time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11046 I
am talking about the conventional sector here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11047 In
terms of DTH carriage, some of the small independents, unaffiliated with any
large station group, have more protections, or carriage protection than we do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11048 It's
not perfect, but the rules are different in a number of areas, and I would
agree that the Commission should continue to look at ways of strengthening the
smaller players, absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11049 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Again, we talked a bit this
morning, when you were here with the CAB, about local programming. Not everybody agrees with your position. In fact, intervenors have argued that
consolidation has or can result in fewer voices in the market, and that its
impact has resulted in, one, actually influencing what editorial voices there
are in a market; and two, reducing the level and quality of local reflection.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11050 I
would like to give you the opportunity to respond, from a CanWest perspective,
on what these intervenors have said.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11051 MS
BELL: I am going to turn this over to
Steve Wyatt, who is our head of news, but ‑‑ I don't want to
be repetitive, but I am going to be, just for a moment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11052 As
we mentioned in our opening remarks ‑‑ and we did it very
deliberately ‑‑ consolidation for us meant that we did add
diversity in certain markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11053 Just
very quickly, prior to CanWest taking over the station in Hamilton, for
example, the majority of the viewers to that Hamilton newscast lived in
Toronto. You know why? Because the newscast was directed at Toronto.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11054 We
added diversity. That wasn't going to
happen unless that station, and the WIC group of stations, came under a larger
umbrella, a company that had the resources to do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11055 We
have no interest in competing against ourselves in markets where we have two
stations, and we are not doing that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11056 I
think that really does speak to diversity.
I think it speaks to some of the benefits of consolidation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11057 I
will ask Steve to speak in more detail about our local news.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11058 MR.
WYATT: One of the approaches that Global
took following the acquisition of the WIC stations was to really develop itself
as a news agency, because, frankly, we weren't regarded as such for many years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11059 It
was through the acquisition of the WIC resources that we were able to combine
these two companies and really make a strategic move forward to develop another
voice in news in Canada, both at the local and national levels.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11060 Local
news is extremely important to us. In
fact, we have, over the years, expanded our hours of local programming in the
mornings ‑‑ on Saturday morning and Sunday morning ‑‑
especially in Alberta and B.C. We added
a local morning program in Ontario.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11061 So
we have really done a lot to make our own voice louder, and also turn over
those decisions on how that voice speaks to local management.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11062 We
own television stations in Hamilton and Victoria, as I mentioned before, and,
again, under the old WIC days ‑‑ and I was there during the
old WIC days ‑‑ the CHAN Station in Vancouver used to try to
get its supper‑hour news program on CHEK, and it was beneficial to that
operation at the time. But now we have
taken a very different approach and really tried to encourage a local voice in
each and every market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11063 I
think that is the important piece of this, from a broadcasting point of view.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11064 In
terms of our common ownership with newspapers, it is a funny thing: there seems to be a bogeyman out there that
suggests that somehow there is a conspiracy of news managers to get together
and decide "We are all going to tell the same story today."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11065 I
can tell you that that runs afoul of the very heart of why people enter this
business. Even in the largest markets
where we have a presence, each and every one of our news operations is fiercely
independent and competitive. It would be
foolish of us to even contemplate telling the same story across various media.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11066 The
public wouldn't let us do that, for one thing.
If they hear it once, they don't want to hear it again.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11067 We
make a very deliberate choice to tell different kinds of stories on different
platforms.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11068 And
I can say this, too. One of the most
successful news operations at a local level in Canada is that of the station we
own in Vancouver. It has always had the
philosophy that you read the newspaper to decide what you are not going to
cover.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11069 We
need to deliver news and information in different ways and on different
platforms, and constantly update it, refresh it ‑‑
whatever ‑‑ to keep our audience growing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11070 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Since you raised the issue of
news, I know that you support the journalistic code, as submitted by the CBSC,
and yet, in particular, the Canadian Media Guild said that the code will not be
effective. They are very concerned that
the CBSC is basing its code on a faulty assumption, namely, that the diversity
and quality of information is not inhibited by the common ownership of news‑gathering
resources and the use of complementary technologies.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11071 How
do you respond?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11072 MS
BELL: We don't agree. We feel that the code is doing what it was
designed to do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11073 This
isn't a new code. I think there is a bit
of a fallacy there. It's not a new
code. The code has been in place for
almost seven years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11074 As
we said earlier ‑‑ and, again, I don't want to repeat
everything I said earlier ‑‑ it was established as a result of
significant and thorough public debate during our renewals.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11075 The
code that is before you presently mirrors exactly what is in our conditions of
licence. The only difference is, we are
changing the process. We are introducing
self‑regulation, so it would be administered by the CBSC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11076 That
is really the only difference. So I
think to say that this won't work ‑‑ it already does
work. There have been absolutely no
complaints over the last seven years concerning adherence to the code or the
code itself.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11077 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: One of the clauses in the code,
which I know already exists in the CanWest code, is that news managers will not
sit on the editorial boards of affiliated newspapers, nor will broadcasters
permit any member of the editorial board of any affiliated newspaper to
participate in the news management of their broadcasting operations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11078 In
the CanWest situation, who decides who will sit on which of the two editorial
boards?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11079 MR.
WYATT: The newspapers decide who sits on
their boards, and we decide who works on the management side of our television
operations. There is no linkage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11080 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: So there is no way that the
owner has any influence over who will sit on which editorial board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11081 MR.
WYATT: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11082 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11083 You
have heard us ask everyone up until now what you believe the impact of the
disclosure of financial information will have on our operations, and, like
everyone else, I want you to give us your views.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11084 MS
BELL: I am becoming repetitive. As I said this morning on the CAB panel, we
have concerns about disclosing additional information. I made certain key points. I think there is a concern that, especially
on the conventional television side, because there are fewer players competing
for programming, both domestic and foreign programming, I am not sure we are
comfortable with our competitors having more information than they already have
in terms of what we are spending and what we are doing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11085 Having
said that, we would also like the opportunity to file some more detailed
comments on October 5, as other parties have indicated that they would be
doing, concerning that issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11086 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: I understand from what you said
this morning and from what CTV said this morning as well the competitive
reasons why we shouldn't. What perhaps
you could address in your written submission is what is the public interest
that is served by disclosing this information.
For example, expenditure on Canadian programming. Your opinion as to whether or not there is a
public interest served in disclosing this information.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11087 MS
BELL: I am going to ask Mr. Goldstein, I
think he has something that he would like to add.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11088 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Sure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11089 MR.
GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, I agree with what Charlotte has
said about some very good reasons for not doing it and you have heard some of
the reasons expressed earlier in terms of inequity, competitive information,
not just as between broadcasters but with other suppliers and all parts of the
value chain.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11090 But
there may be some unintended consequences here for the Commission in terms of
the way it releases data. This is kind
of a technocratic point, but I think it is important to get on the record. At the moment the Commission releases data at
a national level, at a provincial or regional level and at a metropolitan level
if there is enough reporting units in the metropolitan area so you won't have
disclosure of an individual operation and that is very useful.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11091 In
the recent radio review, for example, we were able to look at those data and we
were able to see very clearly that markets below 250,000 in size had very
different characteristics than some of the bigger metro markets and you
modified your policies on that basis. So
what you produce today is important and useful.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11092 If
you lay over top of that this group release of the same kinds of information
you could, by combining all of the data, end up with a huge residual disclosure
problem. Meaning, that people like me
who make a living doing this are going to take all those numbers and start
subtracting like crazy and before we are finished every station is going to be
on the public record.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11093 So
I think you have to think very clearly about the benefits of doing what you
suggest you want to do here against perhaps not being able to do some of your
current release of data. And I would
echo what others have said, that I think the Commission has the necessary tools
to monitor compliance. And we did, of
course, have the precedent at the last group licence process in 2001 where you
did at that time in the context of the licence renewal put these data on the
public record.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11094 COMMISSIONER
CUGINI: Mr. Goldstein, I thank you for
your technocratic,
LISTNUM
1 \l 11095 I
know we can always count on it. And I
would be remiss if I didn't say how much the Commission does appreciate the
study that you included in the CanWest submission. It certainly will be helpful to us in our
deliberations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11096 Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, those are my questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11097 THE
CHAIRPERSON: As far as the technocratic
response is concerned of course it didn't address the question that was asked,
which is what is the public interest?
And, you know, other interveners want to make intelligent submissions to
us and they do not have that data. It is not a question of the CRTC having the
data, it is a question whether it is in the public interest to put that data
out so we can have an informed debate and informed submissions. I trust you will address that issue in your
written response on October 5?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11098 MS
BELL: We would be happy to.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11099 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bell, coming back to
you, I am somewhat perplexed by your answer and while my colleague was asking
the question I was mulling it over. A
lot of players in the industry ask for predictability, consistency, they want
to know what the rules are so they can structure their deals, they can
consolidate or do whatever is necessary to enhance their position.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11100 Did
you tell me you would really want us to go forward on a case by case, that is
having rules towards further consolidation would make it more difficult. I don't quite understand why it wouldn't be
in your interest. Now, you may not like
the rules, I understand, but I have always went from the assumption that in
business certainty is valued above everything else. And if you know what the rules are you will
figure out a way how to work the system to your advantage. But not knowing the rules and having to
depend on a sort of case by case response makes it very difficult to plan and
go forward.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11101 I
wonder whether you can comment on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11102 MS
BELL: I am not sure what I can add to
what we have already said. I mean,
unfortunately, we do feel that in an environment, especially the environment
that we are in currently in the media world and an environment that keeps
changing and that you may continue to change in other ways, as we said earlier,
I think there is a danger in imposing very strict rules that down the road we
are not going to be able to work around.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11103 I
think Kathy Dore wants to add something to this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11104 MS
DORE: I would just say that we start out
by believing that Canadian broadcasting does not have a diversity problem
currently and that, in fact, diversity and quality are often enhanced by
consolidation as opposed to the opposite.
Therefore, the potential downside of having more rules, greater
regulation in the competitive environment that we face outweigh the value of
having that predictability.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11105 THE
CHAIRPERSON: One other question. You heard me talk to CTV about self‑censorship. You mentioned how that consolidation
increases the ability to provide views and more diversity of views. Several of the other interveners who we will
hear from during the rest of the week suggest that, unfortunately, if you have
the same owner then that journalist will exercise a certain amount of self‑censorship
and may not express views that are contrary to their owner or at least reflect
negatively of their owner. And so therefore,
the only way to ensure that all the views come forward is you have diverse
ownership so that it is always in somebody's interest to publish things from a
different point of view or put it out, diffuse it, etc.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11106 And,
you know, large companies, such as yours, who are on the air who have interest
in several media are usually the target or are being cited as examples where
there is probably self‑censorship going on. I don't know what to do with those
allegations, that is why I wanted to sort of put them to you and see what you
think.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11107 Is
self‑censorship and issue and, if so, how could we address it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11108 MS
DORE: I will just start and then turn it
over to Steve to comment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11109 I
think that if you look at the statistics around our local news programming it
is clear that we have different audiences for different newscasts and that the
voice across our local stations and international news the voices are quite
distinct. If you assume that there is
some self‑censorship that goes on involuntarily as opposed to
voluntarily, I think today in news and information generally the sources that
people can call on across the traditional media and the non‑traditional
media in terms of making sure that they have access to varying opinions and
diverse voices, the choices are so great that even with consolidation there is
very little danger of a singular voice prevailing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11110 MR.
WYATT: The only thing that I would add
to that is this, and within the context of the question does, you know,
concentration of ownership increase the instances of self‑censorship or
at least the temptation to censor oneself.
That is a problem that has existed since we started to write words.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11111 I
mean, you know, there could be 1,000 owners or there could be one owner. But I think that it would be a natural
inclination of some say junior reporter in the field to wonder if what they are
about to report is going to be annoying to the employer. It has nothing really in my mind to do with
who owns it or how many people own it or anything like that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11112 I
mean, we have a management structure in all our news operations that if the
story requires criticism and balance, then it is the responsibility of the
producers and assignment managers to support the journalists in the field to
make sure they come across with the right kind of story.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11113 So
I don't really see it as an issue of common ownership. I see it as something we struggle with everyday. You know, we struggle with advertisers, we
struggle with owners, we struggle with politicians and lobby groups. I mean, there is no end of the pressures on
journalists to meet everyone else's expectations of what a story ought to be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11114 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11115 Stuart,
you had a question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11116 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11117 I
want to come back to something you said just a moment or two ago, Ms Dore, in
response to the Chair's question. You
said, and it isn't something new to your submission, CanWest said it in writing
and CTV said it and the CAB said it, but you put it nicely and said, we believe
that diversity is enhanced by concentration.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11118 It
is certainly an argument that has been made both eloquently and forcefully by,
as I say, a number of parties to this proceeding. But I think you might agree
with me that the first time you read it brings you up a little quickly and you
say, hmm, that seems counter‑intuitive.
And then we read your explanations and we read Mr. Goldstein's studies
and we read other studies and we think, hmm, an argument can be made for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11119 But
I guess my question is where does it end?
And I did put this question to the previous witnesses from CTV. Where does that formula work and where does
it stop working? So perhaps it works
today with four owners or three owners, possibly four, depending which way we
go a little later on this fall. But what
happens when you get down to one? So do
you have any sense? When you are so sure
in your statement that diversity is enhanced by concentration, is there a
tipping point where that is no longer true?
Just rationally, is there a tipping point here?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11120 MS
DORE: I think, certainly in theory, you
can go too far with that. I think you
have gone too far if market forces actually are such that there isn't a benefit
to providing diversity and you have very few companies engaged in actually providing
content. So I think those two factors
have to be present. And it is nearly
impossible today, at least in Canada, for there to be so few voices because
there are so many voices coming in from elsewhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11121 And
I think it is to the benefit of furthering the uniquely Canadian content,
uniquely Canadian broadcast structure to have large powerful media companies in
fact as much to compete with the content and the companies, powerful players
coming in from outside as to ensure that diversity within Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11122 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But should I have any comfort
as a Canadian regulator from what you have just said? You said ‑‑ I think I have
got you exactly here ‑‑ nearly impossible to have too little
diversity because there are so many voices coming in from elsewhere. But surely we are talking here about Canadian
voices, diversity of Canadian voices.
And if we get down to one owner, if you folks do so well and make so
much money you buy it all essentially, but for a few CAT2's and Golden West
carries of course, as it always will forever.
Surely, at that point, would you agree that we have a diversity problem?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11123 MS
DORE: I think it is much more likely
that the Canadian broadcast system and the diversity that is inherent in it is
likely to be destroyed by external forces than it is by one player taking over
the Canadian broadcast system. So I agree with you, one broadcast player is
probably too few. But I think we are looking
very much inward if we discount the fact that the broadcast system in this
country is under fire from external sources, not just internal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11124 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: I'm not discounting anything,
we are here to count everything, but I want you to work with me now because I'm
going to sort of rope you into the regulatory role.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11125 We
now have you in a position where maybe one is too few, it's just not
enough. So could we make a rule that we
must have at least two? Would you be
comfortable with that rule?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11126 MS
DORE: Not at his juncture, I would not
be comfortable with that rule. I think
it's unlikely, from a market‑force standpoint, in Canada that you would
end up with one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11127 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Then, if you are not willing
to go that far, which I wouldn't think is very far, frankly, but if your
position is that even if we are down to one Canadian media empire, and we still
shouldn't regulate, then it seems to me that you should be willing to give us
something on the other side.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11128 And
I'm serious about this. It seems to me,
then, that if there are going to be literally no restrictions on the ownership
of Canadian broadcasting services, that one could take all, that surely one,
and maybe even two, and maybe even three, because we will go back at it that
way, should be willing to accept obligations to do news, for example,
obligations to do local news, obligations to have editorial independence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11129 So
can you work with me on that side? Where
can we come in on the other side to regulate some sort of independence and
diversity for Canadian consumers?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11130 MS
DORE: Well, we are very willing to work
within the current regulations, which do have those kinds of requirements
and ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11131 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: They don't, though. No, they don't. We don't have requirements about news right
now, so should we get some?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11132 MS
DORE: And there is no shortage of news.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11133 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, I would argue with you
on that point. We are seeing some
threatening clouds on the horizon for news.
You people may be doing an admirable job, but we did see the CHUM Group
lay off 280 journalists about a year ago, we have seen people back away, we
have seen some of your competitors actively back away from local news,
including the CBC, by the way. This
isn't strictly a commercial phenomenon.
So if we have no guarantees of voices for Canadians through ownership
restrictions, what guarantees should we have on the other side? I repeat my question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11134 MS
BELL: Well, I think, if I may ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11135 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: You certainly may.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11136 MS
BELL: ‑‑ Commissioner Langford, I don't know that you
necessarily need ownership rules to address those issues. When you say we don't have requirements for
news, we do. My gosh, we do. Let me tell you: 42 hours in Vancouver. I mean, we do have ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11137 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Isn't that local programming?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11138 MS
BELL: Most of it is news, though.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11139 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But you don't have to have it
as news. You could be ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11140 MS
BELL: Still, most of that ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11141 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: ‑‑ covering the 4H shows ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11142 MS
BELL: All right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11143 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: ‑‑ you could be covering state fairs, you could
be ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11144 MS
BELL: But we are not.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11145 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: No, but you could be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11146 MS
BELL: That's correct, but I think the
Commission has oversight. The Commission
monitors our performance. Obviously, if
that's what we were doing, you would be discussing this with us at our licence
renewal, and you might say, "Well, we don't like the way you are
addressing your local programming commitments", and you have the option,
you have the option to impose conditions of license. You can do that now, and you do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11147 At
our last licence renewal for all of our Global stations, for example, we had a
little compliance issue with our local news ‑‑ just a tiny
one ‑‑ it was our regional news in Ontario, and the Commission
slapped on a condition of license for an entire licence period and said now
it's going to become a condition.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11148 So
I would argue you absolutely have all the tools, all the power. You have oversight. It doesn't have to be policy, it can be done
at licence renewal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11149 Would
there ever be just one? Commissioner
Langford, there could only be just one if you allowed there to be just one,
because none of those transactions that would lead us to there would ever occur
without the Commission overseeing it, placing safeguards if they felt they were
appropriate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11150 I
think when we make the point that consolidation ‑‑
consolidation can enhance diversity, and I think the point we were simply
making was we feel that it did in the case of WIC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11151 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Let me echo the chairman's
comment. Isn't it fairer to you, and
fairer to you as business people, who have to get out into the market, who have
to be able to bring a verifiable plan to the capital markets and say,
"Look, we can do this, there's nothing standing in our way"? Wouldn't it be fairer for us not to do it on
a case by case, not to slap these things on you, to use your term, at the last
minute, but to say, "Look, the rule is there's going to be at least three,
and the rule is they are going to be this size and the rules is you are going
to have some local news and you are going to have some national
news"? Isn't that fairer, in a
way? Even if you don't like the pain
now, isn't it fairer to do it that way?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11152 I
mean, as you confirmed, again in response to the chairman, we were fair to you
in the sense that you made your deals under the existing rules ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11153 MS
BELL: M'hm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11154 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: ‑‑ we let the existing rules stand. We try to be fair, but isn't it fairer to
have a set of rules that you can live with than to just leave it with this
notion that diversity is enhanced by concentration, all is well in the valley
and let's just keep marching?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11155 MS
BELL: We are going to give Barb Williams
an opportunity to add something to this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11156 MS
WILLIAMS: And I think just to say it
maybe a little differently, but if we were feeling that the unpredictability
was a huge challenge to us, in terms of growing our business or accessing
capital or all of those things you suggested, then we would be coming to you
and asking for these rules to give us that predictability and give us that
sense of fair play.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11157 But
I think the changing landscape that's happening so fast around us, the players
that are now new to us, that we are trying to figure how to compete with,
actually make the landscape, as it exists today, a more fair way for us to be
able to come forward with new ideas, with different ways of thinking about
putting our business together, with out‑of‑box thinking about how a
company needs to grow and change, and allow us to come forward in a much fairer
way with ideas that then you can respond to in the moment, given the situation
as it is. That's fairer for us in these
dynamic times than a set of rules that really won't be necessarily accurate and
helpful as the universe unfolds for us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11158 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, I appreciate that. I have got to tell you that I'm an in‑the‑box
kind of thinker, though, because the box, for me, is set down by Parliament and
it's in the Broadcasting Act, and I can't really think outside of the box, you
know.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11159 Anyway,
I have your answers, but it's difficult for me, when I look at the priorities
of Parliament as set out, particularly in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act,
and the different directions we are given, the mandate we are given. It's difficult to just stand back and say,
well, we are going to accept that concentration can just go and we are also
going to accept that we won't do anything but except on a case‑by‑case
basis when it comes to things like rules for local content and, more
particularly, for news and more particularly for diverse news".
LISTNUM
1 \l 11160 So
I just leave you with a bit of the sense of our conundrum. We don't have the ability to think outside of
the box in that sort of a way.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11161 I
wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one more question, sorry. Because I'm not the first questioner, I'm
kind of leaping around a little from one big issue to another.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11162 But
on the question of benefits, the CAB wants to get rid of benefits. You are not unfamiliar with that body, Ms
Bell. Is CanWest in that same camp?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11163 MS
BELL: Yes, actually we even advocated
that at the last TV policy last fall.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11164 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But that was then, you might
have changed your mind.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11165 MS
BELL: No, and this is now and we haven't
changed our mind.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11166 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: And do you accept this same
kind of level playing field argument that we heard from CTV and CAB this
morning?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11167 MS
BELL: Well, since you are not familiar
with ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11168 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: You know where I'm coming
from.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11169 MS
BELL: ‑‑ or not familiar, not pleased with that argument, let
me reposition that for you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11170 I
don't know that it's a ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11171 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: I wouldn't say I'm not pleased
with it. I'm pleased with everything I
hear here, but we weigh it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11172 MS
BELL: No, I know, and I don't think that
that's ‑‑ I think the position that we take is there was a
time when the Commission had a benefit policy that applied to everyone. There was a time when that was. All of a sudden it was dropped for BDUs, without
a public process, I would add, because the Commission had started to add ‑‑
or to license competitors to the BDUs, like DTH. DTH hadn't even launched at that point, but
the Commission dropped that policy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11173 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: You mean without an oral
hearing, no, we said.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11174 MS
BELL: There was even no written
comments.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11175 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: You just woke up one day and
did it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11176 MS
BELL: Absolutely. You check the public notice that Mr.
O'Farrell quoted from this morning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11177 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Colville was there ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11178 MS
BELL: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11179 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: ‑‑ then, I wasn't.
I don't remember any of that.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11180 MS
BELL: I have had that discussion with
him also.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11181 But
in any event, I don't know that it's an issue of parity, except to say if you
dropped it for BDUs because of competitive pressures, because you used this
rationale one would argue that broadcasters are under much worse competitive
pressures than the BDUs were. Our
profitability is quite a bit lower than the profitability of the cable
industry, who used to be subject to this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11182 It's
applied inconsistently, there's no doubt about it, it's not a parity argument.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11183 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: What do we do for independent
producers? I mean, this is life blood
for them. Are you saying just leave it
to us and we will take care of them, we need programming and we will buy
it? Is that the answer?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11184 MS
BELL: Commissioner Langford, the
benefits policy wasn't designed for that, in fact I ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11185 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: No, but it's working that way
now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11186 MS
BELL: Okay, but now I'm dating myself,
but the fact is that many years ago the Commission didn't even allow
broadcasters to use that money towards programming. We just weren't allowed to do it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11187 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes, but that was then.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11188 MS
BELL: So it wasn't designed for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11189 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Let's come back to the
hearing, please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11190 MS
BELL: Pardon me?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11191 THE
CHAIRPERSON: This is not a hearing into
benefits. Let's come back to this, as I
said, the issue here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11192 MS
BELL: I'm answering the question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11193 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you are
answering and I'm trying to bring both you and Commission Langford back to the
hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11194 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, I'm difficult to
control. I want to ask one more
question.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11195 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Would you suggest, then, on
this even playing field, that you would have something similar to what the BDUs
have, which is 5 per cent of your gross revenues would go to a production fund,
the way they do it, and that way you would have perfect parity?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11196 MS
BELL: We didn't ask for parity and,
frankly, the 5 per cent has nothing to do ‑‑ BDUs are licensed
differently, they have a different role in the system. We have different licences and different
obligations that they don't have to adhere to.
I don't see the connection between the two, I honestly don't.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11197 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes. And I do see benefits, by the way, Mr.
Chairman, as part of this, because it does add voices, it does add independent
production ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11198 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, Stewart, you are
absolutely right ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11199 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11200 THE
CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ it's part of the hearing, but, you know, it's
not the main concern.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11201 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: "Stewart, you are
absolutely right", would someone mark that transcript? It may never happen again.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM
1 \l 11202 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11203 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11204 No,
I thought your question actually brought very well out the difference of the approach
that we, as a regulator have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11205 And
CanWest, in this case, and since you have an opportunity to make written
submissions, I really think you should think of what we said. We are trying to find simple, straightforward
rules so that the future for you is predictable and you can plan; on the other
hand, we avoid unforeseen consequences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11206 It's
a very dynamic world, as your colleagues pointed out, but the dynamic also
works the other way. We don't want to
find out that we wake up one morning and we have a totally concentrated market
and we have diversity of voices. So the
happy medium that we are trying to find is a few simple, straightforward rules
which allows you to react in this dynamic world, yet it gives us some assurance
that we are not going to find an overconcentrated market, which is missing
plurality and diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11207 Anyway,
thank you very much for your questioning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11208 Before
we break, there's one other thing I should announce. In answer to CTV, when we talked about CTF, I
said you can make those submissions at the hearing. So I guess I let the cat out of the bag, to
some extent, so let me clarify.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11209 The
Commission has decision to have a hearing on a few limited issues that came out
of the CTF Task Force and the written submissions that were given. The time, the place and the ambit of those
questions will be announced in the hear future, but we will have a limited
hearing on some of the aspects of the CTF Task Force Report and the submission
that we received in reply there, too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11210 Thank
you, that's all.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11211 Madam
Boulet, when do we resume?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11212 THE
SECRETARY: At quarter to three.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11213 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1430 / Suspension à 1430
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1445 / Reprise à 1445
LISTNUM 1 \l 11214 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madame Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11215 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, monsieur le
président.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11216 I
would now call on Shaw Communications to make their presentation and invite Mr.
Jim Shaw to introduce his panel, after which you will have ten minutes for your
presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11217 Mr.
Shaw.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 11218 MR.
SHAW: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11219 With
me here today is Peter Bissonnette, our president; Michael D'Avella, our senior
vice‑president of Planning; Ken Stein, senior vice‑president
Corporate Regulatory Affairs; Chris Johnston, now an advisor to Shaw; Cynthia
Rathwell, vice‑president; Mike Ferras also vice‑president for Shaw.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11220 So,
as you can see, we brought in our top team to talk about subjects that you feel
are important to you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11221 In
this hearing, the Commission is asking if there is enough diversity of
programming and enough different voices in the broadcasting system, given the
degree of ownership consolidation in recent years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11222 We
don't believe there is a problem with diversity that would warrant a host of
new rules or policies. The best way to
ensure diversity in the system is to allow us to serve customers and respond to
their needs and demands.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11223 This
is because our customers demand diversity, innovation, different viewpoints and
choice. Evidence of consumer demand for
diversity and greater choice is everywhere in today's environment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11224 The
internet provides consumers with unlimited sources of content and voices as
well as a place for their own voice. New
businesses and services are springing up daily to respond to this reality. Many are becoming bigger companies and any
cable company, satellite company or broadcasting company out today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11225 We
believe the BDU rules have to be eliminated across the board and that this will
drive diversity and choice in the system by allowing licensees to respond to
the demands of the consumer. This will
not destroy our current system. It will
make it stronger and it will make it more competitive.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11226 The
current rules limit diversity from everything from linkage to genres,
exclusivity, preponderance, affiliated service rules to limits on foreign
services. Even the simultaneous
substitution requirements create an incentive for Canadian broadcasters to air
US shows in prime time rather than to create a unique competitive offering on
their own.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11227 So,
this is the last thing that the Canadian broadcasting system reads right now is
a set of new rules.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11228 Peter?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11229 MR.
BISSONNETTE: BDUs have the solution to
expanding voices in this by expanding choices.
We have absolutely no interest in trying to limit content choices. For us at Shaw it is just the opposite. We are in a business of maximising
choice. The
competitive environment in which we operate compels us to do this. Lighter and more flexible regulation to
provide even more choice while I was to distinguish our competitive offerings
and add to the rich diversity in the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11230 The
role and the success of BDUs in offering choice and diversity and in keeping
Canadians engaged should not be underestimated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11231 In
just the last six years, Shaw has invested over 4.5 billion dollars in
expanding capacity and facilities to introduce new services in our cable and
satellite businesses.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11232 On
the cable side, we provide a strong analog offering as well as a state of the
digital service. Our network offers an
unprecedented breath of content to our customers, including local and regional
television stations, educational services, specialty and pay services, ethnic
services, pay audio, time shift and services, video on demand and tape review
and high definition services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11233 We
offer low cost digital customer terminals to encourage digital subscriptions
and high definition personal video recorders.
We provide pick and pay, team packs and allow customers to build their
own packages. We give our customers we
serve the best available range of services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11234 This
applies just as much to our small systems as to our system serving the largest
metropolitan areas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11235 For
example, we recently acquired the cable system in Salts Spring Island. Through Shaw's Investment and rebuilds, this
went from a 30 channel system to a system where customers have access to 200
analog and digital channels, internet and assume Shaw's digital phone service,
all this within six months.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11236 This
takes investment and hard work and contributes to diversity, competition and to
the bottom line of programming services.
We are asked by our customers every single day about new services they
want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11237 For
example, last month alone, we responded to request for Cintenta, a new
international sport service, NHL centres in both standard definition and high
definition, ethnic services and other new digital and high definition services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11238 Shaw's
ownership of Star Choice has been equally beneficial to the broadcasting
system. We provide over 300 channels of
all digital video and audio services on Star Choice, including local signals,
pay and specialty service, team packages, ethnic services, tape review and high
definition services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11239 Satisfying
the wide and diverse demands of our customers is our business. We are our customers' biggest advocates. This just makes good business sense and is
the best way to achieve diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11240 We
are often frustrated by the regulatory framework that limits our ability to
respond to our customers and the competitive challenges we face.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11241 There
are many situations where we have wanted to be innovative and respond to
customer demand by launching, moving or repackaging a programming service, but
instead of being able to serve customers and add to the diversity within the
system, we have been held back by rules that protect the status quo at the
expense of Canadian consumers, diversity, innovation and the competitiveness of
our system. This simply makes no sense
to us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11242 In
a Public Notice announcing this hearing, the CRTC noted two BDU access
rules. The pay audio 121 rule and the
521 rule for category 2 services. We are
pleased that the CRTC has raised these rules.
We believe that these rules limit diversity, are unnecessary and should
be eliminated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11243 MR.
D'AVELLA: As Jim and Peter have said,
offering a wide variety of programming and content choices is a necessity in
the consumer driven marketplace in which we operate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11244 We
have virtually no regulatory protections, lots of competitors both regulated
and unregulated and an illegal satellite problem that government and law
enforcement agencies don't seem to have the will to address.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11245 Let's
turn to the structural separation rules that apply to Star Choice. No one can question Shaw's commitment to
making Star Choice a vigourous direct to home competitor. In fact, 40 per cent of our customers are in
Western Canada on Star Choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11246 We
have invested over 1.2 billion dollars, we have attracted some 880,000
customers and we have ensured a competitive distribution market. We have provided a new platform, new
audiences and new revenues for programming services. Direct to home is a strong competitor to
cable and has forced cable operators to accelerate their digital rule‑outs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11247 The
structure separation requirements limit our ability to maximise efficiency and
weaken our productivity at the expense of customers and overall industry
competitiveness.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11248 The
only real beneficiaries are our competitors, like Bell, that have zero
structural separation requirements and who benefit from greater efficiencies
and cost structures. Imposing them on
Shaw alone is therefore unfair and discriminatory. They are unnecessary in the extremely
competitive environment in which Shaw and Star Choice operate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11249 MR.
STEIN: Canada has one of the most
competitive distribution sectors where BDU competitors offer literally hundreds
of services and strive to satisfy customer demand for even more services every
day. We see no evidence that ownership
consolidation in Canada has reduced diversity or choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11250 As
Shaw has expanded, we have been able to greatly extend programming content and
diversity. As has been pointed out by
others in this proceeding, diversity makes good business sense.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11251 We
should be looking for ways to eliminate unnecessary regulation to allow us to
serve customers and respond to the changing marketplace, not looking for new
rules.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11252 Specifically,
the Commission needs to, as per my wish list, eliminate the structural
separation rules pertaining to Star Choice; replace all the existing
distribution linkage rules in the category 1 mandatory carriage rules with a
simple preponderance rule that requires distributors to offer consumers a
majority of Canadian programming services; eliminate the 521 category 2 rule
and the 121 pay audio rule; eliminate the one per genre policy that insulates services
from competition with other Canadian and non‑Canadian services; and open
up the list of eligible satellite services so we can give more choice and
compete with illegal DTH and free‑to‑air services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11253 A
new diversity framework is needed, not to provide more rules, but to provide a
new framework to give consumers more choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11254 Jim?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11255 MR.
SHAW: Competition is intense. We compete every day for every customer we
have. In this environment, we must be
innovative, creative, flexible and above all, our number one goal is to be
customer focused.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11256 Consumers
demand diversity. If we are allowed to
respond to consumers, diversity will thrive, competition will thrive and the
system itself will be much stronger. So,
with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11257 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Your submission is certainly clear but, as
you know, we are governed by the Broadcasting Act and it imposes a whole host
of obligations on us, what to do in order to ensure that the broadcasting
system reflects Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11258 I
always over‑simplify by saying it basically to one being sure that the
Canadian content and, secondly, ensures there is access to a system by and for
Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11259 Keeping
that in mind, your solutions of suggesting let our rep, let the market decide
and abolish rules I don't think will get us there because also if you did that,
you wouldn't necessarily live up to the obligations of the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11260 So,
what we have done when we have called this hearing, we suggested that there
clearly be a concentration going on and there as a wave and there may be
another wave that may be continuing before we come to a situation where we have
a situation that we do not want and regret.
Let's basically call a halt and have a global survey of where we are.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11261 And
we've heard all morning how wonderful diverse our system is and how it meets
all the requirements, but even if, let's say, we all accept that, the question
is : how can we ensure that it stays that way?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11262 The
only sort of substantive submission that we had addressing exactly what we
asked for came from the CBC and they suggested in terms of plurality of voices,
i.e. ownership and nobody should own all three.
The ownership should be respected to two out of three.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11263 You
could add newspapers and television or newspapers and radio or radio and
television, but not all three, in any given market and focusing on the local
market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11264 Second
rule, they said that BDUs can have an enormous market power because of ‑‑
and therefore, there should be a limitation on how much anyone BDU and if BDU
had all too much of the market in effect could increase its margin at the
expense of the people who produce the programs, which then would reduce
Canadian content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11265 And
lastly, that no one person should have more than two BDUs in one market, which
basically enshrines where you are right now, but does not allow you to require
another BDU in any given market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11266 I
would very much appreciate if you could comment on those.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11267 I
know you don't want any more rules, but just for argument sake, the CRTC said,
though we agree with the CBC those are sensible, straightforward who we adopt
them. What would that mean for
Shaw? How would it make your life more
difficult or easier, whatever?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11268 MR.
SHAW: Okay. Well, I think the first thing that we've said
is that we feel that because we are into the two BDUs, which is no different
than Bell, Telus, Tastell, everybody else, that we shouldn't have singled out
rules that allow us not to even put on some Canadians, okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11269 So,
we are currently governed by rules that we have to abide by that are current
hampering any development for Shaw. So,
we said, okay, any rules you have, let's make them equal for everybody.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11270 The
CBC thing to me, you know, seems fine for them because, you know, they already
have an English, a French, an English, a French and they pretty well have
national coverage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11271 So,
they are a total BDU, they are a total carrier cost and they actually have
their own BDU system and cost when you look at all their towers and everything.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11272 So,
when you kind of look at them, you know, they kind of talk in either side of
their ‑‑ on the other side of their mouth when they say that
because they want all the rules just to stop everybody from getting close to
them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11273 Again,
another example, where they go and spend all their time focused on American
programming. I mean I don't know how
many American movies I have seen on CBC lately but it is a lot.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11274 So,
you know, I don't know how doing that doesn't create diversity of voices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11275 Like
when we go and we ‑‑ we started Star Choice. We put a lot, a lot of money in. It took a long time. It is just making profits now, just, and it
has been ‑‑ eight years?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11276 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11277 MR.
SHAW: Eight years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11278 So
we created a competitive thing. Has it
hurt the system at all?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11279 Forty
percent of the customers come out of Western Canada where we are the main cable
provider. I don't see how that hurt
anything. It provided a choice. If you don't want that choice, you can go
here. If you don't want that choice, go
here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11280 So
down the road in the U.S. ‑‑ there are only two providers in
the U.S. One has 17 million customers
and one has 14. We have 800,000.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11281 And
even if the two of them ever went together, which I heard Mr. Stursberg up
here ‑‑ who seems to move from the Cable Association to
running CanCom, who has moved to Telefilm, who now is a new programming guru at
CBC ‑‑ say, well, that can never happen, I think it would make
a stronger competitor.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11282 And
I would also ask, what channels have we not carried? Like, you know, only ones that are limited by
the rules or that customers didn't pick.
So I don't think on the BDU side that there is a huge issue about
diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11283 I
think that, you know ‑‑ I mean if I look at the Rogers lineup,
they carry everything. I mean we just
signed up ‑‑ I think we are putting on ‑‑ how
many new channels this year?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11284 MR.
BISSONNETTE: In the last year we have
put on close to 100 in some of our smaller systems. In fact, this week coming up we are adding
another 40 channels to our small systems.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11285 There
are some other things that when we talk about rules, we are looking at
moderating some of the rules. Star
Choice would love to expose more voices to its customers in the form of
community programming and the regulations right now preclude us from doing
that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11286 Wouldn't
that be an excellent, excellent distribution method for touching all Canadians,
would be through community programming launched on Star Choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11287 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Can you answer my question specifically? I gave you the three rules from the CBC. Let us go through them one by one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11288 The
first one is two out of three. In any
given market ‑‑ as markets they use the BMM ‑‑
they suggest an owner should not own a TV, a radio station and a
newspaper. You can have two out of three
but not three out of three.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11289 Would
that affect you? I don't think it would
affect you. Does that rule give you any
problem if we were to adopt it? I am not
suggesting we do, I am just trying to listen to your response.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11290 MR.
STEIN: I guess our concern overall is
although that particular rule wouldn't affect us, our concern overall is that
going to very fixed rules is not what we see happening in terms of the media
environment we have to deal with over the next five years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11291 I
mean when you get situations where Google is talking about buying television
services, et cetera, you are going to be dealing with a different mixture of
media over the next number of years and if you come out with a fixed rule that
precludes that ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11292 I
mean Australia went to fixed rules but Australia has a totally different
situation. They do not really have a
multi‑channel universe. They don't
have the kind of high‑speed internet penetration that we have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11293 So
I think that from a point of view that the way the Commission has dealt with
these situations in the past, which is to look at it on a case‑by‑case
basis and to judge it, is the best way to deal with it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11294 You
know, over the last 15 years I used to always think that whenever I went to the
regulator and said we were going to do this, the first response from anybody at
the Commission was always, I don't think that is going to work, that is going
to be a real hurdle, that offends this rule or that rule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11295 When
we did WIC, when we did Star Choice, when we got into specialty services with
Rogers, everything ‑‑ and you can ask Mr. Lind this as
well ‑‑ everything was no, no, no, you are not going to be
able to do that, the rules preclude you from doing it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11296 So
I think that having rules that are, you know, drafted in that way just don't
serve the purpose. I think it is much
better to look at the situation on a case‑by‑case basis and make
your judgments based on that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11297 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I gather that is a no.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11298 THE
CHAIRPERSON: The second rule was that no
BDU should have more than 33 percent of the specialty channels and I heard Mr.
Stursberg say it was really a question of market power.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11299 If
anybody had more than 33 percent, he would be able to negotiate it unilaterally
and it would be at the expense of there being sufficient margin for those
specialty persons, and in effect, at the end of the day, we would pay for it by
way of reduced Canadian content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11300 MR.
SHAW: And would that be ‑‑
that would apply to Newsworld and all those other CBC channels so they wouldn't
be allowed to own any of those, they would have to sell them?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11301 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, if they own more than
33 percent of specialty services in Canada, I think is the way they ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11302 MR.
SHAW: You know ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11303 THE
CHAIRPERSON: They are a long way from 33
percent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11304 MR.
SHAW: We don't own any. I mean ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11305 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I assume you are
taking cause to ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11306 MR.
SHAW: Well then, John will have to speak
for himself because, you know, even John and I sometimes aren't that close.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11307 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11308 MR.
SHAW: You know, not that we have ever
disagreed but it has happened the odd time.
I come from the other side of the family where we have to make money.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11309 MR.
SHAW: But I don't see that as a huge
issue. I think maybe that might be a
little bit low, like it could be 50, I mean probably up then.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11310 You
know, I don't see it consolidating that hard together but even if they did, I
mean there will be a commercial negotiation.
I think you are going to put conditions on them. You are going to deal with them on a case‑by‑case
basis, not something that is going to happen and maybe coulda, shoulda, woulda
in 10 years from now, you know. And you
are going to have to watch the market. I
mean it is going to change a lot.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11311 Like
we were dealing with the Commission and they were really wanting us to tell
them what is our channel capacity in 10 years and that. Well, you know what, I can barely tell you
what it is going to be next year. I
don't know what channels I am going to have and how many people are taking HD.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11312 So
I think there are lots of opportunities and I think what has happened with
mobile video, what is going to happen there.
Like we are really, really at the edge.
Like where are the telcos going to come down, how is it going to work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11313 I
think you got ‑‑ I wouldn't be that concerned about it unless
they tried to dominate with some market power and I think you always have the
option of, one, dealing with it at the Commission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11314 Like
we were talking here before. We were
wondering about diversity of regulators.
So we thought we could have three and they would all go ‑‑
they would all have the same rules. And
so I would go to that regulator and talk to him for a while, and then if I
didn't like what he said, then I would go to that one, and then I would go over
to that one. So we were talking about
diversity of regulators.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11315 It
is the same kind of thing. So how can
you tell me that it is diversity here and then out here ‑‑ so
I think everything in moderation, I guess, is what we are saying.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11316 Did
that make sense?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11317 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you want
three sets of regulators.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11318 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And the last one was no one
should own more than two BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11319 Now
that, it seems to me, is directed at you right now as a proud owner of two
BDUs, Shaw and Star Choice. I guess that
means you can't buy Rogers and you can't buy ExpressVu.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11320 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: I think they could buy Rogers,
Mr. Chair. They are not in the same
market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11321 THE
CHAIRPERSON: That is true actually.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11322 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: We would have to get Mr.
Stursberg back but I think, if I understood him correctly, that you could buy
Rogers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11323 MR.
SHAW: Well, the way the current rules
are, there is nothing precluding cable competition from merging up to compete,
and down the road, you know, I mean in our view it is just going to be a few
cable guys and a few telephone guys going at it and one or two satellites, you
know, however that works out.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11324 You
know, I didn't know Bell was for sale ‑‑ well, I guess Bell is
for sale but ExpressVu isn't ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11325 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11326 MR.
SHAW: ‑‑ but I plan to call Stursberg right after the thing
here.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11327 THE
CHAIRPERSON: No, but all joking aside,
we are really very concerned about the concentration for two reasons.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11328 It
may lead to undue market power which then could have an impact on the diversity
of programming or it could lead to so few voices that we don't have a plurality
of voices speaking and therefore it may affect the good functioning of our
democratic system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11329 I
find it hard to accept that you say that we don't need any rules, this will
solve itself by the market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11330 MR.
SHAW: Well, you know what ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11331 THE
CHAIRPERSON: The question is what kind
of rule, how do we structure a rule that is simple and predictable so that you
can ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11332 This
newfound love with on a case‑by‑case regulation is new to me. Every businessman I have talked to has
said: For God's sake, give me a rule so
I can know how to structure my ‑‑ If you do it on a case‑by‑case, I
don't know how to plan, I don't know how to market, I don't know how to
finance, I don't know how to go to the markets, et cetera.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11333 So
I take this case‑by‑case advocacy with a grain of salt.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11334 MR.
SHAW: Right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11335 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So maybe you could explain
to me ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11336 MR.
SHAW: One of the things that, you know,
I could see by having, let's say, two BDUs, no more than two BDUs ‑‑
so you couldn't be a telephone, a cable and a satellite, right?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11337 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Good.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11338 MR.
SHAW: So let's say you are two. Each operate fairly separately now anyway
because they are quite different businesses.
One relies on retail and different promotions. One has digital phone, one doesn't. One has really good internet, one can barely
do internet, you know, because it takes up so much capacity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11339 If
you had ‑‑ let's just talk out here. If you had the satellite companies and they went
together, just for an example, you would have a lot of capacity that would come
back on, for innovation, satellite delivery products, internet, maybe a phone
product on the satellite for rural Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11340 You
would have a lot of things happening because you would have this system where
you had ‑‑ okay, you wouldn't have all the duplication. Right now, everybody runs with the same
thing, okay. So like even when you look
at, say ‑‑ let's just use Rogers and Shaw. They basically have the same stuff on
everywhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11341 And
what kind of innovation do we get out of a region? Sure, there is going to be some things but if
you had a national satellite guy, you could come up with channels and different
products for consumers in Canada that would be totally within the realm of the
system and support well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11342 So
I think that some of these things can drive more, you know. I am just trying to be serious here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11343 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11344 MR.
SHAW: But drive more.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11345 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I will pass the baton to my
colleague. Ron.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11346 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Shaw and
Shaw panelists. Welcome to Gatineau.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11347 I
think we are all aware that there is an upcoming proceeding dealing
specifically with BDU issues. However, I
think it is important that we get your views on this issue of diversity of
voices and this will require some questions that may also seem more appropriate
to a BDU process simply because you are a BDU and so those are the types of
answers that only you can provide.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11348 I
would like to begin by exploring the balancing act between free competition and
consumer choice versus democracy, access to information and an informed
citizenship.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11349 How
best can we achieve these goals in Canada from a big picture point of view?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11350 MR.
BISSONNETTE: You know, our behaviour is
driven by our customers. We have
customers that, in fact, represent every voice that you can imagine and those
customers are asking us for services that have a bearing on their lives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11351 For
example, we have ethnic services in Vancouver that represent the ethnic
population in Vancouver, whether it is Chinese, Asian. We have Native services that we carry across
all of our systems, whether it is the Star Choice BDU, we have Native radio
services. And those just don't happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11352 They
happen because our customers say we want you to be our provider and as a part
of that relationship, we would like certain things to be delivered to our home
by you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11353 We
always know that the implicit corollary to that is if you don't deliver them
and somebody else is prepared to do that, that that will, in fact, drive a
change in the relationship. That affects
our behaviour.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11354 Every
day, our customers are asking for more services. They are now asking for more high‑definition
services. They are asking for more
packaging flexibility. I mean they have
a voice in driving the way that we behave as a BDU. That is what happens in a market‑driven
society.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11355 We
were talking about if our company owned 30 different specialty services. The fact is that each of those specialty
services is unique in its makeup, whether it is trying to attract yourself to a
family organization, a family programming, whether it is how to do it kind of
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11356 The
different genres create the different voices and so we believe that if we act
in a way that is consistent with what our customers are asking us to do that
the voices are then well represented.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11357 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Thank you for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11358 Do
you think there is a strong link between diversity of voices and the diversity
of BDU ownership or is that an issue?
What is your view on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11359 MR.
BISSONNETTE: We think that we contribute
to the diversity of voices through our ownership. Through Shaw's ownership, we own a satellite
company and we own cable companies in Western Canada, and to the extent that if
you look at our lineups, you will see that there is a diversity. A broad, broad diversity of everybody that is
represented in Canada is reflected in the services that we offer our customers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11360 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: And so is diversity of BDU
ownership an important thing that we should be thinking about, or does it
matter? Can the BDUs all consolidate?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11361 MR.
BISSONNETTE: We don't think it matters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11362 What
matters to you also matters to us, because they both make business sense, and
if we are not adhering to our customers' many voices, asking for many choices,
then somebody else will fill that void.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11363 MR.
SHAW: A good example is when ExpressVu
put on ‑‑ I forget, what is that East Indian channel ‑‑
and the Chinese one out in Vancouver, and we weren't carrying it, and we were
losing guys like crazy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11364 A
lot of the market forces drive a BDU, because the BDU is there to please. You are a customer pleaser. You are just there to try and help facilitate
anything that customer wants.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11365 So
the diversity of a BDU ‑‑ and we are all competing with the
same channels ‑‑ we don't think it's an issue at all. We will have every channel on that we can, as
long as we have space.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11366 If
we don't have space, we are hoping that technology will increase so we have
more space.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11367 We
are putting in what is called APS ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11368 MR.
BISSONNETTE: APSK.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11369 There
is a perfect example, actually, of two BDUs working cooperatively to expand the
diversity of choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11370 Next
week, in all of our smaller systems ‑‑ we have 450 MHz of
spectrum in some of those systems, and we are trying to expand it. We have found a technology that is available,
that works on our satellite company, so that we can use our transponder space
more effectively to provide APSK modulation in our small cable system, which
allows them to launch 20 high‑definition channels, which a year ago they
couldn't possibly do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11371 That
was a very cooperative engineering solution to add more choices for our
customers in regions that heretofore could not get that type of exposure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11372 MR.
STEIN: The other point is that it is not
just limited to BDU competition. What
drives what we do for our customers is driven by the other media alternatives
they have, whether it is through the internet and services like U Tube, or
whether it is iPod services for music.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11373 That
environment is very rich, and drives us to the kind of choices that we have to
give to people, because of the range of alternatives that come from other media
sources, and that is a fact of life over the next number of years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11374 So
having a strong BDU, and being able to serve in that way and provide choice in
that way, is really important as we go forward over the next number of years,
just to deal with the other media.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11375 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: And you feel that many of the
existing rules impede your ability to offer this choice that your customers are
seeking?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11376 MR.
STEIN: Yes, absolutely. We put "Scream" on, and then we had
to take it off because it was a Corus service.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11377 There
are some other services that we would like to put on that we can't because of
the 5:1 rule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11378 The
pay audio rule means that we have to carry two pay audio services, which Bell
ExpressVu does not have to have, and that takes up scarce capacity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11379 So,
yes, the rules inhibit, and they also become a checklist, whereby you can't
change things around or do it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11380 We
are considered to be kind of a rogue distributor in North America because we
give people "pick‑and‑pay". At a time when the FCC is trying to get cable
companies to unbundle their programming services, it is something that we run
into trouble for, because we don't. We
give people a pick‑and‑pay environment, and I think that's really
important.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11381 Being
a strong BDU allows us to be able to do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11382 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: In your written presentation,
at paragraph 2, you spoke of "expanding the ability of distributors to
provide programming choices enabled by technology, demanded by consumers, and
available in a competitive market, is by far the most important step the CRTC
can take to maximizing diversity of voices in the broadcasting system."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11383 Can
you expand on that a bit?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11384 MR.
SHAW: We are looking for the expansion
of choices on a couple of different fronts.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11385 One,
I drive around all of our systems ‑‑ and you guys probably do
it here in Ottawa ‑‑ and I see people that have three or four
dishes on the roof. Some might subscribe
to cable. They have a couple of legal
ones ‑‑ they have everything.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11386 So
we are really wanting to utilize everything, and a lot of it is, a lot of
times, product that we need, and we are trying to work with everybody on new
VOD products and all sorts of stuff to take advantage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11387 We
are going to launch a new 100 megabyte internet service right away. We have a whole bunch of new products.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11388 We
have movies being downloaded over our system all the time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11389 You
have all sorts of issues around the BDU.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11390 It's
just so we can be innovative and creative, and support the broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11391 Ken,
would that be fair?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11392 MR.
STEIN: In terms of the Broadcasting
Act ‑‑ and I know that the Chairman talked about the fact that
if we got rid of all the rules, we wouldn't be able to achieve the objectives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11393 That's
not our point. It's not that there isn't
a need for rules, it's that there is not a need for micro regulation. Having certain rules, like preponderance
rules ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11394 Being
able to have more discretion in terms of how we provide service to our
customers is really the kind of situation we have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11395 We
support the Broadcasting Act objectives, it is just that we feel the system
would be ‑‑ we think the system would be stronger in terms of
getting rid of subsidies and getting rid of content controls and
requirements. We think it would be
stronger.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11396 We
are westerners, so we look at the transportation system. One of the greatest things about the
transportation in western Canada used to be the Crowsnest rate. Finally, we got rid of it, and the
transportation system is a lot stronger.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11397 You
get locked into models that say "The world can only work this way,"
but whether you are looking at wine, or railroads, or textiles, Canadians
become much stronger when they become much more competitive, and where the
regulator supports them becoming much more competitive, and being able to meet
their customers' needs without having the encumbrance of too much micro
regulation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11398 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Some have suggested that the
BDUs would, in fact, be gatekeepers to the broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11399 How
would you respond to that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11400 MR.
SHAW: There is no doubt that the odd
time we have some fairly serious negotiations, but we have always been able to
come to reasonable terms.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11401 We
are there to serve the customers, too.
We are kind of in the middle.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11402 We
are going to ask a certain thing from a programmer. If they can help us with this, like make us a
commercial every month, or do this ‑‑ and we are probably
going to argue about the rate for a bit, and then, boom, we get her done.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11403 Once
we put it on, we at Shaw, only if there is no viewership, have not taken any
services off.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11404 I
think we took one off that, out of 3.2 million customers, had 42 subscribers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11405 We
need the space for things that people want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11406 If
you only have 42 subscribers, you are going under anyway. It's just a matter of time.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11407 MR.
SHAW: Really, I think, Michael, that we
have come to terms on pretty well everything.
I am not saying that we don't negotiate; we do, but we have been able to
resolve just about everything across the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11408 I
can't think of anything outstanding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11409 Michael...?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11410 MR.
D'AVELLA: No, and we are dealing with,
for the most part, some fairly large players that have a lot of programming
services that you actually need as a competitive BDU. You can't not offer certain types of services. So they are not without their own leverage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11411 As
Jim points out, we are getting deals done.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11412 We
don't have the luxury of being a gatekeeper in a competitive environment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11413 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: So, essentially, in this world
of choice, you really don't have a choice, in that you need all of these
products in order to make your business work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11414 MR.
SHAW: You know, SaskTel is coming at
is. We have Manitoba Tel. Then we've got the legal guys. We've got ExpressVu. Star Choice is coming at the cable guys. Rogers is offering home phone service in our
area.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11415 We
have things coming at us everywhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11416 We
want to be able to offer every product we can to keep that customer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11417 They
don't usually leave a lot of the time on price, but they will leave for a
product.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11418 Let's
say ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ I will say this
because André is here ‑‑ the Family Channel. If we didn't have the Family Channel and the
guy beside us did, it just wouldn't work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11419 We
could argue a little bit about the rate, but there is no doubt we are carrying
Family Channel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11420 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: André is here.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11421 MR.
SHAW: Yes, I know he is. I saw him at the back.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11422 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Under Item 5 in your written
presentation you wrote:
"After many years of a highly
protective approach, the system and programming services are strong enough now
to benefit from a rebalancing of the objectives to increase the focus on
consumers." (As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 11423 What
do you mean by increasing the focus on consumers?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11424 What
would be an example of your efforts to do that that is being held back now by
the existing rules?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11425 MR.
BISSONNETTE: We gave you one, which is
really the Star Choice community programming.
It is a very simple one to understand.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11426 We
have a desire to offer community programming ‑‑ a national
community programming service that would be indigenous, if you will, to Star
Choice, that would create some competitive advantage for Star Choice, and, by
virtue of the rules, we can't do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11427 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: All right. Let's spend a bit of time on the rules from
your presentation this afternoon.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11428 Starting
at the last half of page 9, the list begins ‑‑ and I think we
talked about the first one, eliminating the structural separation rules.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11429 Perhaps
we could go through the next 8 or 9.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11430 Tell
us, what would be the resulting impact of the removal of each one of those that
would be more favourable to consumers and to your company, and, at the same
time, not be harmful to the other parts of the system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11431 MR.
STEIN: I will start.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11432 You
are saying that the structural separation rules would be dealt with?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11433 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Well, no. We spoke about it a little earlier ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11434 MR.
STEIN: Do all of them?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11435 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11436 MR.
STEIN: I can take them one‑by‑one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11437 The
structural separation rules ‑‑ in fact, what we are saying is,
they are not required. Star Choice
competes with Shaw. As Jim pointed out,
Star Choice has 40 percent of their customers in western Canada ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11438 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: May I interrupt for a second?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11439 Does
Star Choice offer a different program offering than the Shaw Cable offering?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11440 MR.
SHAW: They have a few changes. They have a couple of different rules, so
they can package a bit differently.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11441 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Because of their national
licence, they carry some French services specific to the Quebec market, as
well ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11442 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: That Shaw wouldn't have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11443 MR.
SHAW: Yes, we wouldn't have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11444 MR.
BISSONNETTE: There are a couple of
specialty services that they carry that are not carried on cable, but, other
than that, they are fairly similar.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11445 MR.
STEIN: There are two distinctions. The first is that Star Choice is totally
digital. All of its services are
digital, so it doesn't have the analog kind of issues to deal with.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11446 The
second thing is, it is loaded up with the CBC's. So, as you go through your Star Choice Guide,
the first 12 channels are all the same program.
It's not really diverse, but that's the way the system works.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11447 So
there is that situation, but that wouldn't change by the structural separation
rules. The structural separation rules,
basically, ensure that ‑‑ which we do ‑‑ you
keep separate information with respect to negotiations, with respect to SRDU services
and that type of thing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11448 The
key issue in that is, those rules weren't necessary. We didn't make a $1.25 billion investment to
not compete. We made that investment in
order to be competitive, in order to provide services to rural and remote
areas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11449 So,
if anything, the structural separation rules have, in my view, hampered the
ability of Star Choice to be competitive in the marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11450 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Sir, you have to explain
this. How do you compete if you go to
rural and remote customers?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11451 They
are not being serviced right now by Shaw, so you are providing complementary
services, but where does the competition come in?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11452 MR.
STEIN: In small markets. Certainly there
is lots of competition in smaller markets, and in urban markets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11453 Jim
pointed out that, in Vancouver, people would go to a satellite choice if we
weren't able to provide the kind of ethnic services they would want on cable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11454 So
it is competitive.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11455 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Do you compete on price
with yourself?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11456 MR.
SHAW: They have totally different
structure pricing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11457 They
compete, totally, in a whole different package range. They have more packaging flexibility, as I
understand it, across the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11458 They
are 100 percent digital, so their quality is probably ‑‑ I
will say just a little bit better.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11459 MR.
SHAW: But that's a big selling feature.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11460 MR.
BISSONNETTE: They also have a retail
presence. They are in every Radio Shack
in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11461 So
accessibility to a Star Choice product is virtually the same, for instance, as
ExpressVu. In any Radio Shack you go
into, you can get it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11462 People
buy Star Choice, also, as a matter of course if they are going in to buy a high‑definition
television. And depending upon the
biases of the salesperson, they could end up buying Star Choice or ExpressVu or
a cable box.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11463 MR.
SHAW: I guess, when you look at it, you
would have to say that if you have two companies ‑‑ let's take
Star Choice and ExpressVu ‑‑ that have got 2.4 million
customers in Canada, I would say that's pretty competitive.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11464 But
they compete. We don't block them or
anything. It's like a full‑on
thing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11465 All
we are saying is, we have looked at this now, it is seven years old, they have
done really well ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11466 I
don't know why they have to be structurally separated and this and that. If you want to do it that way, that's okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11467 We
are just saying that you asked us about BDU competition, and there is tons.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11468 MR.
STEIN: In terms of the existing distribution
and linkage rules for Category 1, as Roger Tassé said when he did the ethnic
review, just a maze.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11469 It
is difficult to go through the Category 1, Category 2 definitions which were
supposed to be transitional but now have become permanent. And, you know, when you get into artificial
distinctions between what an analogue service and a digital service is, and
this particularly applies on the cable side, it doesn't apply on the satellite
side of course.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11470 But,
you know, we just feel that in terms of having a simple preponderance rule that
you carry a majority of Canadian services is sufficient. Now, in fact, we carry most, there are very
few services that we don't carry. But
the ability to get away from those kinds of carriage rules we think would be
really quite important. And we would get
away from things like dual status basic ‑‑ I mean, the
Commission, you know, the decision on basic digital which we, you know,
appeared at the hearing and disagreed with, but the Commission decided to go
ahead with that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11471 But
we do believe that more and more we can drive to offering customers choice on
both analogue and digital is really important.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11472 COMMISSION
WILLIAMS: So when you say offer, and in
all of your written presentations offer is kind of italicized in the type, what
specifically do you mean by offer? Like,
would the 9(1)(h) rule apply, for example?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11473 MR.
STEIN: Well, that is part of the box we
are all in, the 9(1)(h) rule is there
LISTNUM
1 \l 11474 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Okay, all right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11475 MR.
STEIN: And I think that the rule is
there to be applied. You know, we may
disagree on what it should be applied to.
I would, you know, doubt that I would call Newsworld and RDI 9(1)(h)
services, but that is your decision, not mine.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11476 MR.
FERRAS: If I could jump in, Ken.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11477 I
think one thing we are saying is we are just trying to get the rules to a place
where we can provide more flexibility for the distributor to serve customers,
provide customers more choice and also provide the programming services a
reasonable degree of access rights. The
situation we have with the rules right now is very historic, as we all
know. But it prevents us, for example,
having a little tier or a little theme pack that might have three U.S. services
and only one Canadian. So we are just
looking for some flexibility to serve the market in a more consumer‑driven
manner.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11478 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: So in a consumer‑driven
manner do you envision a customer can come in and say I want services one
through 25, and the next person may want an entirely different set and there is
no like a concept I guess of basic cable will have disappeared and that it is you
create your own basic? Is that where you
are heading towards?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11479 MR.
STEIN: No, I think we recognize that
there would be a basic cable package. We
are talking about choice beyond that. Yes, that is absolutely what we are
talking about.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11480 MR.
SHAW: We actually get a lot of
complaints from people going well, you know, you put six channels in there, but
I only watch two and I pay for six. And
then so they phone us up and they complain a lot about that. You know, I think that we have come to the
thinking that there will always be a strong analogue component of cable for a
ways to come yet, given that everybody has second sets, third sets, one in the
bedroom, one in the kids' room. And so
there will be digital boxes in there, but that will be on the main viewing item
or one of the TV rooms, right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11481 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Yes. And to that end, in fact, next week when we
expand the capacity for our smaller systems at the same time we are also making
them all digital, so it will be a total digital line‑up. So if customers want to have the small
digital, low‑cost digital terminal, they can get all of their signals in
digital. And if they want to have an analogue service they still have the
analogue service.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11482 And
so it is just a matter of finding the balance, how big should the analogue
service be and then, beyond the analogue, how much flexibility should we
have? And our customers tell us we
should have a lot of flexibility in providing the rest of those services to
them. We do that now with all of our
digital services. We say there is 32, if
you want to take one, two, five, any combination of the 32, you can do that,
and our customers love it. So if you
look at the array of services that are available to our customers and the ones
they actually take, it is really hard to find a sort of common theme amongst
our customers because they have different choices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11483 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: And this same thinking doesn't
extend to basic cable? Does your company
receive complaints about the way the basic package is structured?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11484 MR.
SHAW: We receive complaints about a lot
of things. But no, I don't think it is
too bad. You know, we are a little
nervous about some of the new mandatory below 22 moves that are going to be
forced on us here that I think ‑‑ what is it called,
Crossroads?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11485 MR.
STEIN: OMNI
LISTNUM
1 \l 11486 MR.
SHAW: OMNI, and so we are going to have
to bump some channels out which is really really rough. But that is not really an issue for satellite
as much as it is for cable, just given the nature of how the plan is set up and
how we are established.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11487 So
when we take out a channel that has probably been there for 10 years and put in,
you know, the Crossroads network, you know, we are thinking there might be a
few issues. I don't know about you, but
I am. I think I will go away that week
probably.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11488 MR.
STEIN: After he signs the letter.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11489 MR.
SHAW: Yeah.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11490 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Let us talk about new
media. You state, "It cannot and
should not be regulated." Can you
elaborate on that statement a bit?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11491 MR.
STEIN: I think it comes to a fundamental
view that we have that establishing good Canadian content will come on a
competitive basis. We have been asked
this question many times by ministers, etc. about, you know, how do we develop
Canadian content for the internet and encourage that in terms of our
media? And we think that those kinds of
developments come out of a competitive industry. And the more we focus on developing a
competitive content industry in Canada that those things will develop.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11492 So
we think that is the better approach. We
also think that trying to deal with iPods and other kinds of arrangements will
be tricky. But, you know, you do have a
proceeding on new media, there is consultations that we have been invited to
and we will participate in those and there will be lots of discussions about
it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11493 But
I think we start from premise from the beginning that competition and
responding to the market and consumers is always a better route than
regulation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11494 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Okay. Now, I am nearing the end. I have a couple more questions. In your written presentation, under item 31,
you ended that paragraph with a statement there:
"The Commission, however,
continues to shelter programmers from competitive challenges. To do so will only ultimately weaken these
services, alienate consumers and turn Canadians away from the broadcasting
system." (As Read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 11495 Can
you describe what you mean by sheltering the programmers and what we should do
about that situation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11496 MR.
STEIN: Yes. I think that mandatory rules are essentially
the one issue that we would take exception to.
And that the rules put in place, to have to carry them in particular
ways and in particular packages, is the one of biggest concern to us. You know, the programming industry has become
very very strong and that is great, and so now we believe that commercial
negotiations will be the much better way to go and we would all be able to
respond to the market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11497 And
that finally, I mean, Shaw came under a lot of criticism over the last number
of years because everybody said well, you know, your digital programming
subscribers aren't as high as others.
And we would say, well that is because we give people a choice. So we don't think we should be penalized for
that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11498 We
think that pick and pay environment was what we always talked about for the
last 15 years, digital offers the capability to do that. And we think it is unfortunate that there are
decisions taken to force digital customers to take services. We don't think that should be the case. We think that digital should offer choice and
that as long as there is a preponderance of Canadian services there that would
meet the objectives set out in the Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11499 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Stein. Thank you, Mr. Shaw and Shaw panellists. That concludes my line of questioning, Mr.
Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11500 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11501 Michel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11502 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11503 I
want to pick‑up on part of the discussion you had with Ron Williams
earlier where you stated that, yes, you are a gatekeeper, but when it comes
time to negotiate with the service providers, then they have market power and,
at the end of the day, we find the middle point and we come to some kind of an
agreement. But you were saying that in
the context of the major player.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11504 What
do you have to say to this Commission regarding the small independent speciality
operators, those who have only a single signal, those who are asking us not to
touch the BDU regs because we are their sole protection? Do you have any comments to make?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11505 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Well, you know, just
recently, Mr. Commissioner, we launched I think it is called The Fight Network
and they are a single, they are a small little programmer and we didn't launch
them because there was any regulation we had to launch them, we launched them
because they have programming that our customers said they would be interested
in seeing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11506 And
they are now out there and if they are to flourish as an individual programmer
it will be based strictly on what the number of consumers who watch their
services are prepared to pay for them.
So we have given them their exposure and we were quite happy to because
our customers said they would really like to have that genre of programming and
now they have it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11507 MR.
SHAW: I think the other thing that we
look at and we say to them is that really we are looking for a partnership with
them and that we are willing to pay you a fee, which is we come to an agreement
on that, we don't really gate keep, we just come to an agreement and that
process usually just takes a few months. Lots of times we will ask them to see their
programming ahead of time just so we know what we are dealing with and where we
want to package or how we could do it.
Sometimes they are different on Star Choice than they are on Shaw.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11508 We
also ask them to ensure that not all the money comes from us and that they are
all entitled to advertise and they have to do their work too. So it is just not where you get to come to
the BDU and he goes, okay here, give me 60 cents a month and that is it. And then you say, well how much advertising
revenue you got? Oh no, I am 98 per cent
cable revenue. Well, so he does no work
on programming, he does not work on anything and so it doesn't really work and
so it is not really a partnership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11509 But
I think that we can prove to you in every example that we have been able to
come to an agreement and there has not been any gate keeping.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11510 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Some other examples are
GoldTV which was a strictly for soccer kind of audience, you know, youth soccer
and international soccer, Casino Gaming and Television Network, the World
Fishing Network, all kind of representative of what you have described as being
a small independent kind of producer that has no market power. But what they do have is they have something
that our customers want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11511 MR.
SHAW: They are on now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11512 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Yes, and they are all
on. You know, we have launched all of
those in the last six months. So it was
a matter of us negotiating something that made sense to them and to ourselves
and now they have that exposure.
COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: When it comes time renew existing
service, those who have been there for the last 15 to 20 years and are still
owned by the small operators, and there surely are a few of them, are they
benefiting from the same type of climate when it comes time to renew their
agreements?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11513 MR.
SHAW: Probably even actually better,
because they would have exposure. And at
Shaw and our group of companies we made a ‑‑ I mean, the only
service that I can remember we removed was a Nashville network from the U.S.
and we had more protests around our offices.
They were picketing and walking around and stuff. We made a conscious decision that we will not
be removing a service. And so basically
I think we can also show you that in every instance that has not been an issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11514 They
actually have more power once they are on.
It is before they are on where they probably don't have as much. Once they are on, they have tons.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11515 THE
CHAIRPERSON: How do you know your
customers want this? You keep saying, we
have to put it on because customers want it.
How do you know that customers want it when this hasn't been shown
yet? I mean, is there a catch‑22
here?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11516 MR.
BISSONNETTE: Well, it is not. I mean,
our customers are really not shy about telling us what they want or what they
don't want. We ask them, in fact, what they would like to have. Are there services that we aren't carrying
that you would like to have? You know,
it is being a part of the environment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11517 We
know that there is categories or genres of programming that they say they would
like. Fishing is one genre that, you
know, we know there are Canadians, they love to go fishing and we know that
that is a popular service. Many times
the programmers themselves will come to us and say, we have done a survey of
Canadians and there is a genre of Canadians that have been underserved and our
service in fact would fill that kind of a need.
And that gives us enough information to do some more surveying.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11518 MR.
SHAW: Or they go, you know, I was out at
my friend's out at EastLink in Halifax and I saw this new fishing channel or on
ExpressVu the other day this happened or now SaskTel and ManitobaTel are
carrying it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11519 A
good example of this is CoolTV, where we said we weren't carrying it and MTS
put it on. And I think we put it on
within a week or two and said: You know
what, we gotta pick it up, boys. And so
we started looking at all our networks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11520 So
really, it comes from the competition between all the BDUs all throughout the
thing. I mean the demand for U.S.
product or foreign product comes mainly from illegal and black satellite.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11521 And
people are not scared to tell us what they think anymore. I mean they just come in, they phone in, you
know: I would like the Punjabi channel
and how come, you know ‑‑ I can't think of another name of
another channel but it is channels generally.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11522 So
it happens very, very quickly now where the consumer goes: Well, how come I can't have it and why don't
I go to that other provider? So then
right away, the pressure is really on us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11523 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11524 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes, my last one at least.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11525 Mr.
Bissonnette, in your oral presentation ‑‑ well, as an
introductory remark, I will say that throughout the presentation today you
spoke at length about the support that you are bringing to the broadcasting
system now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11526 Today
in your oral presentation, you mentioned that Shaw has invested over $4.5
billion in expanding capacity and facilities.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11527 How
much of it was for distribution versus internet and telephony?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11528 MR.
BISSONNETTE: A good portion of it would
be upgrades to expand channel capacity.
I will give you an example again of just what has happened in the last
year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11529 You
know, there is always a service and reliability factor to the business we offer
our customers and as we expand our capacity, the demands of loading on the
system become more and more apparent, and so in order to minimize that loading,
we have to make smaller and smaller node sizes so that customers are less
impacted by active devices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11530 So
one of our objectives in the last year has been to make our node sizes smaller
so the service and the reliability goes up, expand our channel capacity so that
we can offer more services, look for other modulation techniques such as APSK,
256 QAM ‑‑ these are technical terms that they tell me mean
something ‑‑ which gives us the capacity to carry more and
more HD services or more standard definition services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11531 So
most of those dollars are spent in infrastructure for a variety of ‑‑
to expand capacity, service reliability.
Yes, some of it has something to do with the internet because we use the
same pipes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11532 MR.
SHAW: I guess the other thing that I
would add is when you look, the majority would be for what I will call digital
or broadcast services. Every digital box
we sell, we lose money. Every one. On one, I think we break even but all the
others, we lose money on every digital box that goes out.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11533 And
when we go the node size helps all our
internet traffic is carried on one channel, Peter, or two?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11534 MR.
BISSONNETTE: It is on two. We have Doxis traffic and we have what was
the old proprietary traffic, which we are moving away from.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11535 The
other thing you have to remember is the better we do on the internet, the
better the programmers are because those customers stay with us instead of
going somewhere else. So the
relationship is becoming a more complex relationship because it is based on
more and more stepping stones.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11536 The
last stepping stone, of course, was our telephone product. If we screw up that telephone product, we
risk not just losing a telephone customer, we risk losing the internet
customer, we risk losing a digital customer, and once that customer leaves with
all those boxes and terminals, they are hard to get back.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11537 So
we really are committed to ensuring that
the imperatives reliability and choice are the two that drive our
relationships with our customers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11538 And
then time to service. When a customer
calls us, one of the things that has really helped us if we can serve you
tomorrow or the next day at the latest.
It is all about that relationship.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11539 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Those were my questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11540 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11541 Stuart,
you have another question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11542 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes, just one. I was thinking as I listened to Mr. Stein's
wish list of regulations he wants to get rid of, I was kind of remembering
George Bush's response to terrorism with shock and awe and I guess Mr. Stein's
response to regulation is Shaw and awe.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11543 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Ahhh!
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11544 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: It is too bad you don't own a
newspaper, it would be a good headline.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11545 I
just want to focus on one because it seems to me there is still a side of this
that I am a bit uneasy about, despite the fact that you have come in here and
you are all wearing white hats, you are going to do everything for the customer
and you are going to do everything for diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11546 Even
assuming that I am sold on everything you have said, there is one aspect to
this that bothers me and so I want to focus on the elimination of the five‑to‑one
rule, which seems to me to be the purest form of where you might be doing what
you think the customer wants, you know, a perfectly sound business plan, but
somebody might get suspicious, some programmer might get suspicious that you
are favouring a related programmer over them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11547 With
this rule gone, what relief can they seek, what remedies are open to such a
programmer that might feel, well, I got the short end of the stick here, they
put on a Corus product and they didn't put me on?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11548 MR.
STEIN: Well, first of all, there are
very few that we don't have but I would say an ex post approach is probably the
best in those circumstances and you do have undue preference rules which we
aren't questioning. So we would think
there would be a full opportunity to discuss somebody's situation if they felt
that we were giving undue preference to somebody else.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11549 But
it wouldn't be in our interest to do that, quite frankly. Our interests are to make Shaw Cable and Star
Choice work really effectively and give the services to our customers that they
want. So it just doesn't arise in the
discussions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11550 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Well, you like the free
market, so if it is ex‑post, let us make a deal here, see if I can deal
with you, you guys like to make deals.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11551 It
seems to me that the problem with the undue preference rules is, first of all,
they are a bit slow and maybe that is our fault but we have to follow all the
rules of natural justice and we have to get the paper out and we have to hear
from both sides, and in the end the most we can say is stop doing that, be
good, you have been naughty, it is time to be nice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11552 Would
you support if we were to wipe out the
five‑to‑one rule and rely on undue preference, would you support
giving us greater remedies there, maybe some fining powers if you were bad,
maybe some sort of remedial powers where we compensated people?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11553 If
we really found you had broken the rules or the spirit of the rules, if you
weren't the good guys you say you are here, would you support us on the other
side of the equation having some stronger remedies?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11554 MR.
STEIN: It is a deal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11555 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Excellent! Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11556 That
is my question, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11557 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let us quit while we
are ahead.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11558 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I think that is it for
today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11559 MR.
JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, could we discuss
the size of the fine?
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11560 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Think big like Alberta, wide
open spaces.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11561 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madame Boulet, would you
announce for tomorrow please?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11562 THE
SECRETARY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11563 Just
reminding our viewers, our listeners and people in the audience that we will
start at 8:30 tomorrow morning. Thank
you. Goodnight.
‑‑‑ Whereupon the
hearing adjourned at 1553, to
resume at 0830 on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 /
L'audience est ajournée
à 1553, pour reprendre
à 0830 le mardi 18 septembre 2007.
REPORTERS
____________________ _____________________
Johanne Morin Monique Mahoney
____________________ _____________________
Sue Villeneuve Sharon Millett
____________________ _____________________
Jennifer Cheslock Madeleine
Matte
- Date de modification :