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 18, 2007 Le 18 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 18, 2007 Le 18 septembre 2007
- iv -
TABLE
DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR:
Québecor Média 277 / 1570
Pelmorex 388 / 2187
Bell Video Group 424 / 2409
Evanov Communications Inc. 447 / 2559
Stornoway Communications 478 / 2713
Independent Programming Services 510 / 2889
John I. Bitove 534
/ 3034
Gatineau (Québec) / Gatineau, Québec
‑‑‑ L'audience
débute le mardi 18 septembre 2007
à 0830 / Upon
commencing on Tuesday,
September 18,
2007 at 0830
LISTNUM 1 \l 1 \s 15641564 LA
SECRÉTAIRE : Bonjour tout le monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11565 Vous
pouvez vous asseoir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11566 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Madame Boulet, voulez‑vous nous introduire ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11567 LA
SECRÉTAIRE : Nous sommes prêts à procéder avec la présentation de Quebecor
Média. Monsieur Luc Lavoie va nous présenter son groupe de présentation pour ce
matin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11568 Et
puis, vous aurez par la suite dix minutes pour votre présentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11569 Monsieur
Lavoie ?
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 11570 M.
LAVOIE : Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11571 Bonjour
à tous. Bonjour, Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice‑Président,
Mesdames et Messieurs Membres et personnel du Conseil.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11572 Je
m'appelle Luc Lavoie et je suis le vice‑président exécutif de Quebecor,
la société mère de Quebecor Média.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11573 Je
suis accompagné de Pierre Lampron, vice‑président aux relations
institutionnelles, Édouard Trépanier, à ma gauche ici, vice‑président aux
affaires réglementaires et Peggy Tabet, directrice aux affaires réglementaires,
radiodiffusion, Quebecor Média.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11574 Monsieur
le Président, le 13 mars dernier, votre Conseil annonçait qu'une audience
publique aurait lieu afin de revoir la façon d'aborder la concentration de la
propriété, en particulier en ce qui a trait à la diversité des voix au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11575 Il
est en effet temps de revoir la politique existante limitant la propriété
commune de deux stations de radio ou de télévision dans un même marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11576 En
fait, il temps de l'éliminer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11577 Au
départ, je tiens à donner un sens aux mots pour que nous nous comprenions bien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11578 Le
concept de limitation de la propriété commune dans les médias remonte à 1934,
lorsque le FCC a débuté une enquête sur la propriété de certains réseaux de
radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11579 Il
en est résulté le Chain Broadcast Rules qui visait à limiter la propriété de
réseaux de radio, règle qui a mené à la Duopoly policy en 1943, appliquée à la
télévision en 1946, et qui prohibe la propriété commune de deux stations de
télévision dans un marché local.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11580 La
politique canadienne actuelle limitant la propriété commune s'y apparente.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11581 Nous
sommes d'avis que le Conseil devrait se retirer de cette compétence et laisser
le Bureau de la concurrence traiter des questions commerciales.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11582 Vous
disiez vous‑même, Monsieur le Président, lorsque vous étiez directeur du
Bureau de la concurrence :
* ...the CRTC has the responsibility
to preserve the diversity of voices within the broadcasting system; and to
focus, at the same time, the CRTC review of broadcasting transactions solely on
the impact that the mergers would have on core cultural values and diversity of
voices. + (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11583 M.
LAVOIE : Quant à la diversité dans la programmation, c'est un concept issu
de la Politique canadienne de radiodiffusion inscrit dans la Loi sur la
radiodiffusion de 1991, aussi présent mais différemment libellé dans la loi de
1968.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11584 A
moins de vivre dans un pays totalitaire où le gouvernement central limite la
diversité de la programmation à des documentaires sur la sagesse des dirigeants
de la nation, il n'existe aucun lien, à notre connaissance, entre la diversité
dans les émissions et le nombre de propriétaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11585 Si
cette instance menait à une telle conclusion, ce serait la première fois au
Canada qu'on soulèverait une telle préoccupation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11586 Venons‑en
maintenant au propos qui nous intéresse, celui de la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11587 En
1970, un comité sénatorial spécial sur les médias de masse au Canada a publié
un important rapport sur notre industrie : le Rapport Davey.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11588 On
peut y lire :
* The public interest is best served
by having many voices in the field of communications... + (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11589 M.
LAVOIE : Et un peu plus loin :
* ...the real challenge is to define
the balance between diverse sources of information and what society can afford.
+ (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11590 M.
LAVOIE : La diversité des voix est un concept qui traite d'information.
D'ailleurs, dans bien des textes, on écrit au long. Diversité des voix
éditoriales.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11591 Nous
nous en tenons donc à ce sujet, parce que, d'une part, il est de la compétence
du Conseil et, d'autre part, parce que la liberté d'information est une
question sensible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11592 Comme
plusieurs qui ont étudié la radiodiffusion au Canada et ailleurs, nous ne nions
pas, qu'en terme conceptuel, il puisse exister un lien entre la diversité des
voix éditoriales et la liberté de presse, voire même la liberté d'expression
LISTNUM 1 \l 11593 Alors,
est‑ce qu'il y a suffisamment de diversité des voix éditoriales au Canada
et au Québec ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11594 Nous
sommes convaincus qu'il y a plus de diversité dans l'information aujourd'hui
qu'il n'y en a jamais eu auparavant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11595 Voyons
maintenant les faits.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11596 Les
données à l'écran nous présentent une image récente du nombre de médias au
Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11597 En
outre, il faut garder à l'esprit que, au Canada, nous avons un système mixte
comprenant des médias publics et des médias privés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11598 D'ailleurs,
le meilleur intégrateur de synergies médiatiques, c'est Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11599 Ce
modèle mixte garantit à lui seul une diversité des voix éditoriales supérieure
à celle d'autres nations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11600 Voyons
maintenant l'évolution de la télévision de langue française au pays.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11601 Outre
cette démonstration implacable concernant la croissance du nombre de médias
assujettis au CRTC et la croissance du nombre de propriétaires, les éditeurs de
publications imprimées ou électroniques continuent de se multiplier.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11602 Au‑delà
des faits, nous prétendons être au début d'un formidable bouleversement de
l'ordre médiatique traditionnel; un bouleversement où l'influence d'un média
n'est plus obligatoirement proportionnelle à sa taille.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11603 Mesdames,
Messieurs, les sources d'informations présentées sous divers formats explosent
au Canada et partout dans le monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11604 Hier,
le Canadien ordinaire lisait son journal, écoutait les nouvelles à la radio
diffusées à l'heure et regardait le téléjournal, des bulletins généralement
diffusés à la même heure sur tous les réseaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11605 Aujourd'hui,
deux quotidiens gratuits se sont ajoutés aux quotidiens payants dans les
centres urbains, les magazines spécialisés se sont décuplés, la radio terrestre
ou satellite et la télévision en format * nouvelles continues + se sont imposées et, s'il reste un
peu de temps pour s'informer après le furetage sur Internet, on se transforme
en éditeur sur un forum d'intérêts ou dans un blogue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11606 Et
demain alors ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11607 La
technologie numérique va permettre autant de chaînes que le marché pourra en
soutenir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11608 Si
la tendance se maintient, le citoyen pourra se brancher en permanence au réseau
planétaire grâce à un communicateur personnel qui va permettre de programmer et
d'enregistrer toute l'information qu'il n'a pas le temps de consommer en temps
réel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11609 Si
ce n'est pas suffisant, il se transformera, à sa guise, en reporter‑éditeur
déposant des extraits codifiés sur une plateforme planétaire du type YouTube ou
Espace Canoë.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11610 Ce
bouleversement fait en sorte que nous vivons aujourd'hui dans un contexte de
fragmentation sans précédent des auditoires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11611 Alors,
pas surprenant que cela engendre de la consolidation d'entreprises.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11612 Il
faut rejoindre une clientèle de plus en plus éparpillée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11613 Mais,
je vous le demande, quel acquéreur voudrait oblitérer des sources d'information
si le marché les supporte ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11614 Vous
entendrez fort probablement des plaidoyers touchants concernant la nouvelle en
régions éloignées ou moins urbaines.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11615 Nous
pensons que ces arguments ne tiennent tout simplement pas la route et à l'appui
de ce point de vue, nous avons choisi d'illustrer la réalité qui prévaut dans
un marché francophone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11616 Prenons
le cas de Trois‑Rivières, ville de feu l'honorable Maurice Duplessis, une
région témoin d'une époque où le Québec était effectivement aux prises avec un
problème de diversité des voix, une époque où le contrôle de l'information
était possible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11617 Tous
les grands groupes canadiens sont présents dans ce marché, qui compte une
population de 125 000 habitants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11618 Les
résidents de Trois‑Rivières ont accès à une gamme complète de médias
nationaux qui, grâce à la consolidation, peuvent se permettre d'avoir des
journalistes en Afghanistan.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11619 Ils
ont aussi accès à des médias locaux ou régionaux plus nombreux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11620 Prenons
le cas concret d'une nouvelle locale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11621 Les
citoyens de Trois‑Rivières sont informés de l'aventure de la petite
Jeanne qui subit une chirurgie majeure à coeur ouvert à l'âge de neuf jours.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11622 La
semaine suivante, on lui présente ses nouveaux parents adoptifs par l'entremise
du programme de la Banque mixte du Centre jeunesse du Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11623 Née
avec une malformation sévère du coeur, Jeanne subira de nombreuses autres
chirurgies cardiaques et triomphera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11624 L'histoire
de la petite miraculée de Trois‑Rivières a été assidûment suivie par la
population via les médias locaux. En aurait‑il été ainsi il y a 15 ans ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11625 Comme
on peut le constater, la diversité est bien réelle, que ce soit dans le cas d'une
nouvelle locale ou nationale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11626 En
conséquence, et malgré la légitimité du mandat quant à la supervision de la
diversité des voix éditoriales, Quebecor Média est viscéralement convaincue
qu'il est impossible de retenir l'information, de museler les médias ou
d'inculquer une quelconque pensée propriétaire dans l'armada actuelle des
médias.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11627 La
politique du CRTC interdisant le contrôle par un même propriétaire de deux
stations de télévision dans un marché est devenue inutile, voire indéfendable,
parce que ses fondements n'existent plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11628 Dans
la mesure où le CRTC tient encore à évaluer les transactions sous l'angle de la
diversité des voix éditoriales, il devrait procéder au cas par cas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11629 Dans
ces circonstances, Mesdames et Messieurs du Conseil, si les restrictions
périmées de la politique actuelle étaient maintenues, ce serait dommage pour
l'économie canadienne, préjudiciable pour les entreprises de radiodiffusion et
ça n'apporterait rien de mieux sur le plan social ou culturel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11630 Une
restriction inutile aurait pour effet de limiter le développement et
l'innovation dans le domaine des médias privant ainsi le public de services et,
qui sait, d'encore plus d'information.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11631 La
consolidation industrielle multiplie les services d'informations, favorise
l'innovation et la pluralité des formats, ce que les petites entreprises ne
peuvent pas assurer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11632 Enfin,
quoiqu'en disent ceux qui s'affichent comme les gardiens de la démocratie, les
propriétaires de médias n'interviennent pas dans le travail des journalistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11633 Un
tel geste ferait immédiatement la manchette.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11634 En
conclusion, Monsieur le Président, le Conseil devrait encourager les titulaires
de licences de radiodiffusion à se doter d'entreprises de nouveaux médias afin
d'assurer une présence canadienne sur les nouvelles plateformes, planétaires et
mobiles, minimisant ainsi l'effet de l'inondation de produits étrangers d'information
ou de culture.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11635 Le
Conseil devrait encourager la création d'entreprises intégrées, car ce sont
elles qui seront les mieux outillées pour faire face à l'internationalisation
inévitable de la programmation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11636 Je
vous remercie. Nous sommes maintenant disposés à répondre à vos questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11637 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11638 Vous
étiez ici hier. Je suis bien sûr que vous avez suivi notre audience. Vous savez
que je pose à toutes les personnes qui viennent ici les mêmes questions. Qu'est‑ce
que vous pensez des propositions de la SRC ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11639 Ce
sont trois règles qu'ils proposent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11640 La
première que personne ne peut être propriétaire de radio, télévision et journal
dans le même marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11641 La
deuxième est que personne ne peut avoir plus de 33 pour cent des
émissions ‑‑ comment vous dites ? ‑‑
specialties ‑‑ spéciales.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11642 M.
LAVOIE : Les canaux spécialisés, oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11643 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11644 Troisièmement,
aucune personne ne devra être propriétaire de deux BDU dans le même marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11645 Ce
sont les règles simples et claires qu'ils proposent que nous adoptons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11646 J'aimerais
avoir votre opinion sur ces trois règles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11647 M.
LAVOIE : Fondamentalement, je pense qu'il y a suffisamment et même
beaucoup trop de réglementation dans le domaine, et je ne crois pas que ces
règles‑là viendraient améliorer le paysage de l'information ou de la
diversité des voix au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11648 Si
vous voulez que ‑‑ vous savez, deux sur trois, ça va. Nous on
en a deux sur trois. On est très heureux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11649 On
a voulu en avoir trois sur trois, mais le CRTC nous l'a refusé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11650 Alors,
quant aux autres règles, je ne pense pas qu'elles soient ni nécessaires ni
utiles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11651 Je
pense que les lois du marché sont les meilleures garantes de la diversité des
voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11652 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Vous comprenez que ce sont des règles perspectives.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11653 Je
crois que la SRC pense que si nous adoptons ces règles‑là la
concentration du marché va être dans des frontières acceptables avec le but de
la Loi de la radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11654 M.
LAVOIE : Je vais passer la parole pendant un instant à Édouard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11655 Mais,
auparavant, je voulais juste souligner une chose.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11656 A
notre avis, à mon avis, la plus forte concentration qui existe au Canada, c'est
celle qui est entre les mains de la Société Radio‑Canada. La plus grande
concentration, et ce, depuis longtemps, c'est Radio‑Canada qui l'a entre
les mains. Une société d'État.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11657 Alors,
je pense qu'il faut toujours garder ça en tête quand on pense à la SRC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11658 Édouard
?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11659 M.
TRÉPANIER : Je pense que les règles ‑‑ d'abord, nous
avons fait ‑‑ les intervenants hier ont fait, je pense, une
certaine démonstration ‑‑ et nous l'avons fait nous aussi ce
matin ‑‑ à l'effet que la problématique de la diversité des
voix éditoriales du Canada n'est pas un problème à l'heure actuelle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11660 Et
si la tendance se maintient, il va y avoir multiplication et des médias et des
propriétaires malgré une consolidation nécessaire à cause de l'éparpillement ou
de la fragmentation des auditoires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11661 Cela
dit, faire une règle prospective pour régler une problématique qui peut se
présenter, nous considérons qu'il s'agit d'un mode de réglementation qui
devrait être changé. D'une part parce
qu'il est difficile de faire des règles prospectives pour tous les problèmes
qui peuvent se présenter. D'autre part
parce que nous comptons sur le Conseil pour plutôt élaborer une réglementation
qui, si on peut utiliser les expressions latines * ex ante + et * ex post +, * ante + et * ex post +, je ne suis pas un expert en latin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11662 Je
pense que de faire des règles préventives devrait être abandonné par le Conseil
de façon à ce que s'il se présentait un problème, par exemple, dans la
diversité des voix, le Conseil ait tous les mécanismes nécessaires pour régler
le problème au moment où il se présente au lieu de faire une règle préventive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11663 LE
PRÉSIDENT: J'aimerais que ce soit le
cas, que nous ayons tous les outils nécessaires, mais c'est notre discussion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11664 Monsieur
Lavoie, vous dites, et je vous cite :
* Il n'existe qu'un lien, à
notre connaissance, entre la diversité dans les émissions et le nombre des
propriétaires. +
(Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11665 Je
suis surpris de ça parce que dans tout le monde on a des préoccupations, est-ce
qu'il y a un lien et est-ce que si on a une concentration de propriétaires ça
va avoir un effet sur la diversité de voir la pluralité des voix, ce dont nous
parlons ici, les voix éditoriales professionnelles?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11666 Vous
savez qu'on étudie cette question-là dans l'Union européenne, aux États-Unis,
en Australie, dans les divers pays européens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11667 Pourquoi
est-ce qu'on fait tout ce travail s'il n'y a aucun lien? Je trouve cette assertion de vous un peu
surprenante, peut-être vous pouvez expliquer pourquoi vous croyez qu'on étudie
cette cause dans tout le monde si ce n'est pas un problème?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11668 M.
LAVOIE: Je pourrais commencer ma réponse
en vous donnant le cas de News Corp.
News Corp c'est la société de Rupert Murdoch. Cette société, elle est soumise à des règles
aux États-Unis et à des règles en Australie, à des règles en Angleterre et à
des règles un peu partout, mais c'est le plus bel exemple, à mon avis de
l'inutilité de ces règles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11669 Pendant
qu'il est soumis à toutes ces règles, il est en train de bâtir un empire, il a
déjà bâti un empire absolument incroyable et mondial qui a ses assises un peu
partout, en Angleterre, qui vont du New York Post au Fox Network en passant
maintenant par le Wall Street Journal et l'agence Dow Jones et qui est
également propriétaire de journaux en Australie, du London Times, de BSkyB et
ainsi de suite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11670 C'est
que je crois que la vision en vase clos d'une réalité dite canadienne est une
vision, je crois, qui est en train d'être dépassée par les événements
carrément.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11671 Si
on impose des règles ici et qu'on fait en sorte qu'il ne se crée pas de groupes
solides avec des assises financières solides, on va tout simplement être
emporté par la vague d'entreprises du type de celle de News Corp.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11672 Mais
je le dis avec une pointe d'admiration pour Rupert Murdoch, une des règles
qu'on a voulu lui imposer, c'est celle de la citoyenneté, il a pris la citoyenneté
américaine, j'imagine que s'il voulait prendre racine au Canada il ferait la
même chose.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11673 Enfin
vous voyez, ce genre de règles, à mon avis, sont des règles qui sont dépassées
dans la mondialisation. Ce à quoi nous
faisons face, ce sont des groupes tellement gigantesques que si on ne permet
pas qu'il se crée au Canada l'équivalent à une échelle bien moindre de majors,
si vous me permettez l'expression, on va se faire emporter par la vague, par le
raz-de-marée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11674 Au
contraire, j'étais un journaliste, n'est-ce pas, ça commence à faire longtemps
et ça trahit un peu mon âge, mais quand j'étais au réseau TVA, je vous jure
qu'on n'envoyait pas de correspondants en Afghanistan.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11675 A
l'époque, avoir des reportages venant d'endroits comme l'Afghanistan ou venant
du jour même où est arrivé le drame de Virginia Tech et, enfin, je pourrais
donner des tas d'autres exemples, c'était l'apanage unique et le monopole de
Radio-Canada. TVA n'avait pas les
moyens, à cette époque, de faire des choses comme celles-là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11676 Aujourd'hui
TVA est en Afghanistan, à Kandahar, et notre journaliste là-bas, Richard
Latendresse, fait un travail absolument remarquable, je pense que tous seront
d'accord, nos journalistes se déplacent avec la vitesse de l'éclair,
maintenant, parce qu'on a les moyens de le faire. On n'avait pas les moyens de le faire à
l'époque.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11677 Est-ce
qu'on a réduit les voies éditoriales en se donnant plus de moyens? J'ai des doutes sérieux à ce sujet-là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11678 M.
TRÉPANIER : Monsieur le Président,
si vous permettez, j'ajouterais que nous ne nions pas que d'un point de vue
conceptuel, il puisse y avoir un lien entre la quantité de propriétaires et la
diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11679 Nous
disons que le problème n'existe pas au Canada parce qu'il y a diversité des
voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11680 Par
contre, pour ce qui est de la diversité dans la programmation et la quantité de
propriétaires, nous ne sommes absolument pas d'accord sauf dans certains pays
totalitaires où le propriétaire est l'État et l'État s'assure que le
divertissement soit limité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11681 Mais
autrement dans une démocratie et un monde où le marché règle les affaires, un
propriétaire a tout intérêt, même s'il est un propriétaire unique, à
diversifier dans le divertissement pour couvrir le plus de goûts possible dans
la clientèle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11682 LE
PRÉSIDENT: Oui. C'est la diversité des programmations. Je me concentrais sur la diversité des voix
dans le sens de pluralité démocratique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11683 Je
crois que la réponse de monsieur Lavoie n'adresse pas ce point-là parce que
c'est exactement la raison pourquoi on a des études dans tout le monde sur
cette question de concentration.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11684 C'est
la raison pour laquelle les Australiens ont adopté des règles, si les
fonctions, si on ne peut plus... ça c'est une autre question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11685 Je
voulais seulement savoir pourquoi il dit qu'il n'y a aucun lien entre la
diversité dans les émissions et le nombre de propriétaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11686 Il
me semble que si on pense prospectivement comme nous ne devons pas, on doit
contempler quelle sera la réalité ici si on a une trop grande concentration des
propriétaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11687 Michel,
vous avez des questions?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11688 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11689 Monsieur
Lavoie, je voudrais peut-être enchaîner sur cette règle qu'on propose qui est
prospective, mais qui voudrait dire qu'au niveau local, on ne pourrait pas être
à la fois propriétaire d'un journal, d'un poste de télévision, d'un canal, et
d'une station de radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11690 Vous
avez dit tout à l'heure : * Déjà on en a deux +.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11691 Le
problème, c'est qu'au Québec, je suis passablement de votre avis, TVA, ça ne
ressemble plus au TVA des années où vous étiez là, vous. C'est-à-dire que la qualité de l'information
s'est améliorée de façon magistrale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11692 M.
LAVOIE: L'époque de la télévision au
charbon de bois qu'on appelle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11693 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Absolument.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11694 Mais
vous devenez un joueur très important avec la télévision la plus écoutée au
Québec, le journal le plus lu au Québec, je ne sais pas si vous pourriez ici
nous présenter un relevé, par exemple, de la presse canadienne, est-ce que vous
êtes plus repris par la presse canadienne que ne l'est Radio-Canada, par
exemple, je ne sais pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11695 M.
LAVOIE: Je le souhaite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11696 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Donc vous n'avez pas les
chiffres, vous devez surveiller ça.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11697 M.
LAVOIE: Non. Celui-là, non.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11698 M.
LAVOIE: Mais ce serait une façon
d'évaluer quantitativement la qualité de votre service des nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11699 Mais
étant donné que vous occupez tellement d'espace au niveau du Québec, de la
société francophone, on a eu récemment le lancement des Mémoires de monsieur
Mulroney.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11700 Qu'est-ce
qui est arrivé? Un journal, voire un
groupe de presse, le lendemain de la diffusion d'une émission de deux heures à
CTV et d'une émission de deux heures à TVA, a réalisé un exploit peu commun,
c'est-à-dire qu'il n'en a pas parlé malgré toutes les nouvelles qu'on
pouvait...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11701 Pourquoi
il n'en a pas parlé? Est-ce qu'on est en
train, au Québec, d'entrer dans une nouvelle logique qui ne serait pas la
logique de l'information, mais qui serait plutôt la logique marchande?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11702 M.
LAVOIE: J'aimerais bien répondre en ce
qui concerne le lancement du livre de monsieur Mulroney, je vois que vous lisez
monsieur Vincent Marisal et son delirium tremens dans le journal La Presse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11703 Les
Mémoires de monsieur Mulroney ont été lancées en fonction d'une stratégie de
mise en marché qui était assez claire et qui ressemble à beaucoup d'autres à
savoir que...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11704 D'abord
CTV et TVA, il n'y a aucun lien de propriété, que je sache. Des extras ont été publiés dans le Journal de
Montréal et dans le Journal de Québec dans les jours qui ont précédé, mais
aussi dans Le Devoir, mais également dans le Halifax Chronical Herald, dans les
journaux Sun, dans les journaux de CanWest Global.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11705 Je
ne vois pas ce que vous voulez dire par ailleurs par le fait que le lendemain
de l'émission de TVA il y avait un journal qui n'avait pas quoi exactement?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11706 Vous
savez, quand on dispose d'une exclusivité dans les médias, on la garde pour
soi. Je pense que vous qui avez eu de
très grands scoops à votre époque et qui avez fait trembler certains dirigeants
qu'on ne nommera pas ici parce qu'ils s'en souviennent trop bien, quand vous
aviez une exclusivité, vous ne la partagiez pas. On ne l'a pas partagée et si cela a
frustré...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11707 Vous
savez, il faut vivre avec l'idée suivante.
Il fut une époque où le Journal de Montréal, c'était les faits divers,
les sports et les choses titillantes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11708 Maintenant
le Journal de Montréal est un joueur à part entière du monde de l'information
dans toutes les sphères de l'information et il y investit beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11709 Il
fut un temps où TVA faisait de l'information parce que TVA était forcée d'en
faire. Aujourd'hui TVA, on pourrait dire
que son service de l'information et des affaires publiques, et je pense que
c'est tout à fait sincère quand je le dis, est devenu... le cour du brand de
TVA, c'est son information et ses affaires publiques, tant par sa chaîne
continue qui est, en fait, une créature de la chaîne principale, et je pense
qu'il y a un certain milieu au Québec que cela dérange.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11710 Autrefois
les choses qui relevaient de l'analyse politique de haut niveau ne se
retrouvaient pas dans le Journal de Montréal ou à TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11711 Maintenant,
le fait que TVA occupe tant d'espace en termes de parts de marché, puisque
c'est à cela que vous semblez faire référence, n'a certainement pas à voir avec
le fait que TVA a plus de moyens que son concurrent principal Radio-Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11712 Les
moyens de TVA en information et en affaires publiques comparés à ceux de TVA,
vous êtes à même d'en témoigner vous-même, sont infiniment plus petits. Tellement plus petit que cela dépasse
l'imagination.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11713 Ceci
étant dit, les gens de TVA, je les admire beaucoup pour leur flexibilité, pour
leur agilité, pour leur rapidité d'intervention, ils sont plus rapides, ils sont
meilleurs, semble-t-il, parce que c'est ça que les gens regardent, parce que
moi je crois sincèrement à la loi du marché.
Si les gens préfèrent regarder TVA, ce doit être parce qu'ils se sentent
mieux informés par TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11714 L'exemple
des Mémoires de Brian Mulroney, je vous inviterais à ne pas tomber dans les
frustrations d'un concurrent qui était effectivement très frustré.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11715 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Je ne vous reproche pas, monsieur
Lavoie d'avoir été le premier à parler des Mémoires de monsieur Mulroney, que
ce soit dans votre journal le plus lu, que ce soit dans votre radio, télévision
la plus écoutée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11716 M.
LAVOIE: Et dans Le Devoir aussi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11717 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11718 Mais
vous n'occupez pas la place du Devoir et c'est ça qui pose ici peut-être un
problème. Dans la mesure où,
éventuellement, en vertu des règles qui nous régissent, vous pourriez très bien
acquérir un réseau de postes de radio, et on sait que la radio manque un peu
d'information.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11719 M.
LAVOIE: On a essayé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11720 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Avec votre convergence actuelle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11721 Alors
est-ce que la société québécoise mérite qu'il y ait un peu plus de diversité,
je ne parle pas de vos acquis, je parle dans une prospective éventuelle, dans
une perspective éventuelle, si d'aventure la société québécoise devait se
retrouver avec votre efficacité, avec vos cotes d'écoute actuelles, avec un
joueur qui dominerait, finalement, l'ensemble du marché, et c'est ça, je pense,
une question sur laquelle on doit réfléchir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11722 Vous
parlez de régime totalitaire, il n'y a qu'en Corée du Nord où on ne parle pas,
où on ne s'interroge pas sur la diversité.
Toutes les sociétés occidentales s'interrogent sur la pluralité des voix
et sur la propriété.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11723 M.
LAVOIE: Non, non.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11724 CONSEILLER
MORIN: Je vous demande cette règle-là,
est-ce que vous pensez que le public québécois mérite d'avoir une règle comme
ça pour préserver une diversité étant donné que c'est une société qui est plus
petite à l'échelle nord-américaine?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11725 M.
LAVOIE: Je pense que la réponse, on la
trouve à un moment très précis qui est le moment où nous avons essayé de nous
porter acquéreurs d'un certain nombre de stations. Je ne sais pas si vous vous souvenez de la
série de transactions, mais enfin nous avions essayé de nous porter acquéreurs
de CKAC, CHRC Québec, je pense que c'était les anciennes stations de ce qui
s'appelait Télémédia, et il y avait eu une opposition, j'allais dire * dramatique +, oui, il y avait des moments où
c'était dramatique de les entendre sur ce que nous allions faire à
l'information à CKAC, ça allait être une catastrophe incroyable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11726 Alors,
on nous a refusé l'achat de ces stations, c'est la première fois d'ailleurs, ce
matin, qu'on fait le moindre commentaire là-dessus, on n'a jamais commenté, on
a accepté la décision du Conseil, et voilà.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11727 Mais
je constate la réalité. La réalité,
c'est quoi? C'est qu'il n'y a plus de
salle d'information à CKAC et que, au moment où la transaction... je pense
qu'il y avait un appel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11728 Je
ne me souviens plus des circonstances exactes, mais je me souviens certainement
de l'ironie de l'affaire, qui était que les dirigeants du syndicat des
journalistes de CKAC, qui avaient déchiré leurs chemises sur la place publique,
en particulier devant vous du CRTC, sont venus nous voir pour nous demander si
on était prêt à revenir, peut‑être, acheter CKAC et faire survivre le
service de l'information de CKAC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11729 Vous
savez, entre le rêve utopique que vous décrivez, qui est un idéal qui
m'apparaît extrêmement noble, et la réalité commerciale et la réalité des
moyens, il y a un monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11730 La
diversité des voix serait un concept vide de sens si personne n'avait les
moyens de l'utiliser. On peut multiplier
les propriétaires, si vous voulez, mais personne n'aura les moyens de rien
faire s'il se trouve que, par exemple, CKAC n'est pas entre les mains d'un
groupe qui a les moyens de faire ce que nous proposions à l'époque de faire, et
que je pense que nous aurions fait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11731 Mais
je ne suis pas là pour m'en plaindre, vous savez. On se porte très bien, merci, sans CKAC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11732 CKAC
aurait un service de l'information. Il y
aurait, donc, une multiplicité de voix qui serait demeurée en place. Il y aurait, donc ‑‑ je ne
sais pas, je ne me souviens plus des nombres ‑‑ 10, 12, 15,
18, je ne le sais plus, journalistes supplémentaires au Québec qui seraient sur
le terrain. C'est ça la diversité des
voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11733 Cette
espèce de, comment dire, de vision dantesque des propriétaires installés dans
la tour d'ivoire qui dictent les voix éditoriales, mais elle est presque, à la
limite, délirante, cette réalité‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11734 Il
n'y a personne au siège social de Quebecor qui est en train de dire à Richard
Latendresse ce qu'il doit rapporter du mouvement des troupes canadiennes à
Kandahar. Il n'y a personne au siège social
de Quebecor qui est en train de dire à nos reporters ici sur la colline
parlementaire d'Ottawa ce qu'ils doivent rapporter du gouvernement untel ou du
gouvernement un autre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11735 La
réalité, c'est que, dans le monde, et à la vitesse avec laquelle le monde
évolue dans le secteur où nous sommes, je pense qu'essayer d'imposer des
limites au nom d'une multiplicité des voix mènerait tout simplement à
l'envahissement du Québec par d'autres sources d'information, qui, elles,
auraient des moyens considérables que nous n'aurions pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11736 Et
je pense que, au contraire, si vous me permettez, l'existence dans le secteur
privé, on voit, en parallèle au Québec, il y a une existence d'un secteur
d'état, Radio‑Canada, qui a des moyens considérables. S'ils n'arrivent pas à avoir des meilleures
parts de marché, je n'y peux rien là, mais je constate qu'ils ont des moyens,
mais considérables.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11737 Et
à côté, il y a un secteur privé, il y a un groupe privé, le nôtre, qui a des
moyens beaucoup moins considérables mais qui a des moyens importants, et qui
permet aux Québécois de recevoir une information, ma foi, bien, bien supérieure
à ce que les Québécois recevaient il y a 25 ans, parce que, à l'époque, il y
avait un fractionnement beaucoup plus grand.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11738 CONSEILLER
MORIN : La multiplicité des salles ou des réseaux amène à discuter aussi du
code de déontologie journalistique. Le
CCNR a un projet au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11739 Pour
l'instant, les journalistes qui ont été associés au niveau de la formulation
n'ont jamais ‑‑ et ça n'est pas, semble‑t‑il,
actuellement dans les plans ‑‑ qu'on les associe formellement
lorsqu'il y a, par exemple, des plaintes.
Ça reste quelque chose qui est entre les mains de l'industrie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11740 Évidemment,
je n'ai pas besoin de vous dire que le code de déontologie, l'Ombudsman, c'est
autant de moyens d'assurer la diversité, d'avoir ‑‑ comment
dirais‑je ‑‑ une certaine mesure ou certaines mesures de
protection. Si les gens ne sont pas
satisfaits, s'il y a unicité dans la nouvelle, si des pans entiers de
l'information sont mis de côté, les gens ont toujours la possibilité de se
plaindre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11741 Avec
le CCNR, actuellement, il n'y aurait que des représentants de l'industrie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11742 Ma
question est la suivante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11743 Hier,
un représentant de l'ACR a ouvert une porte qu'il a plus ou moins refermée par
la suite. Est‑ce que vous, vous
seriez d'accord pour assurer le maximum d'indépendance, justement, de la
direction des entreprises, que les journalistes soient associés formellement
comme représentants lors des audiences d'une plainte qui serait faite?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11744 Parce
qu'on a ici un mécanisme d'autoréglementation de l'industrie privée, et ma
question, donc : Est‑ce que les journalistes pourraient en faire
partie?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11745 M.
LAVOIE : Alors, je voudrais, d'abord, vous rappeler en vous répondant
l'historique de tout cela.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11746 A
l'été 2001, le Conseil a rendu trois décisions d'affilé qui concernaient trois
groupes importants : un qui s'appelait, à l'époque, Bell Globemedia, je
crois; l'autre qui était CanWest Global; et l'autre qui était Quebecor. Nous faisions alors l'acquisition de TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11747 Le
Conseil avait imposé dans le cas de Quebecor une règle d'étanchéité de la salle
de rédaction de TVA par rapport au reste des salles de rédaction du groupe,
alors que le Conseil n'avait pas imposé la même règle aux deux autres groupes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11748 Et
dans les trois décisions qui s'étaient succédées ‑‑ si ma
mémoire est fidèle, en quelques semaines, deux ou trois semaines, je crois, les
trois décisions avaient été rendues ‑‑ il y avait le même
paragraphe qui se retrouvait et qui disait : Le Conseil est d'avis que si
les trois groupes arrivaient à s'entendre sur un code de déontologie commun aux
trois, et qu'ils le plaçaient sous le Conseil des normes en radiodiffusion,
nous serions ouverts à l'idée d'égaliser les règles pour tous. Après tout, nous vivons toujours dans un pays
dont je suis fier de faire partie, personnellement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11749 Et
ce processus qui a mené au code de déontologie qui est maintenant devant vous
est un processus qui a été long pour une raison extrêmement simple, c'est que
les deux autres groupes, autres que le nôtre, avaient une peur maladive qu'on
leur impose les règles qui nous avaient été imposées à nous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11750 Pourquoi
nous avaient‑elles été imposées à nous?
En fait, si on veut aller encore plus loin dans le pourquoi de tout
cela, pourquoi, parce que nous‑mêmes l'avions proposée cette règle‑là,
mais il est intéressant de savoir pourquoi nous l'avions proposée cette règle‑là,
parce que les membres du personnel du CRTC nous avaient dit que si nous ne la
proposions pas, nous n'obtiendrons pas le transfert de la licence de TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11751 Alors,
c'est la poule et l'oeuf. Mais, enfin,
la règle, elle était là parce que nous l'avions proposée. Elle nous a été imposée parce qu'on nous a
demandé... parce que nous avons demandé de l'imposer, parce qu'on nous avait
demandé de le demander, si vous voyez ce que je veux dire. Et voilà!
LISTNUM 1 \l 11752 Alors,
aujourd'hui, nous en sommes exactement là où le CRTC voulait qu'on se retrouve,
c'est‑à‑dire avec un code de déontologie commun aux trois groupes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11753 Mais
ce que j'allais vous dire, c'est pourquoi est‑ce que ça été si long dans
l'arrivée à un consensus? Parce que les
deux autres groupes ne voulaient rien entendre d'avoir la moindre règle qui
s'appliquait à nous s'appliquer à eux.
Il fallait trouver un terrain où tout le monde serait égal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11754 Et
maintenant qu'on est rendu au point où tout le monde est égal, je trouve que le
code est tout à fait adéquat. Je vais
même vous confier quelque chose. La
première version du code a été écrite de ma plume. Je pense qu'il n'en reste plus un seul mot,
mais disons que c'est ça qui a servi de point de départ à la discussion,
discussion qui s'est enclenchée, je crois, vers décembre 2001. Vous voyez le temps que ça a pris, ça fait
six ans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11755 Maintenant,
vous me dites, est‑ce qu'on devrait modifier, en ajoutant je ne sais trop
quoi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11756 Je
pense que le Conseil des normes en radiodiffusion ‑‑ et je
pense même que Ron Cohen va être entendu ici, vous devriez, donc, lui poser la
question ‑‑ a fait ses preuves, est très respecté, et je n'ai
pas du tout envie de recommencer le processus, puis d'attendre un autre six
ans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11757 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais vous n'avez pas répondu à ma question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11758 Comme
journaliste, ancien journaliste, est‑ce que vous pensez que ça serait une
bonne idée... pour donner un peu plus de crédibilité au Conseil des normes, est‑ce
que ça serait une bonne idée que les journalistes, formellement, soient
associés dans les décisions qu'il prend et que ça ne soit pas seulement
l'affaire des entreprises, l'affaire des compagnies?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11759 M.
LAMPRON : Mais je pense que, effectivement, vous avez posé cette question‑là
à beaucoup d'intervenants qui vous ont tous servi à peu près la même réponse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11760 Il
y a un Conseil, donc, qui existe, qui a fait ses preuves, qui est formé comme
il est formé, avec une sorte de, je dirais, de réputation impeccable dans la
nature des décisions prises, dans la façon de conduire les travaux et dans la
façon d'exécuter ces questions, et là arrive la suggestion de quid les
journalistes à l'intérieur, si vous voulez, de cette gestion‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11761 Veut‑on
solutionner une problématique future qui ne s'est pas réalisée, encore une fois,
dans le passé?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11762 On
n'a pas une opinion particulière sur où doivent se retrouver les journalistes à
l'intérieur de cette procédure, autre que ce qui a déjà été prévu, et on nous
assure que les voix qui sont entendues au moment des panels et à tous ces
niveaux‑là permettent, justement, une très juste répartition des points
de vue, et la preuve, la nature des décisions qui en sortent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11763 Laissons
les processus un peu et regardons la conséquence des gestes qui sont posés par
ce groupe, et on en arrive à la conclusion que, à venir jusqu'à maintenant,
quel bon résultat, et nous pensons que c'est à la lumière de la nature des
résultats qui sont accomplis qu'on devrait juger plutôt le futur de cette
organisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11764 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Parce que beaucoup d'intervenants, à ce moment, ici en tout cas, nous
demandent d'administrer nous‑mêmes ce code‑là, et dans ce sens‑là,
c'est évident que ça sera une décision éventuelle, mais la donne ne serait pas
la même si les journalistes, comme au Conseil de presse, étaient associés aux
plaintes qui sont produites, et...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11765 M.
LAMPRON : Évidemment, comme à l'habitude, nous allons nous plier à votre bon
jugement puisque tel est votre rôle, de juger par rapport à des ensembles de
demandes qui interviennent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11766 Ce
que nous vous disons à ce niveau‑là, encore une fois, c'est que des gens
bien intentionnés peuvent bien vous acheminer des demandes et faire part de
craintes ou de possibilités ou de peur d'avoir peur de quelque chose qui peut‑être
pourrait réussir à se poser comme problématique, ce qui arrive, d'ailleurs,
dans d'autres aspects de cette question‑là, mais votre bon jugement va
très certainement plutôt regarder du côté, encore une fois, de la gestion de ce
code, des nombreuses années que ça a pris pour pouvoir en arriver au résultat
qui est devant vous sur la crédibilité et sur la nature des résultats.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11767 C'est
la réponse que l'on vous fait, et maintenant, si les administrateurs de ce code
et si les gens qui en sont responsables, et qui ont l'expérience à chacune des
journées de leur vie de voir comment les processus peuvent se faire, témoignent
devant vous en vous disant que, effectivement, il y aurait plus de place ou une
meilleure définition de la présence, par exemple, des journalistes, et dans
leur revendication corporative de pouvoir être présents à un niveau ou un
autre, et vous arrivez avec une réponse de cette nature, évidemment, comme
participant, bien, on considérera l'hypothèse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11768 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Dernière question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11769 Le
rapport Dunbar‑Leblanc a été publié il y a quelques jours. C'est un rapport qui propose une certaine
déréglementation du système canadien de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11770 Une
des propositions, c'est, finalement, de mettre fin aux règles d'assemblage, et
qu'on donne, par exemple, pour les différents canaux spécialisés, et qu'il y
ait plutôt la simple prépondérance de 51 pour cent des émissions canadiennes et
que le libre choix soit, finalement, donné au consommateur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11771 Cinquante
et un pour cent, et le reste, on n'intervient pas. Toutes les règles qui prévalent jusqu'ici,
qui ont été écrites depuis de nombreuses années, on en fait fi, on fait table
rase pour donner le maximum de choix au consommateur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11772 Pour
vous, au Québec, qu'est‑ce que ça aurait comme impact au niveau de la
diversité?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11773 M.
LAVOIE : Vous savez, je vais devoir passer la parole à mon collègue Édouard, à
ma gauche.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11774 Les
règles dont vous parlez, et qui sont remises en cause par le rapport Leblanc‑Dunbar,
sont des règles qui sont devenues tellement complexes que simplement de les
déchiffrer demande un esprit particulièrement éclairé. C'est devenu tellement extraordinairement
complexe de juste comprendre de quoi il s'agit que les mots ne signifient même
plus ce que les dictionnaires disent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11775 Je
pense que... et je pense même avoir été cité dans le journal * La Presse +...
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 11776 M.
LAVOIE : ...peut‑être même dans d'autres des six quotidiens ou sept
quotidiens du Groupe Gesca ‑‑ parce que, parfois, ils se
reprennent l'un l'autre, vous savez, ça leur arrive ‑‑ en
disant que je croyais que ce rapport allait tout à fait dans le sens où nous
comme entreprise souhaitions aller.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11777 Je
pense que si on ne laisse pas jouer les règles commerciales du marché, ça ne va
pas dans le sens de l'évolution positive de la télévision et de la
programmation canadienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11778 Laissons
les consommateurs choisir. Ils ont
tellement de choix à l'heure actuelle que...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11779 Je
vais faire un aveu d'humilité totale. Ça
fait sept ans qu'Édouard essaie de me faire comprendre la signification de ces
règles‑là, et à chaque fois ‑‑ c'est pourquoi je vais
devoir lui passer la parole ‑‑ je ne sais plus ce qui est
prioritaire, ceci, cela, à telle heure, à telle autre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11780 Je
ne le sais plus parce que, vous savez, en bout de ligne, ça devient tellement
de la chinoiserie que le consommateur ne pourrait pas, lui, prendre son bouton
puis dire, ça me tente de regarder telle émission.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11781 Et
alors, c'est quoi le problème? Pourquoi
faut‑il arriver à décoder tout ça?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11782 Édouard,
je m'excuse, je te promets qu'on va trouver un emploi pour toi, même après,
mais...
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 11783 M.
LAVOIE : Je veux dire on a besoin d'avoir des experts comme lui juste pour
comprendre. On n'arrive pas à saisir de
quoi il s'agit.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11784 Ça
devient tellement compliqué tout ça que, juste pour nous enlever des maux de
tête, s'il vous plaît, allez dans le sens des recommandations du rapport.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11785 Édouard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11786 M.
TRÉPANIER : Brièvement, j'ajouterais que nous travaillons ardemment à préparer
l'audience du 28 janvier et à répondre dans le détail à ce genre de question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11787 Mais
de façon générale, nous croyons que la prépondérance, ou la prédominance, je
pense, dans un meilleur français, est préférable à l'ensemble d'à peu près huit
pages de réglementation tatillonneuse sur l'assemblage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11788 M.
LAMPRON : Je vais peut‑être ajouter à cette question...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11789 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Dunbar‑Leblanc, c'est vraiment pour l'audience en janvier. Je crois qu'on peut le laisser à côté
maintenant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11790 Madame
Noël. Andrée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11791 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : J'aurais deux questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11792 D'abord,
Monsieur Lavoie, j'aimerais qu'on retourne à la fameuse étanchéité des salles
de nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11793 Vous
nous avez mentionné que vous aviez été incité à faire la proposition que vous
avez faite à l'époque, et je pense que c'était quelque chose qui sortait
directement des anciennes conditions de licence que vous aviez...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11794 M.
LAVOIE : C'est celles que nous avions sur TQS.
Il fallait... voilà!
LISTNUM 1 \l 11795 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Avec TQS, exactement...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11796 M.
LAVOIE : Oui, oui. Vous avez
parfaitement raison.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11797 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : ...qui avaient été adoptées à une certaine époque pour des fins
particulières.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11798 J'aimerais
savoir si vous vous rappelez un peu du débat qu'il y a eu autour de toute la
question de l'étanchéité des salles de nouvelles. J'étais sur le panel pour la décision qui
vous a autorisé à prendre le contrôle de Vidéotron et, en même temps, de TVA,
et j'étais aussi sur le panel dans le cas de la transaction de CTV/Bell
Globemedia.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11799 Il
y a eu tout un tollé de protestations dans la presse anglophone quand on a
parlé de condition d'étanchéité de salles de nouvelles, à l'effet que ça
pouvait brimer la liberté de presse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11800 Pensez‑vous
que la liberté de presse s'interprète différemment selon qu'on est francophone
ou anglophone? Parce qu'on...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11801 M.
LAVOIE : Selon qu'on est syndiqué ou qu'on ne l'est pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11802 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : ...a eu l'effet absolument inverse au Québec, où c'était, au contraire,
une garantie de liberté de presse, alors que, du côté anglophone, la presse au
complet nous parlait d'atteinte à la liberté de presse si on avait imposé des
conditions d'étanchéité de salles des nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11803 M.
LAVOIE : Vous me demandez d'interpréter la différence...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11804 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Oui, j'aimerais ça...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11805 M.
LAVOIE : ...culturelle de perception.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11806 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Bien, un petit peu, parce qu'on revient encore avec le même débat.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11807 M.
LAVOIE : A la base, je pense que la règle d'étanchéité... je pense sincèrement
que la règle d'étanchéité des salles de rédaction est un obstacle à la libre
circulation de l'information. Je le
pense très sincèrement, parce que si on l'applique à la lettre, de façon très
étanche, ça veut dire qu'une nouvelle peut circuler du journal * La Presse + au réseau TVA, mais du * Journal de Montréal + au réseau TVA, elle ne peut pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11808 Si
on suivait même la définition que certains ont essayé d'en donner, je pourrais
avoir comme commentateur dans une émission d'affaires publiques de TVA un
journaliste de * La Presse +, du * Soleil +, du * Devoir +, du * Droit +, du * Nouvelliste +, * La Tribune +, principalement propriétés de
Gesca. Je pourrais les avoir, eux, comme
commentateurs, mais jamais ceux du * Journal de Montréal +.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11809 Une
nouvelle qui vient du * Journal de Montréal +... je me souviens même d'un
interrogatoire qui avait été conduit par madame Pennefather à ce sujet‑là
et qui disait : Si une nouvelle apparaît dans le * Journal de Montréal +, est‑ce que vous êtes prêt à
vous engager à ce qu'elle ne soit pas diffusée au réseau TVA? Et j'avais dit : Non, je ne suis pas
prêt à m'engager à ça parce qu'il y a quand même des limites. J'ai dit : Une information, quand elle
circule, elle circule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11810 Et
le point de vue au Canada anglais était un point de vue que, certainement, je
partageais. Mais je pense que nous
faisons face aussi à des réalités. Il ne
faut pas se laisser berner par une certaine approche corporatiste du monde de
l'information. Il ne faut pas toujours
écouter les discours nobles et faire fi de ce qui parfois se cache derrière
eux. Voilà!
LISTNUM 1 \l 11811 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Merci pour ça, Monsieur Lavoie.
Maintenant, on va revenir à quelque chose de plus terre à terre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11812 Si
on décidait d'imposer des limites au nombre d'entreprises ou un cap au nombre
d'entreprises de radiodiffusion qu'un seul propriétaire peut avoir, pensez‑vous
que ces limites‑là devraient être différentes dans le marché francophone
que dans le marché anglophone?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11813 M.
LAVOIE : Bien, c'est que, voyez‑vous, nous sommes présents dans le marché
anglophone très, très peu dans le domaine du broadcasting, de façon très
importante dans le domaine de la presse écrite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11814 Je
ne sais pas quoi vous répondre, Madame Noël, parce que c'est sûr que
l'expansion... Quebecor est condamnée à croître. Les entreprises privées sont condamnées à la
croissance. C'est la croissance ou la
stagnation, et la stagnation signifie généralement le recul et l'effondrement,
et on n'est pas du tout de l'école du recul et de l'effondrement. On est de l'école de la croissance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11815 C'est
évident que la croissance de Quebecor pour les années à venir, il nous apparaît
plus évident qu'elle va se faire hors Québec qu'à l'intérieur du Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11816 Alors,
si vous deviez appliquer des règles comme celles‑là... évidemment, je ne
réponds pas directement à votre question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11817 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Non.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11818 M.
LAVOIE : Mais comment vous allez arriver...
Nous, si on veut s'étendre au Canada anglais, est‑ce que le fait
qu'on est des propriétaires québécois...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11819 Enfin,
il faudrait que ça soit clarifié tout ça, vous voyez.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11820 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Ce n'est pas vraiment le sens de ma question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11821 M.
LAVOIE : Dans un marché donné au Québec...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11822 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : De façon plus macro, est‑ce que le Québec est tellement différent
du reste du Canada qu'on devrait appliquer des règles de concentration
différentes au Québec que dans le reste du Canada?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11823 M.
LAVOIE : Je vais y réfléchir. Je ne
connais pas la réponse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11824 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : (Rires). Pouvez‑vous y
réfléchir pour...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11825 M.
LAVOIE : Je vais y réfléchir, et Pierre...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11826 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : ...le 5 octobre?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11827 M.
LAVOIE : Pierre semble y avoir réfléchi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11828 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Vous avez la chance de faire des soumissions écrites jusqu'au 5
octobre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11829 M.
LAVOIE : Bien sûr, avec plaisir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11830 M.
LAMPRON : Vous connaissez, de toute façon, notre position d'ensemble à l'effet
qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de telle règle, ni au Canada, ni au Québec, parce
qu'il n'y a pas de problème de diversité ‑‑ je pense qu'on l'a
assez bien démontré ‑‑ ni nationalement, ni localement. Ça ne s'applique pas plus au Québec qu'au
Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11831 Ce
qu'on a essayé aussi de démontrer, c'est que la consolidation des entreprises
au Québec en particulier, en raison de la présence extrêmement forte,
historiquement forte, de Radio‑Canada et de sa capacité justement d'agir
en entreprise consolidée, qu'au Québec en particulier, la consolidation des
entreprises, la présence des grands groupes que vous avez vu défiler dans notre
présentation est la meilleure garantie que le CRTC peut avoir du maintien de
cette diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11832 Et
sur les questions qui étaient posées tantôt, par exemple, sur la possibilité
que, éventuellement, on puisse, un groupe comme Quebecor, faire l'acquisition
de radio, au cas par cas, vous pourrez, la prochaine fois, analyser que,
effectivement, ça serait, pour la diversité des voix, une opportunité à saisir,
parce que ça permettrait, effectivement, d'offrir davantage de voix dans un
territoire donné, avec plus de moyens, plus de capacité et plus de façons
aussi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11833 Puis
on a essayé d'intervenir dans notre présentation pour vous en convaincre, et
sur d'autres tribunes également pour vous en convaincre. Très certainement, le seul moyen mis à la
disposition des francophones au Québec d'être présents sur tous ces secteurs en
totale émergence, qui s'appelle, justement, l'internet, les plates‑formes
mobiles, l'ensemble, si vous voulez, des moyens de diffusion et de
distribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11834 Il
n'y a pas 25 millions de moyens de faire partie de cet univers des 400 millions
de sites, tels que IBM les a comptabilisés dernièrement. De sites internet qui sont accessibles un peu
partout à travers la planète, combien de ces 400 millions le sont à partir
d'ici?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11835 Il
y a une chose qui est certaine, en tout cas, c'est que toutes les études le
démontrent, et partout dans le monde, le seul moyen d'aller est d'être présent
sur ces nouveaux sites, et bientôt, on espère que le gouvernement va nous
donner la possibilité de créer du développement sur les plates‑formes
mobiles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11836 Mais
il faut comprendre, si vous voulez, que, à l'intérieur d'une réglementation
relativement limitée qui est sous votre responsabilité, est en train de se
déployer un monde, un monde où l'ensemble, si vous voulez, de l'information va
circuler, et il va circuler quoiqu'on fasse, quoiqu'on dise, quoiqu'on veuille.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11837 Et
ce qu'on a essayé de vous démontrer, c'est donner la chance aux entreprises
canadiennes et québécoises d'aller vers davantage de consolidation, davantage
de moyens pour avoir davantage de présence là‑dessus, parce que c'est le
seul moyen d'y être présent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11838 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Lampron.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11839 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Michel?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11840 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Oui. Or, je vais me limiter à
deux questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11841 La
première, c'est que dans votre mémoire, à l'article 3.2 de votre mémoire, vous
écrivez à la première phrase :
* Québecor Média croit que la
diversité des voix n'est plus menacée par la consolidation et la concentration
des entreprises. + (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11842 Or,
si je regarde dans le temps où dans chaque marché c'était des propriétaires
uniques, pourquoi dites‑vous qu'elle n'est plus, alors qu'elle serait...
l'a‑t‑elle déjà été?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11843 M.
TRÉPANIER : Pourriez‑vous répéter la phrase, s'il vous plaît?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11844 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : C'est :
* Québecor Média croit que la
diversité des voix n'est plus menacée par la consolidation et la concentration
des entreprises. + (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 11845 Or,
ma question : Est‑ce qu'elle l'a déjà été menacée?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11846 M.
TRÉPANIER : Cette phrase‑là a été écrite, essentiellement, dans le
contexte que, oui, il y a eu peut‑être, dans l'histoire au Canada ou
ailleurs, des situations où l'acquisition par un propriétaire d'un autre
propriétaire a menacé la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11847 En
termes conceptuels, il existe un lien ‑‑ je ne sais pas s'il a
été démontré dans des études qu'il s'agit d'un lien de cause à effet ‑‑
mais il existe un lien entre la quantité de propriétaires et la diversité des
voix. C'est un concept. Nous acceptons le concept.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11848 Par
contre, c'est mis au passé cette phrase‑là parce que, au Québec, dans le
contexte actuel nord‑américain/canadien, il n'existe pas, la
problématique n'existe pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11849 M.
LAMPRON : Si vous me permettez, dans le contexte justement de cette phrase, on
fait allusion à une époque où le nombre de propriétaires et où la nature, si
vous voulez, de la concentration des auditoires répartis en peu de
propriétaires, bien, pouvait, effectivement, poser un problème au niveau de la
concentration.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11850 Il
ne faut jamais oublier qu'on émerge d'une situation où on est passé, si vous
voulez, d'un monopole de télévision d'état avec l'introduction progressive d'un
secteur privé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11851 D'ailleurs,
monsieur Lafrance, hier, s'est un peu, pas gouré, mais lorsqu'il faisait
l'allusion avec la partie française, effectivement, le secteur public français
a plus de positions encore, si vous voulez, sur le marché français simplement
parce que la télévision privée a émergé plus tard que nous à l'intérieur de ça.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11852 Et
ce qu'on essaie de simplement dire là‑dedans, c'est que dans le contexte,
aujourd'hui, de la grande fragmentation des auditoires, dans un contexte où le
secteur privé s'est, effectivement, développé, où il y a eu des consolidations,
mais en même temps l'émergence de secteurs indépendants, et caetera, la
question ne se pose plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11853 M.
TRÉPANIER : Monsieur le Vice‑Président, j'ajouterais, ici, on a un
tableau qui parle de 1952, moment où la télévision est arrivée au Québec, et il
n'a pas cessé d'avoir croissance des médias et croissance des propriétaires
depuis ce temps‑là. Alors, comment
pourrait‑il y avoir un problème aujourd'hui, alors qu'il ne cesse pas
d'avoir croissance?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11854 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Ma deuxième question, c'est celle que j'ai posée à plusieurs groupes
hier, c'est concernant la divulgation financière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11855 On
vous a fait parvenir une lettre au mois d'août dernier dans laquelle on vous
demandait de nous donner votre opinion quant à la possibilité que le Conseil
publie des données financières sur Groupe TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11856 Des
données, évidemment, on parle de données consolidées, mais qui seraient
présentées dans le même format que ce que nous publions déjà pour les canaux
spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11857 M.
LAVOIE : Les exigences de divulgation
financière que nous imposent les Lois sur les valeurs mobilières sont quand
même considérablement plus contraignantes que les règles qui s'imposent à la
Société Radio‑Canada, notre principal concurrent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11858 Alors,
moi, j'aimerais vous répondre, monsieur le vice‑président en tout respect
que ce que j'aimerais d'abord, c'est connaître la divulgation réelle de ce qui
se passe chez mon concurrent et je ne vois pas pourquoi j'en donnerais
davantage parce que j'en donne à l'heure actuelle beaucoup beaucoup beaucoup
plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11859 COMMISSAIRE
ARPIN: Bon. Écoutez, la question de Radio‑Canada
est une question qu'on étudierai au mérite au moment opportun. La question que je vous pose, c'est
spécifiquement par rapport à Groupe Québécor et à sa filiale qui est le Groupe
TVA et donc, c'est de la divulgation d'information consolidée dont on parle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11860 Et
je vous dirais que si vous me dites que les règles des valeurs mobilières sont
contraignantes, je vous dirais que quand on publie vos données sur LCN, Argent,
Mystère, ce sont des données qui sont vos propres données d'ailleurs, sur votre
propre société cotée en bourse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11861 M.
TRÉPANIER: Monsieur le vice‑président,
il y a une couple d'années, les résultats financiers déposés au Conseil de la
part des Services spécialisés ont été retirés du dossier public et après ré‑évaluation
du Conseil, ces données‑là ont été remises sur le dossier public et la
raison pour laquelle elles ont été remises sur le dossier public c'est qu'il
n'y avait pas suffisamment de concurrence entre les chaînes spécialisées,
compte tenu de la Règle de la protection des genres.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11862 Nous
allons vers une audience publique qui va amener le Conseil à ré‑évaluer
la protection des genres, le one per genre, et si le Conseil décidait de lever
cette restriction et qu'il y ait concurrence entre les chaînes spécialisées, ce
serait plutôt, je pense, l'occasion de cesser de publier des données sur une
entreprise et de les offrir à sa concurrence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11863 Et
un autre volet de la réponse serait que, pourquoi en radiodiffusion les
concurrents, entre eux, devraient se divulguer davantage d'information que dans
toute autre industrie?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11864 Alors,
nous demeurons un peu perplexes quant à la question de divulgation des stations
de télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11865 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Je vous remercie de votre
réponse. Monsieur le président, j'ai terminé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11866 THE
CHAIRMAN: Stewart, you have a question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11867 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes. Thanks very much. I'll try to be brief, but I have a question
which I think goes to the heart of what you're saying here today in the real
essential issue before us : whether you should be allowed to grow or whether
there should be constraints on your growth, particularly when that growth means
absorbing other voices, if we can put it that way?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11868 And
you answer has been almost precisely the same as the CAB's answer, the CTV's
answer, CanWest's answer that we had yesterday.
And if I may try and summarize it, it seems to be something like this :
LISTNUM
1 \l 11869 If
you don't allow us to grow, if you keep us small, we won't be able to do an
effective job, and you gave us examples of journalists if Afghanistan,
whatever, because you need certain supplies of cash essentially, you need
certain sizes, certain economies of scales, certain synergies, to be able to do
the job.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11870 On
the other hand, you say, don't worry about us growing because it's easier to
get into the market now and the small people, the small voices will keep us
honest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11871 And
I have trouble making sense of the two statements. Alone, each one makes sense, but together,
you are saying, let us get big because small is ineffective, but don't worry
about us getting big because small is effective, it will take care of the
diversity problem and I just wonder if you could help me square that circle?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11872 MR.
LAVOIE: Well, there is something in your
preamble, Mr. Langford, that I don't agree with and it's about the fact that
you are saying, and correct me if I am misinterpreting what you've said, but
that if we grow, we will somehow acquire other voices. That's a way of looking at it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11873 I
think, on the preamble, the difference in the approach is the following : other voices are being created as we speak
and they're growing incredibly fast.
What was YouTwo three years ago?
Nothing. What was phase book a
year ago? Nothing. What was Google five years ago? Nothing.
Google now is a gigantic company.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11874 So,
we, in Canada, must be careful when we say, well, for instance other words that
you are using in your preamble, which is we must be allowed to get bigger. We are so small compared to Newscorp. We are so thiny compared to Viacom. We are so small compared to Burtlesman. We are such a thiny little player that the
problem we have in Canada is to be swamped by what comes from elsewhere.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11875 I
was, you know, I took a few days of vacation because that's all I had this
summer, I actually took two days of vacation with a weekend with my daughter in
Chicago and I was keeping an eye because I couldn't resist it, on people using
their i‑phone and watching the news and the clip of news and what have
you and reading their New York Times and so, they were using the GGG
technology. I Canada we still don't
really have it and that's it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11876 I
mean, so these guys, these news companies had to create the formatting
appropriate for this kind of mobile devices and everything. We are not there. We are not there because we don't even have
GGG in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11877 So,
we have to worry about : are we equipped as an industrial country, as a member
of the G8 as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to face the swamp,
the wave that's coming from those gigantic enterprises.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11878 So,
when we acquire another voice, to use your expression, we are not sort of
shutting up another voice because there is ten that are being born over
there. What was YouTwo, what was My
Space, what was, you know, what were those means of communications?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11879 The
real challenge that our companies are faced with is to kind of, you know,
you've got those young, 25 to 35 years old, extraordinarily smart people coming
out of our universities and universities in the USA and in Europe, and coming
up with new concept and they look at you and me, Stewart, as being those old
guys dreaming of a world that has ceased to exist.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11880 I
mean, who would have thought of Google.
They are in Montreal, I saw them last week and they are filming every
corner of the street. Very soon I'm going
to be able to travel Montreal. I mean,
this thing is evolving so fast that I do have a real real problem with
discussing a way of controlling what is an industry that is going through such
a fundamental transformation, that we may, if we stop majors or important
companies in Canada, be they us or CTV, Globemedia or Astral or any of them, if
we are to stop their capacity to grow in the name of something that was a
concept that I think is not as valid as it used to be, we may just disqualify
ourselves from the real game that's being played on the planet level.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11881 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But if I accept everything
you've said, that the real competitor is without, not within, we still have a
second tear and the Broadcasting Act would say it's our first tear in the sense
of responsibility, that not only do we have to get you to survive, but we have
to have other Canadian voices to survive as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11882 MR.
LAVOIE: Indeed.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11883 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: So, it's not just ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11884 MR.
LAVOIE: And they do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11885 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: It's not just a battle against
Google and YouTwo. It's the battle
within to try to make sure that people who want the news have access to
different voices given them the news.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11886 MR.
LAVOIE: But they have more voices than
ever, Stewart. I think they really do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11887 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But are all the voices equal,
and that's the question. If you guys
grow, just to take an example, if you buy CTV tomorrow, let's go crazy here for
a second, and ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11888 MR.
LAVOIE: Why not.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11889 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: And then you buy CanWest next
year, what's left? Some categories 2 and
some people who have some blogs?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11890 MR.
LAVOIE: And why not convince the
government to buy the CBC at the same time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11891 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But where is the limit, Mr.
Lavoie? That's the problem for us. Where do we say : here is a responsible view
of the vision, of the future where we have large players, maybe fewer large
players, but it is one large player at the end or two? Is that enough diversity of voices because,
as you say on page 9 of your report, somebody can start their own little news
voice, their own little blog?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11892 It's
interesting, but are you telling me that's enough diversity of Canadian voices?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11893 MR.
LAVOIE: I think there is more diversity
of Canadian voices now than there ever was.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11894 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But are they all equal?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11895 MR.
LAVOIE: We're talking editorial
voices. Are they all equal? The CP‑24 in Toronto that is probably
not equal to NewsWorld, certainly not in terms of deploying, you know,
resources, and their CTV Newsnet and then there is ‑‑ and we
could go on and on and on.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11896 And
when you and I were both reporters on Parliament Hill during the great
constitutional industry period of our history, it was the ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11897 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: But we are news ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11898 MR.
LAVOIE: I mean, the number of voices
were yours and the guy from CTV and mine and the gang from Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11899 Now,
I mean, it's a multiplicity of voices all over and comes through ‑‑
and it's the blog of so and so and you've probably ‑‑ knowing
you have learned how to use the Alert system of Google and what have you, so
you receive things you don't even know exist and then, all of a sudden your
realize that 100 people have heard about it, so, oh! God, I didn't know it
exists, but there is a lot of people ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11900 So,
there is more voices than ever because I don't know, I mean, you're asking me a
question in absolute term, what's the limit.
Ask Google with, you know, a market cap in the 500 billion dollar
range. Ask NewsCorp with their market
cap in the two three hundred billion dollars range.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11901 What's
the limit? I don't know. The limit is that we Canadians have got to be
allowed to have big companies that can make sure that we will be present in
this world.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11902 COMMISSIONER
LANGFORD: Yes. Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11903 THE
CHAIRMAN: Let's stay on what we've
discussed that prevents you from becoming the Google of tomorrow and let's not
mix apples and oranges. We are talking
about broadcasters here and people who are ‑‑ we are talking
about concentration in broadcasting and the diversity of voices in
broadcasting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11904 But,
in any event, I think we have covered the subject extensively and I thank you
very much for your presentation.
Unfortunately, time marches on, so we have another presentation to
listen to. Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11905 MR.
LAVOIE: Thank you. Merci, monsieur le président.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11906 THE
CHAIRMAN: Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11907 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, monsieur le
président. J'inviterais maintenant le
prochain intervenant, Astral Média, à se présenter pour faire leur
présentation.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM
1 \l 11908 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Votre attention, s'il vous
plaît. Nous allons prendre une pause de
cinq minutes. Nous reviendrons à 0950.
‑‑‑ Recessing at 0945 / Suspension à 0945
‑‑‑ Resuming at 0950 / Reprise à 0950
LISTNUM
1 \l 11909 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Nous sommes maintenant prêts
à procéder avec la présentation d'Astral Média, monsieur André Bureau et madame
Sophie Émond nous présenteront l'intervention et vous avez dix minutes pour
votre présentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11910 Monsieur
Bureau.
‑‑‑ PRÉSENTATION
PAR ASTRAL MÉDIA / PRESENTATION BY
ASTRAL MEDIA
LISTNUM 1 \l 11911 M. BUREAU: I should know by now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11912 Monsieur
le président, monsieur le vice‑président, messieurs, mesdames les
conseillers, membres du personnel, je suis André Bureau, président du Conseil
d'Astral Média. Ma compagne aujourd'hui,
Sophie Émond, vice‑présidente Affaires réglementaires et
gouvernementales.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11913 Notre
présentation orale tentera surtout de répondre aux questions spécifiques que le
Conseil a soulevées dans l'Avis à comparaître qu'il a publié en prévision de
cette audience publique.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11914 La
première de ces questions concerne la pluralité des voix éditoriales
commerciales existantes dans les marchés locaux et nationaux et les mesures que
le Conseil pourrait prendre pour s'assurer que les Canadiens aient accès à ces
voix.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11915 Le
premier point que nous désirons soumettre à l'attention du Conseil est le fait
que, à notre humble avis, la problématique de la diversité des voix éditoriales
dans les marchés locaux comme à l'échelle nationale devrait prendre en compte
non seulement la composante commerciale privée, mais aussi les composantes
publiques et communautaires du système.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11916 Si
on se place du point de vue de l'usager, toutes ces voix sont importantes et
toutes contribuent à l'objectif d'offrir aux canadiens une diversité de voix
éditoriales ainsi que des opinions divergentes sur les sujets qui les
intéressent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11917 Le
second point est à l'effet que cette diversité ne doit pas être mesurée secteur
par secteur, mais en tenant compte de l'ensemble des médias qui véhiculent des
voix éditoriales dans un marché local donné ou à l'échelle nationale.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11918 En
ce qui a trait aux marchés locaux, les principaux médias locaux, évidemment,
sont les journaux quotidiens ou hebdomadaires ainsi que les stations locales de
radio et de télévision et, de plus en plus, l'internet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11919 À
l'échelle nationale s'ajoutent les quotidiens à rayonnement national, une
infinité de magazines et autres publications, les réseaux nationaux de
télévision en direct, les services spécialisés en information et en affaires
publiques, la radio par abonnement, certains services de télédiffusion mobile
et, encore plus largement, l'internet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11920 À
notre connaissance, aucune étude documentée n'a pu établir qu'il existait une
insuffisance notable de diversité des voix éditoriales auxquelles les citoyens
canadiens ont accès via cette gamme étendue de médias tant au niveau local que
national ni que cette diversité ait subi une érosion préoccupante.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11921 Au
contraire, les études déposées à la phase d'intervention écrite et depuis
démontrent plutôt une diversité très saine et plus grande qu'elle ne l'était il
y a 10, 20 ou 30 ans.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11922 Cela
confirme, d'une part, que les politiques que le Conseil a adoptées en matière
de propriété commune de station de radio et des stations de télévision dans les
marchés locaux ont été efficaces.
D'ailleurs, le Conseil a jugé récemment, au terme d'un processus public
transparent et approfondi, qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de les modifier.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11923 Cela
confirme, d'autre part, que les décisions qu'il a rendues au cas par cas dans
les processus d'attribution de nouvelles licences et d'approbation de transfert
de propriété, ont elles aussi contribué non seulement à maintenir, mais souvent
à accroître la diversité des voix éditoriales.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11924 Et
nous soumettons que de manière prospective, ces mécanismes continuent d'être
les meilleurs gages pour assurer la pluralité et la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11925 Comme
vous l'avez souligné à quelques reprises, monsieur le président, le Conseil ne
devrait imposer une réglementation nouvelle ou additionnelle que dans les cas
où il est manifeste qu'une telle réglementation est essentielle à l'atteinte des
objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11926 Or,
les données factuelles versées au dossier public semblent indiquer que ce n'est
pas le cas pour ce qui est de la diversité des voix éditoriales.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11927 Le
deuxième volet de cette première question concerne l'accès des canadiens à la
pluralité des voix éditoriales que leur offre leur média.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11928 Évidemment,
cette question ne se pose pas vraiment pour les médias qui peuvent rejoindre
directement le public via leurs propres infrastructures ou système de diffusion
comme les journaux et la radio par exemple.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11929 En
revanche, le Conseil a raison de souligner que la question de l'accès est
essentielle en ce qui a trait aux services de télévision facultatifs qui ne
peuvent rejoindre le public qu'à travers le prisme des entreprises de
distribution de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11930 Et
dans un univers où 90 pour cent des canadiens reçoivent leurs signaux de
télévision via les ADRs, c'est de plus en plus vrai également pour les services
de télévision en direct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11931 Il
nous semble évident que les efforts que déployait le Conseil pour assurer avec
succès une diversité de voix éditoriales au sein de la télévision canadienne
seront en effet rendus inopérants et sans effet si ces voix éditoriales n'ont
pas d'accès garantis à la distribution et ne peuvent donc rejoindre les
auditoires canadiens.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11932 En
fait, la plus grande menace pour la diversité des voix en général dont les voix
éditoriales résident, à notre avis, dans la possibilité que les entreprises de
distribution de radiodiffusion ne soient plus tenues de rendre accessible au
public canadien les services de programmation qui façonnent et alimentent cette
diversité
LISTNUM
1 \l 11933 MS ÉMOND: The second question
posed by the Commission deals with the diversity of programming choices offered
to Canadians and the tools that may become necessary to ensure an acceptable
diversity of content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11934 Our
first comment on this topic is that diversity of programming choices has no
significant connection with and is not negatively affected by concentration of
ownership.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11935 The
fact that VRAK‑TV, Canal D and Musimax, for example, belong to the same
owner in no way negates the contribution, the services made to the diversity of
programming choices offered to the public.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11936 It
is not who owns them that is important, but rather the fact that each have to
demonstrate, in order to obtain a licence, that it would complement the
existing programming offered and increase the overall diversity of programming
available to the Canadian public.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11937 Returning
to our example, these three services offer clearly distinctive programming in
every respect. They exploit specific
niches, have a distinct definition of the nature of service and also display
very different programming, focuses on target audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11938 I
would even say that generally speaking, common ownership encourages greater
programming diversity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11939 As
another example, I started a three French language radio networks operating
under the banners Énergie, Rock Détente and Boom FM. As sole owner, it is our interest to
distinguish programming as much as possible for each of these networks, both in
terms of music format and target audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11940 Indeed,
at least 90 per cent of the musical pieces from Canadian francophone artists
aired on our predominantly music based radio networks are exclusive to each
network.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11941 If
the Commission wishes to launch initiatives to ensure that an optimal diversity
of programming is offered to Canadians, they should not therefore act through
ownership rules. Rather, it should
ensure that the modalities for granting licences to new Canadian services,
first and foremost take into account the contribution these services make to
the diversity of programming offered to Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11942 It
should also ensure, of course, that Canadians continue to have access to the
programming services that are the foundation and source of this diversity. Otherwise, diversity of content will be severely limited.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11943 M.
BUREAU: Avant d'aborder la dernière
question soulevée par le Conseil, Astral Média souhaiterait formuler les commentaires
sur la question des seuils préétablis de concentration.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11944 Certains
ont en effet suggéré que le Conseil pourrait établir des niveaux plafond de
parts de marché exprimés en nombre de services ou en pourcentage des revenus
et/ou des heures d'écoute d'un secteur de radiodiffusion donné qu'aucun groupe
de propriétés ne serait autorisé à dépasser.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11945 A
première vue une telle proposition peut sembler séduisante, notamment en ce
qu'elle offre l'avantage de la prévisibilité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11946 Mais
dès que l'on considère les aspects pratiques de son application, on s'aperçoit
que les désavantages d'un tel modèle par rapport aux pratiques actuelles du
Conseil, sont considérables et l'emportent clairement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11947 Soulignons
d'abord que souvent de tels seuils préétablis sont adoptés dans des pays où,
par ailleurs, les entreprises ne sont pas assujetties à l'obligation d'obtenir
une autorisation préalable pour lancer de nouveaux services ou pour finaliser
une transaction.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11948 Ces
seuils deviennent alors les seuls moyens d'intervenir en matière de
concentration et d'imposer certaines balises aux acteurs en présence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11949 Je
devrais dire * d'intervenir sur un aspect
particulier de la concentration + puisqu'une limite exprimée en nombre de stations ou en pourcentage de
revenus qu'un joueur peut détenir dans un secteur donné ne peut prendre en
compte les autres façades de la concentration comme l'intégration verticale et
la propriété mixte des médias pour ne mentionner que ceux‑là qui ont
aussi une incidence sur la diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11950 Bref,
dans l'univers complexe et de plus en plus intégré des médias d'aujourd'hui,
cela nous semble une mesure inappropriée et réductrice, un outil que le Conseil
n'a d'ailleurs jamais utilisé à l'échelle nationale, ni en radio, ni en
télévision en direct, ni en services facultatifs tout simplement parce qu'à
travers l'approbation préalable des transactions, le Conseil dispose d'outils
beaucoup plus sophistiqués, nuancés et équitables pour prendre en compte la
complexité de chaque situation particulière, telle l'interaction spécifique
entre les différentes formes de concentration auxquelles une transaction donne
lieu.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11951 Le
CRTC peut alors imposer des conditions d'approbation appropriées et ainsi
s'assurer que chaque transaction sert l'intérêt public et génère des avantages
concrets pour le système de la radiodiffusion et le public canadien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11952 Comme
vous le savez, Monsieur le Président,
Astral Média ne possède pas d'intérêts dans la presse écrite ou dans des
réseaux de télévision conventionnelle et aucun de ces services facultatifs ne
comporte de nouvelles ou n'embauche de journaliste permanent. Seules nos activités en radio comportent une composante
journalistique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11953 Nous
ne sommes pas, donc, directement concernés par la propriété mixte de médias
comportant une dimension journalistique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11954 Nous
laisserons donc aux groupes qui le sont le soin de répondre à cette question
sur la base de leur expérience concrète.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11955 Je
vous remercie de votre attention. Nous
serons évidemment heureux de répondre à vos questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11956 Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11957 LE
PRÉSIDENT: Merci, monsieur Bureau.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11958 Pour
retourner au passé, vous étiez dans mon siège.
Si vous étiez ici aujourd'hui, nous avons la tâche de prendre une vue
prospective où va se développer le secteur des télécommunications et de la
radiodiffusion et, évidemment, on a une grande diversité de nos jours. Vous avez dit ça aux collègues en haut lieu.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11959 Mais
qu'est‑ce qui va arriver dans le futur?
Nous sommes en train de * streamlining +, je ne sais pas comment on dit en
français, le système, on va sûrement régler les questions nécessaires, on va
avoir une grande audience pour ça en janvier.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11960 Mais
en même temps on veut avoir des règles en général pour éviter une concentration
trop grande qui va être très difficile à confronter ou qui peut diminuer la
diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11961 Les
règles suggérées par le CRTC, c'est la seule proposition concrète qu'on a
faite. Pour cette raison je pose la même
question à tout le monde, est‑ce qu'on pourrait les appliquer et quel
serait vraiment l'aspect.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11962 Si
je comprends, vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec ces règles‑là, qu'est‑ce
que vous croyez que serait l'effet négatif pour lequel on ne peut pas adapter
ces règles?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11963 Ce
n'est pas notre obligation de regarder prospectivement au développement de
l'industrie et avoir des règles minimales pour éviter une trop grande
concentration des médias.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11964 M.
BUREAU: Monsieur le Président, d'abord
premièrement je ne voudrais pas être à votre place aujourd'hui.
‑‑‑ Laughters /
Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 11965 M.
BUREAU: On a regardé ces règles‑là
bien avant que Sylvain Lafrance et ses collègues vous en fassent part hier.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11966 On
a essayé de voir comment elles pourraient s'appliquer de façon équitable, de
façon assez souple, de façon assez intelligente à l'intérieur d'un système
comme le nôtre au Canada ici.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11967 On
s'est aperçu assez rapidement qu'elles ont le mérite de la prévisibilité, mais
qu'elles ont des désavantages considérables parce qu'elles ne tiennent aucun
compte de notre système actuel et de la façon dont notre système va évoluer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11968 Je
ne prétends pas en savoir plus que les autres sur comment il va fonctionner,
mais je sais qu'on a les outils, je pense que nous avons les outils à l'heure
actuelle dans les mécanismes du Conseil, dans les politiques du Conseil pour
assurer qu'on ne peut empêcher qu'on en arrive à une situation qui soit
déplorable pour le système canadien de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11969 Le
fait qu'on est obligé de venir devant pour vous demander l'approbation soit
pour lancer un nouveau service, soit pour faire une acquisition vous donne
toute la latitude de dire oui ou non.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11970 Vous
l'avez fait dans tous les cas, je ne parle pas du Bureau de la concurrence,
vous l'avez fait dans tous les cas, à plusieurs reprises, et vous l'avez fait
avec des justificatifs qui étaient absolument corrects.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11971 On
prend tous ce risque‑là, il n'y a personne dans l'industrie qui est venu
vous dire : * J'ai besoin... + excusez‑moi, pendant
l'audience, il n'y a personne dans l'industrie jusqu'à présent qui est venu
vous dire : * On a besoin de plus de
prévisibilité à ce point de vue là. +
LISTNUM 1 \l 11972 Je
pense sincèrement que le Conseil a tous les mécanismes nécessaires pour empêcher
que cette vision presque apocalyptique de l'évolution de notre système qui a
été décrite à un moment donné puisse arriver.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11973 Si
un jour Luc Lavoie se représentait devant vous en disant qu'il veut acheter
Astral Média, vous déciderez si ça a du bon sens ou pas. Vous avez tous les mécanismes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11974 S'ils
ont voulu prendre le risque d'acheter les actions d'Astral avant de venir vous
voir et que si vous dites non ils vont être obligés de les revendre, c'est un
risque comme un autre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11975 Ils
ont pris leur risque en connaissance de cause et je ne vois pas pourquoi ils
auraient besoin de plus de prévisibilité parce que s'il y avait des règles
strictes comme celles qui sont proposées, d'abord premièrement qu'est‑ce
que ça veut dire 33 pour cent, qu'est‑ce que ça veut dire 25 pour cent,
qu'est‑ce que ça veut dire se limiter à deux secteurs plutôt que trois,
plutôt que quatre dans un domaine où les secteurs, aujourd'hui, sont infiniment
nombreux?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11976 On
ne tiendrait pas compte de toutes les autres activités de médias qui ne sont
paqs réglementées dans ces calculs‑là?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11977 Moi,
je trouve que la formule ou les formules qui ont été exposées devant vous sont
des formules qui peut‑être peuvent s'appliquer comme il faut ailleurs,
dans d'autres marchés, mais dans notre marché en pleine évolution, je trouve
que c'est un mécanisme rétrograde et je trouve que notre façon de faire à
l'heure actuelle, quand vous prenez le temps d'examiner les transactions et de
dire oui à telle partie de la transaction, non à telle autre partie, ou tout
simplement non à toute la transaction, tout le monde l'accepte, tout le monde
le sait avant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11978 Ça
c'est de la prévisibilité. Avant
d'acheter, on sait très bien qu'on s'expose à ça. Et quand on vient devant vous, si on l'a tant
mieux et si on ne l'a pas, bien, on aurait dû mieux prévoir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11979 Mme
ÉMOND: Monsieur le Président, si je peux
juste compléter.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11980 M.
BUREAU: Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11981 La
partie sérieuse va venir.
‑‑‑ Laughters /
Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 11982 Mme
ÉMOND: Premièrement, en plus à ce moment‑là,
comme le mentionnait André, on peut rajouter des conditions spécifiques pour
tenir compte dans chaque marché quelle est l'incidence, disons, d'une
transaction.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11983 Si
on prend, par exemple, le test de Radio‑Canada pour les chaînes
spécialisées, délimitant un nombre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11984 Nous
nous sommes dit : * Ils ont mentionné eux‑mêmes
que l'objectif était double, un de prévenir ou les conséquences que pourraient
avoir sur le secteur indépendant la concentration des chaînes spécialisées.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11985 Le
deuxième élément aussi, ils ont dit que ça pouvait mettre les entreprises de
distribution dans une position difficile parce que les joueurs spécialisés
étant dominants, le rapport de force de force par rapport au EDR serait, semble‑t‑il,
néfaste.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11986 En
passant, ce n'est pas une situation qu'on a vécue jusqu'à date et je remarque
qu'il n'y a aucune entreprise de distribution qui a demandé, d'ailleurs,
l'imposition de limite sur le nombre de services spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11987 Pour
revenir à la question des producteurs indépendants, je ne pense pas que la
limite d'un nombre, est‑ce que c'est 25, est‑ce que c'est 33, que
ça va régler cette dynamique‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11988 Par
exemple, dans le marché francophone on ne tiendra pas compte du fait, disons,
que TVA ou Radio‑Canada, qui ont peut‑être un nombre plus restreint
de chaînes spécialisées en nombre par rapport, disons, à Astral, mais leur
force dans le marché canadien, les parts de marché ou l'incidence qu'ils ont
dans la dynamique avec le secteur de production indépendante, ne seraient
absolument pas réglées dans ce cas‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11989 Selon
nous, la méthode de plutôt maintenir la question du cas par cas et de regarder
chaque licence de services spécialisés demeure un outil probablement meilleur
au besoin de régler des problèmes s'il y en a par rapport au secteur de la
production indépendante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11990 Surtout
que dans les chaînes spécialisées il y a des genres extrêmement variés, des
nouvelles à l'information, la météo, aux dramatiques, aux documentaires, alors
ce serait difficile, selon nous, ce n'est pas un test qui permet de régler la
problématique avec le secteur indépendant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11991 Surtout
dans le marché francophone, par exemple je revenais sur le cas de, par exemple,
TVA qui a des chaînes spécialisées, qui est en télé conventionnelle et qui est
en vidéo sur demande.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11992 Parce
qu'il ne faut pas oublier ‑‑ et on aura certainement
l'occasion dans le prochain processus d'en parler ‑‑
l'incidence du développement de la télé sur demande, sur les chaînes
spécialisées notamment.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11993 Pour
la question des EDR, franchement je ne sais pas si le fait de limiter, est‑ce
que c'est 25, est‑ce que c'est 35, est‑ce que ce sera vraiment une
façon de rétablir les rapports de force entre les EDR et les services
spécialisés?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11994 Je
pense que s'il y a un problème, c'est plutôt au niveau de développement de
mécanismes, d'arbitrage ou de processus de règlements différents que la
dynamique doit être réglée plutôt que de décider que pour régler ce problème‑là
on met une limite à 25 ou à 33 parce que pour refaire le point qu'André disait
aussi, même SRC‑CBC disait : * Où est‑ce qu'on met la
limite? C'est quoi le nombre acceptable
en chaînes spécialisées?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11995 C'était
juste pour donner un exemple qu'on ne voit pas la pertinence ou comment un test
basé uniquement sur le nombre peut régler les problématiques engendrées par une
concentration dans un secteur donné.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11996 LE
PRÉSIDENT: Je suis un peu étonné par ça
parce que quand je parle aux joueurs dans mes visites personnelles, tout le
monde dit : * On veut avoir des
prévisibilités, des règles claires pour qu'on puisse s'ajuster +.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11997 Maintenant,
dans cette audience, tout le monde aime le cas à cas et dit : * Pas de règles +.
Mais évidemment, c'est votre conviction.
Franchement, je trouve ça plus difficile pour nous et pour vous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11998 Peut‑être
on doit avoir d'autres règles que la SRC suggère, mais d'avoir des règles
claires pour que vous puissiez planifier votre organisme, pour les
acquisitions, la croissance, et caetera, il me semble que si c'est bien fait ça
vous aide et ça va faire un système de communication plus fort au lieu de,
comme vous voulez suggérer, que ça va diminuer votre possibilité d'actions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11999 Mais
évidemment, je crois que nous avons des idées diverses ici, je vais donner la
parole à ma collègue Andrée qui avait des questions pour vous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12000 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Bonjour, monsieur Bureau, madame
Émond.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12001 M.
BUREAU: Bonjour.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12002 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Monsieur Bureau, vous parliez de
visions apocalyptiques, monsieur Lavoie était dans le dantesque, on est dans le
surréalisme.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12003 Je
veux juste vous demander un petit point par rapport à la page 9 de votre exposé
de ce matin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12004 Vous
dites, au troisième paragraphe :
* Soulignons d'abord que souvent
de tels seuils préétablis sont adoptés dans des pays où, par ailleurs, les
entreprises ne sont pas assujetties à l'obligation d'obtenir une autorisation
préalable pour lancer de nouveaux services... +
(Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 12005 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Et caetera, et caetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12006 Est‑ce
que vous pouvez nous donner des exemples concrets?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12007 M.
BUREAU: Les États‑Unis. Avec les chaînes spécialisées, aux États‑Unis,
il n'y a pas d'autorisation préalable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12008 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: D'accord.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12009 M.
BUREAU: Le seul moyen d'intervenir c'est
après coup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12010 J'écoutais
tout à l'heure les représentants de Québécor qui parlaient d'avant et après, en
latin, mais j'ai compris quand même, je pense, et ici dans notre cas, c'est
vraiment avant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12011 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Vous avez été séminariste.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12012 M.
BUREAU: Ce n'est pas après quand la
décision du Conseil arrive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12013 Vraiment
on prend une décision d'acheter une propriété, on prend cette décision‑là
sachant très bien qu'on va devoir aller obtenir une autorisation et que cette
autorisation‑là on peut l'avoir ou ne pas l'avoir, alors il s'agit de
mesurer les risques.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12014 Écoutez,
il y a des précédents du Conseil, il y a des décisions qui ont été rendues, qui
nous aident à éclairer notre réflexion pour savoir si, oui ou non, c'est
quelque chose qui est acceptable au Conseil ou pas, que ça ne le sera pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12015 On
peut avoir des surprises, mais en général on a suffisamment d'indications
d'avance pour savoir qu'on peut venir devant le Conseil et se présenter avec
une proposition qui a des chances d'être acceptable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12016 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Est‑ce que dans une
perspective où le Conseil migrerait d'une formule de réglementation ex ante à
une formule de réglementation ex post, pour utiliser le latin auquel on a fait
référence tout à l'heure, est‑ce que votre perspective changerait si le
mode de réglementation migrait d'une réglementation ex ante à ex post?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12017 M.
BUREAU: Moi, je trouve qu'on a les
mécanismes qu'il faut à l'heure actuelle et je ne vois pas d'utilité à changer
ce qui existe là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12018 Maintenant,
ça vient d'un vieux, alors il faut faire attention, ils ont tendance à
s'appuyer sur le statu quo.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12019 Dans
les faits, je pense que quand on regarde toutes les possibilités que le Conseil
a de s'assurer que dans le cas de n'importe quelle transaction, le système en
bénéficie, soit par une approbation générale mais avec des conditions, soit par
des approbations partielles, soit par des mécanismes d'ordonner la revente de
certains des actifs, des choses comme ça, le Conseil a tous les pouvoirs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12020 Personne
n'est venu dire ici, en tout cas malgré les réflexions qui vous sont faites,
Monsieur le Président, en particulier, mais publiquement ici, je n'ai pas
entendu personne venir dire : * On aurait besoin sur ce sujet‑là de prévisibilité. +
LISTNUM 1 \l 12021 On
l'a déjà. Je ne sais pas qu'est‑ce
qu'on a besoin de plus. On sait bien que
si, à un moment donné, on arrivait et qu'on vous demandait pour acheter Radio‑Canada,
vous ne seriez pas en mesure de nous dire oui.
On ne veut pas.
‑‑‑ Laughters /
Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12022 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Pas tout de suite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12023 M.
BUREAU: Mais il y a des choses qui sont
évidentes et je pense bien que les joueurs ne sont pas ignorants de ces choses‑là,
il y en a qui vont essayer de tester, c'est leur risque. S'ils ne l'ont pas, ils ne l'auront pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12024 C'est
la même chose que quand on est venu pour demander chacun de nos services
spécialisés, on savait bien qu'il y aurait d'autres joueurs qui seraient là
aussi, on savait qu'on était en concurrence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12025 On
a essayé de présenter quelque chose au Conseil qui était acceptable par le
Conseil. Mais on prenait un risque. On prenait un risque. Il n'y avait pas de règles préétablies pour
dire : * VRAK devra contenir tel
pourcentage de contenu canadien et il devra s'attaquer à tel ou tel genre
d'auditoire et des choses comme ça.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12026 On
est venu et on a présenté quelque chose que le Conseil a accepté. Et ça a été la même chose pour les autres
services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12027 Alors
donc, de la prévisibilité, on en a déjà.
On n'arrive pas ici complètement : * Ah! On ne savait pas que vous
auriez ces réactions‑là et ces... +
LISTNUM 1 \l 12028 Mme
ÉMOND: Si je pouvais rajouter aussi un
autre élément, et on oublie souvent de le mentionner, mais dans notre système,
le fait qu'on ait des autorisations préalables et qu'on ait des processus
publics où chacun est en mesure de faire valoir ses préoccupations, que ce soit
les journalistes, les communautés, c'est un facteur qui m'apparaît très
important à prendre en considération dans notre système comme tel où, donc, il
y a la possibilité de s'assurer que les questions à débattre sont adressées et
que la requérante ait à les adresser.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12029 Donc,
c'est un élément fondamental aussi de notre système.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12030 M.
BUREAU: il y a un autre aspect, je
pense, qu'il faut prendre en ligne de compte quand on regarde de façon
prospective.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12031 S'il
fallait que ces règles‑là ‑‑ très simples et très
précises ‑‑ empêchent des choses qui auraient un grand
bénéfice pour le système si elles existaient, je trouve que ça aussi il faut y
penser.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12032 Vous,
vous avez la chance de pouvoir analyser toutes les situations et de dire :
* Voici quelque chose que peut‑être
on n'aurait pas accepté si on avait suivi les recommandations de Radio‑Canada,
mais on l'accepte aujourd'hui parce qu'on nous a fait la démonstration que
c'est extrêmement bénéfique pour tour le système.
1020
LISTNUM 1 \l 12033 Moi,
je pense qu'il y a des éléments, je ne suis pas capable de vous donner
d'exemple, bien sûr, mais je pense qu'il
y a des éléments comme ça qui ne pourraient pas arriver jusqu'à vous parce
qu'il y aurait une espèce de règle qui l'empêcherait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12034 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Un carcan.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12035 M.
BUREAU: Que vous avez tout le loisir
d'évaluer et d'examiner comme il faut.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12036 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Pensez‑vous que l'étroitesse
du marché canadien, et plus particulièrement du marché québécois dans votre
cas, soit un élément qui milite en faveur d'une analyse au cas par cas plutôt
que d'une règle préétablie?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12037 M.
BUREAU: J'ai envie de vous répondre oui,
tout simplement, mais ça milite dans tous les cas à travers le Canada dans mon
esprit.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12038 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Et pas seulement au Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12039 M.
BUREAU: Et pas seulement au Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12040 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: D'accord.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12041 Maintenant,
vos propriétés sont concentrées en télévision spécialisée et payante et en
radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12042 Si
on s'attarde d'abord à vos propriétés radio qui diffusent de l'information, des
bulletins de nouvelles, ce qui n'est pas le cas de vos services ‑‑
et vous le mentionniez d'ailleurs dans votre exposé de ce matin ‑‑
vos services de télévision spécialisés sont exclusivement dans le
divertissement et non pas dans l'information, pouvez‑vous nous expliquer
comment votre tout nouveau service de nouvelles doit être considéré comme un
gage de pluralité des voies alors que vous êtes propriétaire de 23 stations de
radio au Québec sur un total de 93, soit à peu près 25 pour cent, et que...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12043 Mon
Dieu, j'ai écrit ça tard.
‑‑‑Laughters /
Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12044 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Et que vous opériez ces 23
stations par le biais de trois réseaux?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12045 M.
BUREAU: Je vais demander à Sophie Émond
de vous répondre, si vous me permettez.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12046 Mme
ÉMOND: Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12047 Premièrement,
madame la Conseillère, simplement rappeler que nos stations de radio sont à
prédominance musicale, donc on n'est pas des stations de radio en soi dont le
mandat premier est l'information.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12048 Quand
on parlait de l'importance d'abord des licences et l'occasion de venir devant
le Conseil pour parler de nos stations, on l'a fait récemment, au printemps
dernier où on était en renouvellement pour la plupart de nos stations à travers
le Québec, nos 21 stations, on a eu, à cette occasion‑là, la possibilité
de discuter avec le Conseil des engagements qu'on avait pris suite à
l'acquisition des stations de Télémédia, de parler de notre service de
nouvelles qui est composé de 34 journalistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12049 On
a expliqué aussi qu'On était très fiers de l'équipe de la radio qui est
passionnée et qui rappelait que même si on a plusieurs stations à travers le
Québec que pour nous la radio demeure essentiellement un médium local et que
notre information, la nouvelle, émanait de chaque station mais était enrichie
de ce qu'on avait créé qui était un réseau intranet qui permettait le
regroupement à travers ce réseau‑là de toute l'information disponible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12050 Donc
dans chaque localité l'ensemble de nos journalistes, chacun pouvait bénéficier
de l'apport de toutes les autres stations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12051 On
a eu l'occasion aussi d'indiquer au Conseil que ce système‑là qu'on avait
développé a été prisé par la Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du
Québec qui a mentionné ‑‑ d'ailleurs on en était très
fier ‑‑ qu'on a développé un système qui prémunit contre une
des craintes au Québec qui est la montréalisation des ondes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12052 Alors,
je pense qu'on a réussi à trouver un système qui, justement, maximise non
seulement l'apport mais le fait que la programmation et les nouvelles locales
émanent vraiment de chaque station dans chaque marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12053 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: C'est la libre circulation de
l'information dans un réseau intranet plutôt que l'étanchéité de chaque salle
de nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12054 Mme
ÉMOND: Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12055 C'est
doter, en fait, chaque marché d'avoir accès à des sources beaucoup plus
considérables d'informations pour qu'après ces gens‑là puissent puiser
dans chaque marché, les journalistes de chaque marché décident de ce qu'ils
vont prendre et ce qui est pertinent pour leur marché comme informations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12056 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: C'est une mise en commun de la
nouvelle brute, c'est ça?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12057 Mme
ÉMOND: C'est un échange, c'est donner
une possibilité d'avoir accès à ce qui est là.
Mais en termes de ce qui est brut, évidemment, c'est alimenté, c'est de
pouvoir profiter de tout ce qui est amené, chaque cueillette d'informations
dans chaque marché local, après c'est mis à la disposition des autres qui
veulent, s'ils jugent que c'est pertinent, en parler, le couvrir dans leurs
propres marchés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12058 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Maintenant si on parlait de la
diversité des contenus, et je parle plus spécifiquement de vos services
spécialisés à la télévision, croyez‑vous qu'il faille resserrer les
conditions de licence des services spécialisés, quand il y a une pluralité de
propriétés, notamment en ce qui a trait à la production indépendante?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12059 M.
BUREAU: Écoutez, je vais commencer et je
vais demander à Sophie de continuer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12060 Quand
vous parlez de l'exemple des services spécialisés à travers le Canada et de
leurs liens ou de leur interaction avec la production indépendante, je pense
que c'est une chose qui est absolument extraordinaire qui est arrivée ici au
Canada, c'est que justement la création des services spécialisés canadiens a
marqué un retour, pas un retour, une création d'une industrie nouvelle de
production indépendante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12061 On
avait des producteurs de films, on avait quelques producteurs de séries
télévisées et ça se limitait à peu près à ça.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12062 Depuis
ce temps‑là il y a eu un boum incroyable de nouvelles maisons de
production de très grande qualité à travers tout le pays, pas seulement dans
les grands marchés, à travers tout le pays.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12063 Quand
on regarde la qualité de notre production indépendante au Canada, on doit en
être très fier, que ce soit dans l'animation, que ce soit dans les
documentaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12064 Les
documentaires n'existaient pas comme production indépendante quand Canal D a
obtenu sa licence, ça n'existait plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12065 Vous
vous souvenez peut‑être que l'ONF avait pratiquement cessé de faire de la
production de documentaires. C'est Canal
D qui a fait revivre ça et aujourd'hui avec RDI, par exemple, ce sont deux
services spécialisés de langue française qui utilisent de façon incroyable les
documentaires produits chez nous ou produits ailleurs, mais la création de
documentaires est aujourd'hui une industrie intéressante pour la production
indépendante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12066 On
fait affaire avec 150 maisons de production indépendante individuelles pour
notre programmation dans nos services spécialisés. Elles n'existaient même pas il y a quelques
années, ces maisons‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12067 Je
pense que quand on regarde l'impact, qu'il s'agisse de la pluralité, et tant
mieux s'il y a de la pluralité, ça va faire plus d'acheteurs, quand on regarde
l'impact que ça a créé vis‑à‑vis de la production indépendante, je
pense que les producteurs indépendants doivent être très fiers de ce qui se
passe aujourd'hui, doivent être très fiers de voir comment ça s'est développé
au cours des ans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12068 Évidemment,
quand ils voient des regroupements, ils se disent : * Ça fait un acheteur de
moins + à chaque fois. S'il y a deux grandes entités qui se
retrouvent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12069 Mais
très souvent ce sont des entités qui achètent des entreprises qui ne sont pas
du tout dans le même secteur d'activités.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12070 Quand
une maison conventionnelle achète une maison de services spécialisés, ils ne
font pas appel aux mêmes producteurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12071 Alors,
il y a des grosses chances que les producteurs qui faisaient affaire avec les
maisons d'entreprises spécialisées jusqu'alors vont continuer à faire
affaire. C'est le seul moyen d'arriver à
avoir de la programmation de qualité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12072 Ça
ne les empêchera pas, peut‑être que la personne qui achète n'est plus la
même, mais le volume de programmes qui est requis est encore là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12073 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Mais est‑ce que, s'il y a
une concentration de propriétés entre les mains d'un ou de quelques joueurs,
est‑ce qu'on devrait augmenter le recours à la production indépendante
dans les conditions de licence ou si ça devrait être maintenu tel qu'au moment
de l'attribution des licences?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12074 Mme
ÉMOND: Là‑dessus, madame Noël, je
vous dirais que la beauté ou la complexité des chaînes spécialisées, c'est
qu'elles sont très différentes, ça dépend, les dynamiques de production en
dramatiques, en animation, en nouvelles, c'est complètement différent, alors je
pense que notre système qui est basé sur le fait qu'on regarde chaque service à
la pièce, la règle devrait continuer, ça devrait être un cas par cas dépendant
qui est propriétaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12075 Je
pense que d'établir un seuil uniforme ne tiendrait pas compte de toutes ces...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12076 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Particularités.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12077 Mme
ÉMOND: Spécificités et particularités
là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12078 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: Dans un autre ordre d'idée, on a
entendu beaucoup parler depuis hier, nous depuis un peu plus longtemps, du
modèle australien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12079 Pouvez‑vous
nous faire part de vos commentaires face à ce modèle, notamment, le fait que le
modèle ne fait pas de distinction entre les voix éditoriales et les autres
voix, par exemple, les stations musicales dans le cas de stations de radio,
dans un marché donné pour déterminer le nombre de points alloués à ce marché?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12080 MME
ÉMOND : Bien, Madame la Conseillère, comme on a mentionné depuis le début de
notre présentation, des tests préétablis ne nous semblent pas une voie que le
Conseil devrait prendre. Je pense
qu'André a élaboré largement là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12081 Donc,
je pense qu'on s'en tiendrait à cette réponse‑là, sans élaborer, donc, à
voir si le modèle australien est approprié ou pas, parce que, selon nous, ça ne
tient pas compte des spécificités de notre marché ici au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12082 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Ça ne tient pas non plus compte de la présence de diffuseurs publics ou
communautaires ou même de radios ethniques et religieuses.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12083 Si
dans sa grande sagesse... et monsieur Lavoie est ici, il connaît la sagesse
proverbiale du Conseil. Si dans sa
grande sagesse, le Conseil décidait d'adopter un modèle style australien,
devrait‑il maintenir en vigueur les politiques actuelles sur les
propriétés communes de stations de télé conventionnelle et de stations de radio
dans un même marché? C'est une
hypothèse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12084 M.
BUREAU : Ce n'est pas une hypothèse que le Conseil a beaucoup de sagesse.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 12085 M.
BUREAU : C'est un fait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12086 Mais
je pense... bon, ceci étant dit, quand on vient à établir une règle, on vous a
dit on ne pense pas que les règles devraient s'établir de cette façon‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12087 Les
règles qui ont été établies sur le marché local pour la télévision
conventionnelle et la radio ont été revues à l'occasion des processus que vous
avez fait, il y a un an et demi, puis il y un an, pour les télévisions over‑the‑air
puis la radio, puis vous avez décidé de ne pas les changer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12088 Alors,
je ne sais pas, je ne pense pas qu'il y ait grand‑chose qui ait changé
depuis ce temps‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12089 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Maintenant, si on regarde les niveaux de propriété, ne trouvez‑vous
pas qu'à partir d'un certain niveau de concentration de propriétés
communes ‑‑ disons, pour les fins de la discussion ce matin,
50 pour cent ou plus de services discrétionnaires ‑‑ l'intérêt
public puisse être compromis si une même entreprise détenait plus de 50 ou 60
pour cent d'un ensemble de services comme les services spécialisés?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12090 M.
BUREAU : C'est parce que toute espèce de règle basée sur des pourcentages ne
nous apparaît pas adéquat, pour dire le moins.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12091 Voici,
prenez le marché du Québec. Nos stations
de télévision spécialisée, les nôtres, représentent une portion de l'auditoire,
c'est‑à‑dire qu'elles attirent une portion de l'auditoire. Toutes nos stations ensemble, ça correspond à
peu près à ce que TQS peut avoir, bon, un peu moins que TVA, en tout cas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12092 J'ai
l'impression qu'on s'en va dans une discussion qui ne peut pas nous mener très
loin de ce côté‑là. Ce n'est pas
le nombre de services. Ce n'est pas le
nombre de... Ce n'est même pas la
portion d'auditoire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12093 On
s'adresse à des auditoires tout à fait différents. Il n'est pas question de leur imposer quoi
que ce soit ou d'abuser d'une position comme celle‑là. On n'abuse certainement pas de notre pouvoir
vis‑à‑vis les distributeurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12094 Et
du côté des annonceurs, on fait affaire avec des auditoires différents, des
target groups qui sont différents. Donc,
ce n'est pas la même publicité. Alors,
on ne va pas vendre X pour cent de l'auditoire à nos annonceurs. On va vendre le 1 pour cent dans tel canal
puis le 1.2 pour cent dans tel autre canal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12095 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : C'est là où je voulais vous amener parce qu'on a des intervenants qui
ont soulevé la question de la problématique de la publicité quand des grands
groupes contrôlent un certain nombre de fenêtres dans le domaine de la
télévision spécialisée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12096 MME
ÉMOND : Mais, Madame Noël, quand on regarde le marché de la télé au Québec, il y
a la télé conventionnelle aussi, puis c'est quel pourcentage. Si on parle en terme de part de marché, on
sait bien, c'est des données qui varient, qui oscillent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12097 Rappelons‑nous,
notamment, avec les chaînes spécialisées, on s'en va vers un univers totalement
numérique. De plus en plus, les
entreprises de distribution parlent d'une offre pick‑a‑pack, au
choix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12098 Donc,
quel pourcentage on met en télé conventionnelle privée? Il y a une entité, il y a TVA qui a à peu
près 67 pour cent des revenus totaux de la télé conventionnelle privée. Alors, pourquoi on le permet dans ce secteur‑là?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12099 En
télé spécialisée, on mettra un autre seuil.
Comment on le détermine, ça nous apparaît des données difficiles. Effectivement, il y a un problème. Je pense que c'est mieux de regarder au cas
par cas dans chaque marché, et c'est ce que rend possible les renouvellements
de licence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12100 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Maintenant, on va changer de sujet, la radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12101 Vous
êtes un grand groupe de radios au Québec à l'heure actuelle. Je sais qu'il y a des demandes qui sont
devant le Conseil, et des décisions devront éventuellement être rendues, mais
pour le moment, vous êtes plutôt au Québec, avec quelques stations dans les
Maritimes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12102 Croyez‑vous
que le trafic de licences réelles ou appréhendées soit un problème auquel le
Conseil devrait s'attaquer, c'est‑à‑dire le fait que des licences
soient octroyées dans un certain marché et que les détenteurs se remettent en
marché dans une période qui est plus courte que leur première période de
licence?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12103 M.
BUREAU : Bien, Madame Noël, je pense qu'il faut distinguer, encore une fois, au
cas par cas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12104 Si
quelqu'un demande une licence, puis qu'il n'en a pas d'autre, c'est sa première
demande de licence pour avoir une station de radio à Rivière‑du‑Loup
et que le Conseil lui accorde une licence pour pouvoir opérer une station de
radio à Rivière‑du‑Loup, et que l'individu, avant même de mettre la
licence en opération, décide de la vendre à un autre parce qu'il faut une passe
vite, ça, je pense que le Conseil pourrait dire, ça n'est pas acceptable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12105 Quand
vous avez devant vous quelqu'un qui va acheter X nombre de stations de radio
d'un opérateur de radio et que cet opérateur de radio là a déjà déposé une
licence et fait sa demande devant le Conseil, puis que la licence est attribuée
pendant le processus de la transaction, on ne peut pas prétendre à ce moment‑là
qu'il y a eu une espèce de jeu ou de mécanisme pour essayer de profiter d'une
situation comme celle‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12106 Alors,
chaque cas est un peu particulier, et je pense que le Conseil a bien raison
d'examiner chacun des cas en particulier, mais je pense qu'il faut faire des
distinctions selon les circonstances dans lesquelles les situations se
présentent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12107 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Et il y a le troisième scénario où un détenteur de licence commence à
opérer une station et se rend compte que financièrement, il n'a pas les moyens
de livrer la marchandise.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12108 M.
BUREAU : Oui, et c'est arrivé à quelques reprises. C'est même arrivé du côté des services
spécialisés, où un moment donné, il y a un white knight qui est venu sauver un
service qui était en train de mourir parce qu'ils n'avaient pas les moyens de
mettre en place des choses.
Heureusement, ce n'est pas arrivé souvent aux services spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12109 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Pensez‑vous que le Conseil devrait être plus sévère dans l'examen
des moyens financiers dont dispose une requérante quand elle fait une demande
de licence?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12110 M.
BUREAU : Bien, je pense qu'on va avoir l'occasion dans un processus qui s'en
vient. Je ne me souviens plus de la date
là, il y en a tellement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12111 Mais
dans un processus qui s'en vient, on va avoir l'occasion de vous parler du
bilan des catégories 2, puis d'essayer de voir si c'est une avenue qui vaut la
peine d'être prolongée ou une avenue qu'il faudrait peut‑être transformer
pour l'avenir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12112 C'est
facile de voir ce qui est arrivé. On
sait combien de licences ont été accordées.
On sait combien ont été mises en place.
On sait combien ont une distribution limitée ou étendue. Je pense qu'on va voir là justement...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12113 Je
pense que le Conseil avait absolument raison de dire on va essayer de trouver
une formule pour permettre une plus large diversité, pour permettre plus de
créations, pour pouvoir occuper le terrain avant que des entreprises étrangères
viennent le faire, par exemple. On va
essayer de s'arranger pour que les Canadiens qui ont envie de faire un projet
comme celui‑là le fassent de façon facile. On va juste imposer deux‑trois règles,
puis ils vont pratiquement savoir qu'ils peuvent l'avoir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12114 On
voit aujourd'hui que, malheureusement, le résultat n'est probablement pas à la
hauteur des espérances qui pouvaient exister au début de la mise en place de ce
mécanisme‑là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12115 Je
ne devrais peut‑être pas, Monsieur le Président, aller trop loin dans
cette direction‑là. On va avoir
d'autres occasions d'en parler.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12116 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Ça m'amène au paragraphe 48 de votre mémoire, où vous insistez sur le
fait que la politique du cinq pour un, si elle est bénéfique dans le marché
anglophone, est au mieux non pertinente dans le marché francophone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12117 Pouvez‑vous
élaborer là‑dessus?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12118 MME
ÉMOND : Comme le mentionne André, on aura certainement l'occasion d'en parler
davantage dans le processus, l'audience du 28 janvier.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12119 Mais
simplement, c'est qu'on notait que, étant donné que ça n'impose pas un respect
par langue, donc, théoriquement et en pratique, un service peut... le test peut
être rencontré en utilisant cinq services de langue anglaise pour un service de
langue française.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12120 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : La nature ayant horreur du vide.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12121 Maintenant,
pouvez‑vous élaborer sur votre position concernant les avantages ou les
bénéfices, comme on les appelle...
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM 1 \l 12122 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Voilà!
LISTNUM 1 \l 12123 M.
BUREAU : Ah! Bon. Alors...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12124 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : J'essayais de lire ce que j'avais écrit après ça, puis je n'arrive pas
à...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12125 M.
BUREAU : Madame Noël, notre position, c'est que si le Conseil jugeait que les
avantages pour le système d'avoir ce mécanisme de bénéfices relié à des
transactions devaient être maintenus, ils devraient être les mêmes pour tout le
monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12126 Il
n'y a aucune, aucune raison pour laquelle les BDUs ne seraient pas la même
chose que nous autres, puis pourquoi les autres transactions ne se feraient pas
toutes au même niveau.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12127 Je
pense que les conditions devraient être toutes les mêmes. Que ça soit pour la radio, que ça soit pour
les BDUs, que ça soit pour les services spécialisés, télé conventionnelle, ça
devrait être la même règle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12128 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Et est‑ce que... puis là, vous avez jusqu'au 5 octobre pour nous
répondre. Est‑ce que vous seriez
prêt à verser 5 pour cent au Fonds canadien de télévision si la
politique sur les bénéfices disparaissait?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12129 M.
BUREAU : Je ne sais pas pourquoi faire qu'on attend pas d'avoir le résultat du
processus sur le CTF. Moi, envoyer de
l'argent à Jim Shaw, je ne suis pas sûr.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 12130 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12131 Ça,
c'était mes questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12132 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12133 Michel,
tu as une question?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12134 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Je voudrais simplement enchaîner sur la perception de notre président,
je pense qui est aussi la mienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12135 Je
suis assez surpris que vous parliez en même temps que la prévisibilité est là,
mais vous évoquez au même moment qu'il y a un risque. Vous faites l'amalgame des deux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12136 Il
me semble qu'une règle simple, importante, serait bonne, et pour l'industrie et
pour tout le monde, et qu'il y aurait...
L'histoire d'y aller au cas par cas au CRTC, est‑ce que c'est un
monde qui est vraiment compatible avec l'industrie dans la mesure où vous avez
des décisions importantes à prendre?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12137 Je
voudrais vous poser la question suivante, mais peut‑être pas au
président, mais aux simples citoyens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12138 Vous
occupez un espace important au Québec déjà en radio dans les canaux
spécialisés. C'est la même chose pour
Quebecor. C'est la même chose pour
Gesca.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12139 Est‑ce
que, comme simple citoyen, simple citoyen... oublions le développement du
marché auquel le CRTC a souscrit au cours des dernières années par ses
décisions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12140 Est‑ce
que, comme simple citoyen, ça ne vous rassurerait pas, vous, de savoir qu'une
entreprise, quelque importante soit‑elle, ne peut pas au Québec, dans un
marché local, ne peut pas posséder une entreprise de télévision, une entreprise
de radio, une entreprise de journaux, dans le même marché local, que les
citoyens aient la conviction profonde qu'il y a une démocratie dans le système,
parce que quelle que soit l'importance des joueurs, un ne pourra pas tout
posséder dans un seul marché?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12141 M.
BUREAU : Monsieur le Conseiller, je pense que la façon dont vous posez la
question nous laisse quasiment croire qu'on doit être des êtres tordus de ne
pas accepter cette espèce de règle bénéfique pour tous et qui devait être
appliquée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12142 Je
soumets qu'on a toutes les mesures de précautions nécessaires en se disant
qu'il y a quelqu'un, le Conseil, qui va décider si oui ou non, c'est bon ou pas
bon pour le marché que cette chose‑là existe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12143 Qu'il
s'agisse de Trois‑Rivières, qu'il s'agisse de Montréal, qu'il s'agisse de
n'importe où, quand il va y avoir une transaction comme celle‑là et
qu'elle va venir devant vous, vous avez tous les moyens pour pouvoir l'examiner
en profondeur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12144 Puis
quand je dis ça, ce n'est pas parce que je pense que, comme citoyen, j'aimerais
ça savoir que Quebecor ne peut pas faire plus qu'il fait là. Ça n'a rien à voir. Ça n'a rien à voir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12145 Moi,
je dis, si Quebecor vient devant vous ou si Astral vient devant vous, puis
qu'il vous fait la démonstration que ce qu'il se propose de faire est dans
l'intérêt du système, quels que soient les éléments que ça implique, quels que
soient les... vous allez être en mesure de pouvoir dire, oui, à la condition
que vous le fassiez de telle ou telle façon ou que vous vous imposiez telle ou
telle condition ou que vous vous départissiez de tels ou tels actifs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12146 Moi,
je trouve que c'est là la meilleure précaution.
Moi, je ne suis pas comme les éditorialistes du * National Post +.
Je pense que le Conseil a un rôle à jouer dans l'avenir, et je pense que
le Conseil est notre meilleur moyen de s'assurer que les situations dantesques
ou autres qui peuvent être évoquées vont être analysées comme il faut, puis
qu'il va avoir une décision intelligente qui va sortir de là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12147 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Justement, pour parler des éditorialistes du * National Post +, en fin de semaine, on a parlé du
début d'une perestroïka du CRTC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12148 M.
BUREAU : Je le savais que je ne devrais pas en parler.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 12149 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Est‑ce que, si on faisait fi des règles d'assemblage et si on
laissait le choix au consommateur canadien d'avoir un contenu ou, enfin, un
certain nombre de canaux à la hauteur de 51 pour cent canadien, et on oublie
tout le reste, on fait table rase de tout le reste, est‑ce que vous comme
entreprise dans les canaux spécialisés, ça mettrait à mal, selon vous, selon
votre évaluation du marché, la diversité qu'on a vu croître au cours des
dernières années, notamment, en ce qui concerne les canaux spécialisés?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12150 M.
BUREAU : Bien, on va en avoir l'occasion d'en parler de façon plus précise dans
un autre forum, mais en attendant, pour vous donner un preview, je peux vous
dire que je trouve ça épouvantable, à la fois comme citoyen et comme
radiodiffuseur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12151 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Le 51 pour cent?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12152 M.
BUREAU : Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12153 MME
ÉMOND : Monsieur Morin, juste sur un dernier point.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12154 Quand
vous parliez du citoyen, je voulais rappeler encore ‑‑ je
reviens là‑dessus ‑‑ mais le fait que le CRTC a
justement ce processus où il regarde chaque transaction et que c'est soumis à
un processus de consultation publique, personnellement, je trouve que c'est un
moyen de s'assurer que chaque citoyen, justement, peut être présent à la
discussion et soumettre ses commentaires, et c'est quelque chose qu'on n'aurait
pas l'occasion de faire si on a un test basé uniquement sur un nombre permis et
non permis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12155 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Ron, you had one more
question?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12156 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12157 Good
morning, Mr. Bureau, Ms Émond.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12158 MR.
BUREAU: Good morning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12159 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Mr. Bureau, yesterday, Shaw
said that the broadcast distribution undertakings, or BDUs, possess neither the
ability or incentive to act as gatekeepers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12160 MR.
BUREAU: Excuse me, as what?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12161 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: As gatekeepers to restrict
access to the ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 12162 MR.
BUREAU: Oh, yeah.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12163 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: In fact, they stated the
market imperative for BDUs to offer customers the best range, choices and
quality of services overrides all considerations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12164 Today,
you stated that specialty services need guaranteed access to the BDU network.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12165 Could
you please describe from your company's experience why this is necessary and
why market forces and consumer demand for choice are not enough of an incentive
for carriage by the BDUs, thereby providing the diversity of voices that we all
seek?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12166 MR.
BUREAU: It is a very important issue, it
is a very important fundamental aspect of the broadcasting system and I hope we
will have a chance to talk about it when we talk about the BDU review, the
regulation of the BDUs in the future.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12167 I
think that ‑‑ again, I will stop there if you don't mind and
wait for the next process ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 12168 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: I don't mind, that's fine.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12169 MR.
BUREAU: ‑‑ to talk about it more specifically.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12170 COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: I only brought it up because
you brought it up earlier today in your remarks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12171 MR.
BUREAU: I am very sorry that I brought
it up.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM
1 \l 12172 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. This is clearly something we will look at in
January.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12173 You
also have the opportunity until October 5 to make any written submissions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12174 Thank
you very much for your appearance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12175 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : La divulgation de l'information financière...
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 12176 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Enfin, quelle est votre position par rapport à la possibilité que le
Conseil rende public, de manière consolidée, les informations financières sur
les secteurs de la radio et de la télévision conventionnelle, de la même
manière qu'il le fait pour les canaux spécialisés?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12177 M.
BUREAU : Bien, moi, je pense que, comme on vous a dit au sujet des bénéfices,
ça devrait être la même règle pour tout le monde, que ce soit consolidé, pas
consolidé, oui, non, tout le monde, tous les... incluant Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12178 Pour
moi, j'espère que le nouveau président puis le nouveau chairman vont prendre
l'opportunité de dire on devient transparent, puis donner au Conseil, puis
donner au gouvernement, puis donner au public de l'information sur ce qu'ils
font avec leur argent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12179 Donc,
je pense que s'il y a lieu d'avoir une divulgation, elle doit s'appliquer à
tout le monde : distributeurs, radiodiffuseurs, public et privé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12180 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. I think we are running a bit behind schedule.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12181 I
will turn it over to Madame Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12182 LA
SECRÉTAIRE : Nous prendrons une courte pause et serons de retour à 11 h 00. We will be back at 11:00. Thank
you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1051 / Suspension à 1051
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1104 / Reprise à 1104
LISTNUM
1 \l 12183 THE
CHAIRMAN: Let's resume. We have some time to make up. Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12184 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, monsieur le
président.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12185 We
will now proceed with the presentation by Pelmorex Communications, monsieur
Pierre Morrissette will introduce his panel and you will then have ten minutes
for your presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12186 Mr.
Morrissette.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 12187 M.
MORRISSETTE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
vice‑chair Arpin, members of the Commission and staff. My name is Pierre Morrissette and I am the
chair and CEO Pelmorex Communications Inc.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12188 To
my left is Luc Perreault, vice president, Affiliate and Government
Relations. To my right is Paul Temple,
senior vice‑president, Regulatory and Strategic Affairs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12189 In
the audience also is our new president and COO who just started yesterday with
our company We gave him the week off
though, Gaston Germain.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12190 We
are here today because we believe that a true diversity of voices could not be
achieved in this country without a diversity of owners. And ownership diversity can only be achieved
if the Commission maintains appropriate regulatory safeguards that enable
independent groups to operate broadcasting and new media undertakings.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12191 MétéoMédia,
the weather network sont des exemples éloquents qui démontrent que le cadre réglementaire
actuel a su faire la promotion de la diversité des voix au Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12192 Même
si nos services sont vulnérables à l'accélération de la concentration et de la
consolidation au sein de l'industrie de la radiodiffusion, nous avons été en
mesure de développer nos services de programmation spécialisés parce que le
Conseil avait adopté des règles claires et efficientes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12193 Ces
règles ont permis une vaste distribution de nos chaînes spécialisées tout en
limitant la possibilité que des distributeurs puissent imposer des termes
entourant l'offre de nos services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12194 As a result, our specialty services are distributed to almost 11 million
households providing programming that is 100 per cent Canadian content. We do this 24 hours a day, live, in both
official languages.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12195 Fourteen
million Canadians watch us every month, making us one of the most popular
Canadian services. The weather network
at MétéoMédia do far more than just report facts and figures. We make editorial choices every day on issues
related to the environment, climate change, public health and safety and by
simply choosing which communities to highlight or what groups within society to
profile.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12196 We
have the most visited Canadian web site.
We send out almost seven million weather e‑mails and text messages
each month to Canadians. We have
developed unique proprietary technologies and software. Over 1.7 million users access or desktop
software application each month. We also
provide video content for wireless applications.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12197 On
the other hand, we also compete with virtually every radio and tv station in
this country, not to mention the many specialty services that also provide
constant weather information.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12198 Weather
is one of the most popular and frequently sought pieces of information on the
internet. Our web competitors are
numerous and include domestic as well as foreign weather service providers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12199 We
work very hard to create competitive advantages by providing programming that
goes well beyond weather forecasts, but without broad access to consumers
overall distribution technologies our business case is jeopardized, which makes
us vulnerable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12200 It
is little wonder then that our primary message to the Commission in this
proceeding is that regulatory safeguards are absolutely necessary if we are to
continue with the successes today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12201 Regulatory
safeguards and policies requiring the broad distribution and promotion of
Canadian programming services have helped pace the way to our success. If they are taken away, independent
programming services like the weather network and MétéoMédia will be threatened
in the diversity of voices and the broadcasting system could diminish
accordingly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12202 The
comments filed by others in this proceeding have not altered our view.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12203 À
titre de service de programmation indépendant, nous avons ressenti de première
main les effets négatifs de la concentration et de la consolidation du marché
dans le domaine de la programmation et de la distribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12204 De
par le pouvoir qu'il confère à certains joueurs, cette concentration et cette
consolidation menacent la diversité des voix qui existent actuellement dans le
système de radiodiffusion canadien et des gestes doivent être posés
immédiatement afin de *stopper+ cette tendance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12205 We understand our position flies in the face of the current vogue of
deregulation, but the reality of the marketplace is at a business will if left
to its own devices, act only in its own interest. In this respect we share your view, Mr.
Chairman, which was expressed earlier this summer that, and I quote:
"There must always be
regulation of broadcasting in order to ensure the creation of Canadian content
and programming and to ensure access to the system for all Canadians."
LISTNUM
1 \l 12206 It
is for these reasons that we have a Broadcasting Act and that the Commission
has established a regulatory framework that promotes the diversity of voices in
today's environment of consolidation and concentration.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12207 MR.
TEMPLE: A great number of participants
to this proceeding have commented on the explosion of content choices available
through new media. Several use this as
an argument for the relaxation of regulatory safeguards, others as the need for
more regulation. But let's take a closer
look at the internet in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12208 As
measured by Comscore, the industry's recognized internet measurement
organization of the top 100 web sites as measured by unique visitors or reached
to use a broadcasting term, about a third are Canadian, 11 of which are web
sites operated by companies the Commission regulates. The remaining Canadian sites are government
and financial institutions or retailers.
The rest are American.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12209 The
highest ranking Canadian specialty service web site by pages viewed on the
internet is the weather network.com.
Comscore estimates that approximately 93 billion web pages were viewed
by Canadians in July of this year, the top 100 web sites when ranked by pages
viewed represents 51 per cent of the total pages. Facebook alone accounted for 11.9 billion
pages viewed.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12210 The
next 10,000 sites represented just 22 per cent pages viewed while the remaining
tens of thousands of web sites accessible over the internet counted for just 28
per cent of page views made by Canadians.
The dominance of the top 100 web sites is striking.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12211 This
leads us to three conclusions. First,
while on theory, there has been an explosion of content, the proliferation of
web sites on the internet has, by necessity, led to the dominance of a few over
the thousands.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12212 Second,
most of the content on American sites such as Facebook, Hotmail or Google are
not substitutes for programming typically found on television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12213 Third,
the regulated broadcasting system has been and continues to be a powerful and
successful springboard for Canadian programming services on the internet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12214 In
our mind, there is no doubt that regulated safeguards such as genres protection
access and distribution and linkage rules have indirectly enabled all the
Canadian programming services to establish themselves on the internet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12215 Simply
put, the step you, the Commission, take to encourage broad ownership and a
diversity of voices on the regulated Canadian broadcasting system has a direct
impact on the diversity of Canadian voices on the unregulated system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12216 MR.
PERREAULT: To strengthen the diversity
of voices in the new media sector, the concentration of access in the heads of
a few players, the same players that control distribution in the regulated
environment is of great concern and must, in our view, be addressed by the
Commission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12217 In
our written comments we suggested that the Commission could adopt auditory
model for mobile broadcasting undertakings that is comparable to the framework
that exists for traditional BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12218 We
also pointed out that mobile broadcasting undertakings could be required to act
more along the lines of passive ISPs when distributed content on their wireless
networks.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12219 Enfin,
selon nous, le modèle réglementaire sans fil actuel est le pire régime
possible. Sous le couvert des forces du
marché, il établit une réglementation allégée qui permet aux opérateurs sans
fil qui sont, par ailleurs, tous affiliés à DEDR, de câble ou SRD, d'assembler
des contenus, de fixer les prix de ces derniers, de les promouvoir à leur
guise.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12220 Si,
comme canadiens, nous désirons faire jouer les forces du marché, pourquoi ne
pas créer un marché plus ouvert, tel que nous le connaissons dans le domaine de
l'internet filaire et laisser les consommateurs accéder aux contenus sans
l'interférence d'un distributeur directement intéressé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12221 Si,
d'un autre côté, nous croyons qu'une réglementation est de mise quant à l'accès
au contenu de programmation via les appareils sans fil, il faut agir comme il
le faut et promouvoir les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion car il est
important de s'appuyer sur les nombreux acquis de cette loi pour continuer de
s'améliorer et de se renouveler.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12222 Dedans
les défis posés par la convergence, il faut s'assurer que le cadre
réglementaire s'adapte afin de garantir que les objectifs de la loi dont la
pertinence ne se dément pas soit effectivement réalisée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12223 MR. MORRISSETTE: Our submission speaks of the need for the Commission to step in and continue to be proactive in regulating the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12224 We believe that by ensuring that small independent owners can operate programming services and by maintaining regulatory safeguards that will require these services to have a fair and equitable access to all distribution platforms, the Commission can ensure that Canadians will continue to have access to a diversity of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12225 Today we have tried to focus our comments on broad issues, and we hope this has been helpful, and we appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12226 Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12227 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12228 You were here yesterday, as well as today, so you know that the only concrete model that has been suggested is the one that the CBC put forward, suggesting, in terms of a plurality of voices or a diversity of voices, that we adopt three simple rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12229 What do you think of those rules? Would they make a difference for you should the Commission adopt them, or something like them?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12230 Or, do you have a replacement for them?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12231 MR. MORRISSETTE: We are a very focused company, and we opted several years ago to not be a large player, but to be the best at what we do, and that has been to operate a niche specialty television network in a very specific field.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12232 I guess that we are branching a bit out of our territory to address some of these points, but ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12233 THE CHAIRPERSON: But two of them directly address ‑‑ one of them, certainly, directly addresses BDUs. Maybe you would want to comment just on that one.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12234 MR. MORRISSETTE: Yes. I will begin with the two out of three test.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12235 If somebody already owns a radio station and a TV station that meets the test, but then can venture off into the unregulated world and launch what could emerge as a very powerful ‑‑ or acquire a powerful series of websites, or a portal on the web, or, subsequently, a newspaper ‑‑ this kind of test, before the fact, would not necessarily be helpful, because you would be acquiring properties that are unregulated.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12236 As other intervenors have indicated, we have had very effective rules in the radio field that are clear and that state the number of stations that one can own in a market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12237 We have also had similar rules in the television space, and those have worked very effectively.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12238 I agree with the previous intervenor, Mr. Bureau, with respect to his comments in that regard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12239 With regard to the area of specialty television services, the comment of limiting it to a percentage of services, we think, is not an appropriate measure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12240 One could own many, many Category 2 services that would amount to a very small market share and would have very little impact in the context of the marketplace, or even diversity of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12241 However, where it could have an impact, in terms of the broad ownership of specialty television services, is through market dominance in the economic space, which is through advertising.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12242 So, at some point in time, ownership of a large number of specialty television services, which represent a very significant share of audience and advertising ‑‑ there is a direct correlation between the two ‑‑ could definitely have an impact on individual independent specialty television services and their ability to compete in the marketplace for advertising buys.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12243 So, at some point in time, there is a line. We don't know what that line is, subject to a lot of research and analysis, and it could change over time, but there is a line where it could become detrimental to diversity for economic reasons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12244 As it relates to the area of BDUs, we already have a very significant concentration of ownership in distribution. The top five distributors account for about 90 percent of all households served. So that is a situation where, really, it is a question more of safeguards for people accessing the distribution channels that is important, and ownership.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12245 Perhaps, Paul, you could add to that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12246 MR. TEMPLE: In our filing, we suggested, as Pierre mentioned, a cap on the ownership of specialty services. In the case of BDUs, I think we are kind of past the point.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12247 We made a very conscious point in our filing to point out that it is just not the conventional or the traditional cable and satellite, it has branched into every distribution. And that has already happened. It is the same players in each distribution technology. So we are past the point of caps. Now we have to rely on a sound system to make sure access is possible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12248 There may be a bit of changing onto the plurality, and perhaps a bit tongue‑in‑cheek ‑‑ it's interesting that the media attention seems to be proportional to one's ownership of print and television.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12249 I will leave it at that.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12250 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sure that others will make that observation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12251 You said this morning, on page 4:
* A titre de services et programmation indépendante, nous avons ressenti premièrement les effets négatifs de la concentration du marché dans le domaine de la programmation et de la distribution. + (Tel que lu)
LISTNUM 1 \l 12252 I don't want you to tell me horror stories, but could you tell me, in general, what are these negative effects that you have experienced firsthand?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12253 MR. MORRISSETTE: Starting, first of all, in the area of advertising, competing for advertising buys in the marketplace, as the larger groups get larger, they are clearly in a position ‑‑ and this is absolutely normal ‑‑ that they can utilize their many properties to package a buy that will ultimately achieve a great share of the buy that's available.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12254 When there was less concentration in the media who were chasing the advertising dollars ‑‑ and I am talking mostly about specialty television here ‑‑ oftentimes ‑‑ or most of the time in a buy there was lots of room for second tier and third tier services. Now that is shrinking. That is disappearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12255 So that has been a clear effect of increasing consolidation in ownership in the specialty services area.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12256 When it comes to distribution, there are five large players that dominate distribution. We feel somewhat threatened by that, if we emerge into a world where there is no longer the regulatory safeguards.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12257 Why? Because our ability to negotiate ‑‑ our leverage ‑‑ is somewhat limited.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12258 We have been in existence now, the MétéoMédia and the Weather Network services, for 19 years. We have achieved a very high level of success. We rank amongst the services that offer the highest level of subscriber satisfaction. We offer one of the highest levels of perceived value to subscribers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12259 Why, despite that, do we feel threatened?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12260 Simply put, any one of the largest distributors could have a very material impact on our financial results as a company. I will give you an example.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12261 If we were to lose 10 percent of our distribution revenues through the number of subscribers due to tiering, or through subscriber revenues due to being squeezed to a lower rate to remain on the Basic service, that 10 percent of subscription or distribution revenues could represent 30 or 40 percent of our profitability.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12262 If that were to happen, that could trigger material adverse change clauses with our financing. It could put us in default of some of our covenants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12263 So what happens next?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12264 To adjust to that, to adapt to that, we have to significantly look at how we structure our expenses to serve our public.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12265 We cross‑subsidize our French service, because it has the same subscription rate as the English service. We would have to seriously re‑examine that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12266 We cross‑subsidize the distribution of our services and information to the smaller communities amongst the 1,200 communities we serve. We would have to totally re‑examine that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12267 When we acquired MétéoMédia and the Weather Network in 1993, we had 125 employees. Today we are almost 400. That is despite a subscriber rate that has been fixed for almost 20 years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12268 Twenty‑three cents in 1989 is worth about 10 cents today. Or the flip of that, 23 cents today is equal to about 60 cents in those days.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12269 We have had to achieve this growth and this strengthened performance strictly by developing a very strong broadcasting service that competes for ratings and competes for advertising dollars.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12270 A material change to our business, through one decision of one distributor, for their own reasons, could have this material adverse change and threaten our company.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12271 I have been approached almost every month for 19 years to sell the Weather Network and MétéoMédia, and my answer has consistently been: It's not for sale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12272 We are in this for the long haul, and we are here to build. We have a whole bunch of innovation to do, new services to create, new markets to tackle, and investment to do in new technologies. That is why we are, today, one of Canada's leading Canadian websites.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12273 If we eliminate all of the safeguards and we experience what we experienced a few years ago when a distributor arbitrarily, and without notice, moved us to a tier ‑‑ while, in the end, it was sorted out ‑‑ that would have a material effect on our business.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12274 Or, if others were to follow through and say, "Pierre, your service is really good, and we would really like to keep it on Basic, but your rate is too high," it has been the same rate ‑‑ fixed ‑‑ for 20 years, and all of a sudden it's too high?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12275 These are some of the realities that we face in our marketplace.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12276 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12277 Andrée?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12278 COMMISSIONER NOEL: You have covered a lot of my material ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12279 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cover it.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12280 COMMISSIONER NOEL: ‑‑ so I will be short.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12281 You raised, extensively, your concerns about the BDUs' bargaining power, and what I would like to know is, do you intend to raise these matters in the context of the Regulatory Framework for Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings and Discretionary Programming Services Hearing?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12282 I am referring to Public Hearing CRTC‑2007‑10, which is upcoming.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12283 MR. TEMPLE: We will be very active participants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12284 COMMISSIONER NOEL: I thought so.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12285 MR. MORRISSETTE: But today's hearing, in the context of diversity, the same subject matter, without getting into the specifics of all of the safeguards, is directly related to us as a player in the diversity of services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12286 COMMISSIONER NOEL: On a scale of 1 to 5, would you consider that the access that you mentioned earlier is ranking ahead in terms of being problematic than the number of services that the same owner can own in specialty services?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12287 Let's take Astral, for example, which owns a number of specialty services in Quebec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12288 What is the most significant problem?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12289 MR. MORRISSETTE: It goes without saying that it is access‑related issues, related to distribution, that ensure a broad distribution and stability of revenues that is, by far, the priority.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12290 The other matters are interesting in comparison.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12291 COMMISSIONER NOEL: Interesting.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12292 You propose a cap on a going‑forward basis. Could you elaborate on that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12293 It is at paragraph 21 of your written submission.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12294 MR. MORRISSETTE: In terms of the number of specialty television services ‑‑ and that is in the context of advertising.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12295 At some point in time, I guess, 100 percent ownership of specialty television is too much. Zero percent is not an issue. Somewhere in between there is a line or a grey area that one would approach ‑‑ and we don't know what that is ‑‑ where it could have a detrimental impact for new entrants to specialty services with respect to their ability to compete for advertising buys.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12296 Unless, of course, they are part of a large group, and then they could cross‑subsidize within their group and offset it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12297 But for new entrants, as it relates to diversity of voices, there is definitely a threshold where it would have an impact on a new entrant's ability to compete.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12298 COMMISSIONER NOEL: This position sort of runs contrary to the position of the CAB, which was presented yesterday. Do you have any comments on that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12299 MR. MORRISSETTE: That's correct.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12300 COMMISSIONER NOEL: That's pretty short.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12301 There is one other point. At paragraph 28 of your written submission you are talking about discussions with, I would guess, distributors or BDUs for their non‑programming alphanumeric channels, their VOD service, and websites and web portals.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12302 Then you say:
"Failure to strike a deal, or to agree to distribution on any one of these distribution channels, could bring discussions to a complete standstill on all platforms, and could effectively shut a specialty service undertaking out of a significant market segment. In this multimedia world, what programming service can afford not to be front and centre on mobile applications or the home page of a digital set‑top box?" (As read)
LISTNUM 1 \l 12303 Have you experienced such a type of halt in your negotiations with any BDUs that carry all of those different platforms?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12304 MR. MORRISSETTE: Let me first mention that we have had our traditional BDU activities in the cable and satellite areas, and the emerging area for distribution of television services, as well as other forms of content, such as VOD‑type clips, or any other elements of programming or information, will be through wireless. It is another new platform to distribute content to Canadian consumers across Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12305 Without exception, discussions relate to distributing content that we provide through cable and satellite, and, as well, if the player already owns a mobile undertaking that relates to that platform.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12306 These discussions take place. There is some form of linkage that often gets discussed to provide content across different platforms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12307 I am wondering if Paul would like to add something.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12308 MR. TEMPLE: In the Commission's Public Notice, we took the issue of diversity not just in the narrow confines of television, we looked at all distribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12309 To us, wireless is just cable without a cable at the end. It's the same thing. And, as an information‑based service, it is important for us to be on these platforms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12310 And, yes, discussions have occurred with distribution undertakings where we have basically been told: It's free or you are not there, because I can put an American service on, or anyone else on that I want. So, if you don't like it...
LISTNUM 1 \l 12311 They are not all that way. That may be the extreme, but that's the potential that we face if we want to look at what is the future coming.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12312 I think the Commission is trying to look ahead. Wireless, for us, is going to be increasingly important.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12313 If a set‑top box automatically tunes to a page that is a walled garden, inevitably there is going to be weather there. Now, whose weather is going to be there? It's important for us to be there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12314 That is an area where there are few, if any, rules, and we are at the mercy of the distributor. It is important as an information‑based service to make sure that our weather button, or icon, or whatever, is on that walled garden, because every time a consumer turns their set‑top box on, that is the page that is displayed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12315 MR. PERREAULT: To answer your question more directly, Commissioner Noël, when we negotiate agreements with BDUs, as we own 100 percent of our content, because we produce it, and it is 100 percent Canadian ‑‑ we don't acquire any content, we produce everything we air.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12316 As we own it, there are no restrictions to, basically, offer this content on a multiplatform.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12317 More and more, when we have discussions now, the discussion on the regulated service, which the CRTC licenses, also has an impact on discussions for other means of delivery, might it be high‑speed internet, wireless, providing weather information for the ISP activity of the BDU, or what have you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12318 CONSEILLERE NOEL:
Monsieur Morrissette, vous avez porté plusieurs chapeaux dans votre
carrière dans le système canadien de laradiodiffusion. Vous avez été, comme quelques‑unes des
personnes qui sont passées devant nous depuis hier, président de Cancom, je
pense qu'on a vu trois anciens présidents de Cancom en vous comptant, peut‑être
un président actuel de Cancom aussi hier après‑midi. Donc, vous connaissez bien la distribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12319 Vous
avez été opérateur de station de radio que vous avez vendue il y a quelques
années.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12320 Pour
autant que je sache, vous êtes aussi membre du conseil d'administration d'une
des plus grosses entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion au Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12321 Est‑ce
que ça ne vous aide pas dans vos négociations d'avoir tous ces contacts ou ces
chapeaux ou anciens chapeaux?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12322 M.
MORRISSETTE: Ça aide dans les
connaissances et les expériences, mais chaque négociation est une négociation
en soi‑même et je dois dire que des négociations, c'est du cas par cas.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12323 C'est
évident qu'on dépend beaucoup de la popularité de nos services qui représentent
une valeur importante pour les distributeurs et de leurs clients, de leurs
abonnés.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12324 Mais
ultimement, on dépend vraiment des relations ou des points de vue de ceux avec
qui on négocie.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12325 La
grande majorité de nos négociations vont très très bien. De temps en temps c'est un peu moins facile.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12326 CONSEILLERE
NOEL: J'ai entendu, hier après‑midi,
monsieur Shaw et ses thuriféraires nous mentionner le fait que c'était facile
de négocier, on s'entendait assez rapidement sur notamment le tarif, quelques
mois de négociations et tout se concluait de façon satisfaisante.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12327 Est‑ce
que vous avez une entente d'affiliation signée avec Shaw?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12328 M.
MORRISSETTE: A ma connaissance, c'est le
seul distributeur avec qui nous ne possédons pas d'entente.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12329 CONBSEILLERE
NOEL: Je vous remercie.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12330 Je
n'ai pas d'autres questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12331 THE CHAIRPERSON: Rita?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12332 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12333 I want to take you back to paragraph 21 for a second. You do say that you don't know where that line is, if we are to talk about a cap on ownership of specialty services, but you did quote a figure in paragraph 21, which is that of 39 percent, which is the model used in the United States. So let's go with that for a second.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12334 I do appreciate that you say "perhaps a similar cap could be implemented in Canada."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12335 I have two questions. First of all, how would this relate to what the Competition Bureau looks at?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12336 My understanding ‑‑ and perhaps our Chairman could correct me if I am wrong ‑‑ is that, certainly in transfer of ownerships, that is one of the primary things they look at, that is, market dominance in terms of advertising.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12337 Are you, therefore, suggesting that we add another layer, as the CRTC, of analysis to market dominance in the area of advertising?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12338 MR. MORRISSETTE: When we look at the radio market, there is a rule that says you cannot own more than so many AM and FM stations in a given market. For television we have a similar rule, despite the existence of the Competition Bureau.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12339 I guess what we are suggesting is an extension of those rules that already exist in two of the key media segments in this country, so that the next segment of specialty television services ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12340 Right now there is no rule, so we could adopt a similar rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12341 We don't know what that percentage should be. We did mention in our brief 39 percent, but that is an arbitrary number that really is subject to a lot of research that we have not undertaken.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12342 However, at some point in time, there is an ownership level that becomes problematic, and that should be identified and it should be monitored. Notwithstanding that, then each transaction would continue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12343 It would be a guideline, and each transaction would continue and be considered on its own.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12344 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And if someone were to conduct that research and come up with an acceptable percentage, would you suggest that current specialty services be grandfathered?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12345 MR. MORRISSETTE: Absolutely, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12346 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12347 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12348 THE CHAIRPERSON: Stuart?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12349 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief, and I apologize ahead of time that I may sound just a little Darwinian.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12350 I don't want you to think that I have come to a conclusion, but I think, unless we test what you say here today, and test it hard, we can't develop a strong enough record.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12351 I guess, really, the basis of my confusion, or interest, with what I have heard you say, and what I have read of your submission, is that I don't understand why we should guarantee your future prosperity and profitability.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12352 You have chosen, you said today, not to grow, not to go in other directions. You have chosen a niche business plan. You have put all of your money into it. You have put all of your effort into it. You have grown it from 100 employees to 400 employees. You have invested in state‑of‑the‑art equipment. But you can't afford to lose anything that you have now. You can't afford to lose market share. You can't afford to have your rates cut. You can't afford to compete.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12353 So you come to us and essentially say: Subsidize our business. Subsidize it not by handing us directly money, but by doing it indirectly, guaranteeing us access to subscribers, guaranteeing us a constant flow of revenue out of which we can grow and prosper.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12354 Of course, who wouldn't want to do that for every Canadian? It would be wonderful. But why should we do it for you?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12355 I just don't understand where you are coming from, and I think that's a really key issue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12356 Diversity of voices doesn't necessarily mean your voice. Why should you be one of the lucky winners, and why can't you do it on your own?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12357 MR. MORRISSETTE: We have been operating our service based on a consistent set of rules ‑‑ regulatory rules ‑‑ that have been in place for about 20 years or so, and that have evolved over that period.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12358 Our Canadian broadcasting system has evolved as one of the top systems in the world. That has been through creating a balance between content and distribution since the distribution of specialty services started in the early to mid‑eighties.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12359 I remember, when I was running Cancom in those days, we were the first company in the world to, basically, scramble a satellite signal and sell it to cable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12360 In those days, by the way, there were hundreds and hundreds of cable companies that existed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12361 So we have evolved with this system, which has become a very excellent system, and we have achieved that balance between content and distribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12362 To, overnight, change those rules of engagement is a very material event.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12363 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Maybe I could stop you there, if you don't mind.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12364 What happens if we do it over a period of time?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12365 What happens if we say, "There is going to be a new world, and we are going to give you three years for transition, or five years for transition"?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12366 That is what we are doing for the move from analog to digital. We are not throwing a switch overnight, we are giving people time to adjust.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12367 I understand that the world has been good for you. The world of regulation has been good for you, but there are a lot of other players out there who are saying: It is hampering us. It is putting us at risk. We need to be able to fly a little more freely or we are not going to be able to take on the enemy without.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12368 What if we are trying to find a middle ground and, unfortunately, the middle ground isn't the way it has always been?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12369 Can you respond to that? Are you nimble enough to respond to that in some way, or does it have to be a protected environment for you?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12370 MR. MORRISSETTE: What we are suggesting is evolution, not revolution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12371 The other thing, too, is that there will always be a need for a balance between content and distribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12372 What we are suggesting is not the complete maintenance of existing rules. We are talking about an evolution to a set of rules that provides ‑‑ continues to provide safeguards for all providers of content, big or small.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12373 If we want to encourage the preservation of existing content players, and to encourage the entrance of new content players to our system, these safeguards will be required.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12374 To completely eliminate them hands over the keys, basically, to the distributor.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12375 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Consider the opposite side of the coin. If we cut back the protections that you enjoy, we open the market for other creators.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12376 Right now you have a lock on it, in a sense. You are a hard competitor to get around in the weather business. There may be other people who can deliver it more cheaply, accurately, sufficiently to meet consumer demands. Maybe you have grown too big.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12377 This is all speculative, but maybe you have grown too big. Maybe you have grown too fancy ‑‑ too much gadgetry, too much wizardry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12378 Maybe some lean, maybe not necessarily mean, but more nimble entrant could come in and, to use the common parlance, eat your lunch.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12379 It would still be a Canadian provider. They would be doing it differently, and people might be happy with it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12380 Why should you have a guaranteed income for life?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12381 MR. TEMPLE: If I could make a couple of comments, I think the opening premise is incorrect, in that we aren't protected. We compete very strenuously in the market for viewership. We have since the beginning; not only in terms of other weather providers, but simply to get the attention of the viewer to our service.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12382 We have a great deal of competition, far more than a BDU faces.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12383 In addition, I think our success on the internet has shown that we are a competitor, and we can do well. But we are talking about an artificial environment, one regulated by the Commission, where there are huge gatekeepers, and it is not an open, free market at all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12384 If it's an open, free market, we will compete. We have shown that on the internet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12385 But this is an artificial environment. It is one that is regulated under the construct of the Broadcasting Act, and there are certain rules that we have to operate under, as well as other people.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12386 And we are faced with people who can, at the blink of an eye, put us out of business.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12387 That's not competition. It is not that they are going to have a better product, they are just going to decide: If I put these guys on a package, I will put a couple of extra coins in my pocket.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12388 It has nothing to do with competition at all, and that is the issue we are raising. It is distribution ‑‑ broad distribution. If we are guaranteed broad distribution, we will compete.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12389 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If you are guaranteed broad distribution, but that's like going to the Hilton Hotel and saying: I stayed there in 1970 for 40 bucks. Here is 40 bucks; can I have the suite? They will say: No, things have changed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12390 What if we say to you, "We will set up a really strong system of undue preference/undue discrimination rules, with really serious remedies, fines, and really quick administrative treatment"?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12391 You go out and make your best deal. You go out and tell distributors that you have a product that people want, and you sell your product. If, for some reason, they are keeping you out; if, for some reason, it amounts to an undue preference, or undue discrimination, you can come to us and we will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12392 That would seem to me a fair trade‑off, but that's not what you are saying. You are saying: Guarantee us 23 cents a month for every subscriber in Canada, and we will compete on the internet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12393 I don't think that's good enough in this day and age, frankly.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12394 MR. PERREAULT: Mr. Langford, I think we are going to have this debate ‑‑ and the Chair is about to say it ‑‑ in an upcoming CRTC Hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12395 However, on your premise, you also have to figure out ‑‑ as my colleagues Paul and Pierre have said, we live in a regulated environment. If we have conditions of licence to abide by, we will. But, also, these conditions of licence are in an environment that will evolve in time and space, and if everything equally evolves in time and space, we will arrive probably at the situation where we can compete in a just and equitable environment.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12396 We have no problem with that. Leave the system to evolve ‑‑ and I guess the discussion will be upcoming, but, as a company, we have no problem competing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12397 What you just outlined in terms of dispute resolution, you should look at what is happening in other countries, like Europe and France, with the CSA, for example.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12398 I could give you an example of what is going on there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12399 There are some regulations that are in existence that allow just and equitable competition in an environment where BDUs, as Pierre said, can make a decision that could affect the long‑term health of a company.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12400 It is also interesting that we have these discussions, but we never talk about content.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12401 THE CHAIRPERSON: You took the words out of my mouth. I think we are slipping over into BDU hearings, in terms of mobile devices and the New Media Hearings, which we will have sometime in the new year.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12402 Thank you very much for your presentation. Unfortunately, time marches on, so we have to go on to the next presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12403 MR. MORRISSETTE: I would like to correct one comment that was made. Commissioner Noël's earlier question made a reference to my being on the board of a large distributor. That is not the case.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12404 I was on the board of a large wireless company up until a few years ago.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12405 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12406 Madam
Boulet?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12407 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, Monsieur le
Président.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12408 J'inviterais
maintenant le prochain intervenant qui est Service Vidéo de Bell de se
présenter.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM
1 \l 12409 LA
SECRÉTAIRE: Monsieur Mirko Binic va
débuter la présentation en nous présentant son groupe de présentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12410 Vous
aurez dix minutes pour votre présentation par la suite.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12411 Merci.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12412 M.
BIBIC: Merci, mademoiselle Boulet.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12413 Bonjour,
Monsieur le Président et distingués conseillers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12414 Comme
vous l'avez constaté déjà, je suis Mirko Bibic, chef des affaires
réglementaires pour Bell Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12415 Je
suis accompagné à ma droite de Chris Frank, vice‑président programmation
au Service Vidéo de Bell; à ma gauche de David Elder, vice‑président
droits réglementaires; et à sa gauche Susie Lindsay, conseiller juridique.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12416 Nous
sommes heureux de l'occasion qui nous est offerte de participer à cet examen et
de rappeler que Bell souscrit aux principes de la diversité.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12417 Ces
derniers moi le Conseil a confirmé qu'il considère que les intervenants de
l'industrie des communications profiteraient d'une approche moins contraignante
que l'approche protectrice et normative traditionnelle du Canada en matière de
réglementation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12418 Bell
recommande pour sa part que l'on mise davantage sur les forces du marché et que
l'on adopte une réglementation qui sont la moins intrusive possible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12419 A robust diversity of voices prevails in Canadian broadcasting, and no new regulations are required to sustain it. The imposition of additional regulations should occur only where necessary to correct a market failure, or to achieve specific policy objectives, when these objectives would not otherwise be met through the operation of market forces.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12420 Mr. Chairman, I think so far in this hearing much has been said to convince the Commission, or to try to convince the Commission, that no diversity problem exists today, and we agree with those views in large part.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12421 But we recognize your challenge, which is: How to analyze and identify a diversity issue, should there be one, and how to develop a regulatory response in the event there is a diversity problem.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12422 So we recognize the importance of this discourse, and we recognize that diversity is a significant objective today and will remain so.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12423 That is why we recommend, as the next logical regulatory response to a marketplace which relies increasingly on market forces, that the Commission strive to bring greater certainty to industry stakeholders by adopting a set of guidelines regarding the analytical framework you would use to analyze a problem and the regulatory responses you would develop.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12424 I think at this point I would like to clarify what we mean by guidelines. I found the use of the term throughout this hearing, in some of the submissions, rather confusing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12425 We don't mean guidelines in the form proposed by CBC/Radio‑Canada, which is a rigid set of ex ante rules. What we mean by guidelines is what you would, Mr. Chairman, obviously be very familiar with from your days at the Competition Bureau, like the Merger Enforcement Guidelines or the Abuse of Dominance Guidelines ‑‑ an analytical framework that we can all latch onto and understand how we are going to deal with a problem when it comes before us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12426 Such guidelines, in our submission, would allow stakeholders to judge for themselves as to how the Commission would approach the task of identifying issues of concern and the remedies which might apply in the event that diversity issues were to be found.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12427 In this regard, while much has been said on whether we are faced with a diversity problem today, we find that very little has been offered up on the appropriate regulatory response, should a problem be identified.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12428 There has been very little discussion, in my view anyway, on appropriate remedies.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12429 We propose, therefore, a layered approach to addressing diversity issues, where and when they are identified.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12430 First, as you obviously know, we would like a reliance on market forces, in keeping with the Commission's predisposition wherever possible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12431 Second, if market forces are alone judged to be insufficient in a particular case, an expectation that the parties involved would develop a voluntary code of conduct, as has proven successful in other situations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12432 Third, if market forces and voluntary codes are judged to be insufficient in a particular case, mediated negotiations between the parties involved, leading, if necessary, to an arbitrated decision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12433 Fourth, if these first three steps are judged to be insufficient in a particular case, and only where necessary, a formal order or imposition of a condition of licence addressing the issue in question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12434 If implemented, this recommendation would achieve the following benefits, which we feel are critically important, given the pace and scope of technological change impacting the industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12435 First, it would ensure that the Commission oversight is forward looking and adaptable to changing circumstances. And we feel that adaptability is critical.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12436 Second, it would align Commission oversight with the four regulatory principles ‑‑ transparency, fairness, predictability and timeliness ‑‑ which the Chairman characterized should govern the regulatory process.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12437 I would like to stop here and actually say a word on the issue of predictability specifically.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12438 It is true that many of us who are regulated crave regulatory certainty. Actually, some of us crave de‑regulation, but when we can't have that, regulatory certainty is a pretty good principle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12439 However, we don't, in our submission, crave the kind of certainty which would stop particular transactions or particular licence applications dead in their tracks, right at the get‑go.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12440 The certainty we strive for is to understand, as I have mentioned, how you are going to analyze a problem, and how would you deal with it, should there be an issue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12441 With that information, as business people, we could all sit down and craft our deals, negotiate our deals, and come to a judgment as to whether or not it would pass. We could modify it, if necessary; change the price; allocate the risk one way or another.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12442 That is the kind of certainty we are looking for from the Commission in matters like these and other matters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12443 Back to the benefits of our recommendation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12444 Third, another benefit is that it would afford the Commission the greatest flexibility, responsiveness and probability of success.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12445 Communications policy affects the ideas that circulate in the marketplace, and it would be short‑sighted, in our view, to protect existing preferences via the establishment of ex ante regulations at the expense of developing new ideas and ways to distribute them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12446 Fourth, we feel that our proposal would allow the Commission to adopt more efficient and proportionate regulatory responses to the future of diversity and plurality by, for example, using the layered approach to the regulatory responses that I just mentioned.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12447 This manner of addressing diversity and plurality is preferable to the blunt instrument of mechanistic, formulated ex ante regulation. New and rigid rules based on today's circumstances are inappropriate.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12448 And yet, however forward looking the Commission proposes to be, it cannot determine with any reasonable degree of accuracy or assurance what concerns may prevail when future issues arise. The broadcasting industry is too dynamic, with too many factors at play, to consider regulating it by using hard and fast numeric assessments on an ex ante basis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12449 Further, any meaningful examination of diversity which purports to be forward looking must consider the role of other media. Dramatic technological evolution has had an obviously profound impact on the industry, resulting in much change. Thus, diversity in other media complements and supplements that of broadcast television.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12450 The reality of the Canadian media experience now features news, information and entertainment sources for not only traditional broadcast television, but also new media, such as internet websites of every description. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that, in any examination of a diversity of voices, conventional television should not be considered in isolation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12451 Of special note to us, with our new media, which are developing and changing rapidly, low barriers to internet market entry extend the opportunity to create a voice to almost everyone, thus contributing to the cultural objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12452 A regulatory structure that either pays insufficient regard to new media, or tries to impose firm rules on new media ownership, would put at risk the opportunities and potential that new media have to achieve the objectives of the Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12453 En
résumé, Bell encourage le Conseil à adopter une série de directives de base
définissant le cadre analytique à utiliser pour évaluer la concentration de la
propriété et les questions de diversité ainsi que les solutions à imposer en
cas de problème.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12454 Cela
apporterait plus de certitudes sur le marché quant aux attentes du Conseil à
cet égard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12455 Voilà
qui conclut notre déclaration et nous sommes disponibles pour répondre à vos
questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12456 Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12457 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12458 I have asked everybody the same question, so I guess I should ask you, too, although I think I know what the answer is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12459 The proposals by CBC, I gather, you do not support.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12460 MR. BIBIC: We do not support them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12461 Actually, I had quite a big speech ready about how their rules are kind of arbitrary, without any regard to the state of competition or the state of diversity in the market, but I think the CBC panel pretty much confessed yesterday morning that they pulled their numbers right out of the air.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Secondly, you suggest an ex post approach rather than an ex ante approach. You, of course, appreciate that, as a competition lawyer, that also means you must have significant penalties or ways of dealing with violations of failure to comply.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12463 We do not have those, so does this mean that you implicitly would support the CRTC being given the necessary powers to enforce its orders?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12464 MR. BIBIC: I will answer that question in two parts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12465 First, we do propose a case‑by‑case assessment of an issue, but I think, in terms of remedies, we have to distinction between the situation where a transaction is brought before you, or a licence application, for example, is brought before you ‑‑ and, there, I don't think it is a question of ex post regulation needing penalties that bite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12466 There, what we are saying is, analyze the issue, take a look at it using a coherent analytical framework, and should there be an issue, then you can impose a remedy at that time, from "Let it go, the market forces will take care of it," all the way to the other end ‑‑ block the transaction or impose some kind of remedy which requires a party to divest, for example.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12467 That is not ex post, it is case‑by‑case.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12468 Let's take another situation. Parties have merged, you have approved it, we go on, and then there is improper behaviour in the marketplace. At that point we are getting into ex post assessments of the situation, where remedies, in the form that you mentioned in your question, become relevant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12469 There is a range of options available to the Commission today. The Commission could haul the offending party onto the carpet and issue a declaratory or mandatory order, and those things could be registered with the Federal Court, and there could be contempt proceedings. That is one obvious tool that is available to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12470 But, ultimately, to get directly to your question, I think, provided that the regulatory regime in broadcasting is reformed, as may be the case ‑‑ and we will debate this in January ‑‑ to the extent where it is more reliant on market forces, and that requires, therefore, the Commission to have more enforcement tools at its disposal, we wouldn't object to that, of course, depending on the specific proposals.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12471 THE CHAIRPERSON: Going to your suggested framework, obviously I see the origins, and you referred to Merger Enforcement Guidelines or any guidelines administered by the Competition Bureau.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12472 Your very first step is: "...reliance on market forces, in keeping with the Commission's predisposition wherever possible."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12473 I don't know where "in keeping with the Commission's predisposition wherever possible..."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12474 That is really taken out of a telecom context, rather than a broadcasting context.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12475 As you know, the goals of the Broadcasting Act are not economic. They are mostly cultural and social. There is some economic nuance in there, but the thrust is Canadian content and access to the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12476 So what makes you say that reliance should be on market forces, in keeping with the predisposition ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12477 How do market forces drive you towards the provision of Canadian content?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12478 MR. BIBIC: I think that perhaps the words "predisposition of the Commission" is a slightly aggressive use of the term.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12479 It wasn't really a reference, actually, to the state of telecom regulation at all; it was more a reflection of some of the things we have read from yourself, for example, saying that it might be time to re‑examine the state of broadcast regulation and see if we might not be able to lighten the regulatory load.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12480 The mandate of the Dunbar/Leblanc team was to see which regulations remain appropriate, which should be streamlined, et cetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12481 So it was more of a reflection of those events, although I would concede perhaps a little bit aggressive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12482 We do state in our opening statement that, quite clearly, we recognize that the Broadcasting Act is not merely economic, and that is why I said right at the beginning that, where market forces can't deal with the state of competition, or can't achieve by themselves particular policy objectives in the Act, then look at potentially imposing a remedy.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12483 So we do recognize that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12484 But market forces, in our view, will operate, actually, to meet the objectives of the Act.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12485 One example ‑‑ and it is kind of a large example ‑‑ is the state of new media. These new media ‑‑ the internet is allowing for the delivery of many Canadian voices at, actually, very low cost. That, in our view, furthers the objectives of the Act. That is purely as a result of market forces.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12486 From the Bell ExpressVu side of our organization, clearly we recognize that we have to compete out there to gain subscribers. We have to compete against every single major cable company in the country, and we have to do what we can to remain relevant and to be the distribution vehicle of choice for subscribers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12487 That is an example of market forces forcing us to tailor our service to what consumers want, and we will put on the air ‑‑ we will distribute what consumers want to watch and hear and listen to.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12488 THE CHAIRPERSON: This framework, have you actually tried to develop something along those lines?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12489 Your parallel to competition only takes you so far. Take merger guidelines. The goal in merger guidelines, obviously, is to prevent market power, so that a person cannot make a temporary or significant price increase without suffering competition.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12490 That is a very nice, established concept. There are models on how to measure it. We have a whole economic theory and models on how to measure it: what is a market; how do you define what are the substitutes; et cetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12491 How do you apply a concept like that to broadcasting, where you have this whole gamut of objectives?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12492 I am trying to follow your train of thought.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12493 If we say, "Fine, Bell, this is what we will use," what do we put in that guideline? What are we using to measure every transaction that comes before us?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12494 MR. BIBIC: Mr. Chairman, I have some thoughts on this ‑‑ some thoughts ‑‑ both in terms of process and the basic structure of what a guideline might look like.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12495 We are not proposing that one should take the Merger Enforcement Guidelines, erase a few words, and change ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12496 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, of course not.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12497 MR. BIBIC: But, to the extent that it is a very difficult task to develop guidelines like this, I would propose to you that it's an impossible task to set forth accurate pre‑set rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12498 If one can't develop a guideline, one certainly cannot develop a pre‑set rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12499 The benefit of a guideline is that it is adaptable, and one can roll with the punches and adjust to the market circumstances.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12500 Otherwise, with pre‑set rules, there is a potential significant cost to pay if those aren't established correctly from the outset.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12501 We all know how difficult it is to change a policy once it is in place. It is very hard. If one can't do it, what ultimately happens is that issues come before you and you realize that "Maybe we should let this through, but the policy says no."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12502 What then happens? Exceptions are created.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12503 Then the exceptions are relied on constantly, which makes a mockery of the rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12504 The only way out of that is to rely on the rule and not the exception, and then you kind of have to say no to things that might be meritorious.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12505 So there is a cost to pay for the rules, but I do have ideas on guidelines, if you want me to continue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12506 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you thinking of a single guideline, or are you thinking of a set of guidelines ‑‑ say, one guideline for access; one guideline for content; one guideline for ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12507 MR. BIBIC: There could be three components ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12508 THE CHAIRPERSON: You put this forward, so you must have spent some time thinking about how this would play out.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12509 MR. BIBIC: Yes, I have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12510 I think that all three of those components could form part of a single guideline, which would be in three parts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12511 What I would propose be done is, first, we go through the January hearing on specialty and pay TV regulations and BDU regulations. Coming out of that we will have a framework, and we will know under which framework everyone will operate. From there, guidelines could be drafted and put out to the industry for commentary.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12512 What would they look like? I think there would be one part that discusses general principles that the Commission would preoccupy itself with when faced with a diversity issue, whether or not it was commercial editorial voices or access to content, for example, or journalistic integrity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12513 I use market definition not in the sense of the megs, but in the sense of the scope of inquiry. What is the nature of the audience in question? Is it local? Is it regional? Is it national?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12514 Maybe it's international, although I suspect that is a bit less relevant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12515 What is the service in question? What is the nature of the service? Is it news and information, or current events, which might require ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12516 You could say this to us: That would merit greater scrutiny than a reality TV channel or the Game Show Channel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12517 What is the nature of the licensee? What is the nature of the service? And what are the competing voices?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12518 You could say to us: We are going to look at what the competing voices are in the market, taking into account regulated and unregulated sources.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12519 Right now, I don't think any of us knows exactly whether or not the Commission would look at unregulated sources. Here is an opportunity to do that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12520 What other factors? We take a forward‑looking approach.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12521 The Commission could say: When we are faced with a diversity issue, what we are going to do is, we are going to look at consumer trends, at the trends in technology.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12522 Then, that brings us, ultimately, to the very difficult question of measuring the impact of the change proposed to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12523 That's where, I think, all of us have a little bit more work to do, and I don't have the silver bullet answer, but at least we could know that the Commission would be preoccupied with examining whether or not the transaction would have an impact on editorial voices, on content, on journalistic content, on advertising markets, on distribution channels.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12524 It could indicate that it will pay particular attention to whether or not the proposed parties have something to bring to the table in terms of bringing value added, or the efficiency enhancing nature of the transaction, which allows it to actually expand the nature of diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12525 These are some thoughts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12526 Of course, there is the remedy side, and I have gone on at length on that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12527 Where I don't have an answer is how you measure the substantial lessening of diversity, or the impact on diversity. I just don't know if there is even a proxy that one could establish over which, if crossed, the Commission would pay more particular attention.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12528 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is a key question, and other jurisdictions have tried to address it. Nobody really has, successfully, and they are all very germane to the particular market conditions that they are facing and their aspirations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12529 Would I do you an injustice in saying that you are sort of halfway between the CBC and Astral, with the CBC saying "Let's have some hard‑and‑fast rules," and Astral saying "Let's do it on a case‑by‑case basis, and we have to sell ourselves on the merits of our proposal"?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12530 You are sort of in the middle, saying: Let's have some predictability, because we will know the approach. At least you will outline your approach. You will put it down as a regulatory ‑‑ you call it "framework" ‑‑ so I know how to structure it. I don't know what the outcome will be. There is no hard‑and‑fast rule. On the other hand, it is not totally case‑by‑case. At least I know that I have to go through this analytical process.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12531 MR. BIBIC: I personally don't like the description of being halfway between the two, if CBC is here and Astral is here.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12532 We are over here, because, ultimately, we are saying case‑by‑case, but I think the point that I am trying to make ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12533 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am talking conceptually here.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12534 MR. BIBIC: The point we are trying to make is, while we align ourselves with the case‑by‑case assessment approach, we think there has been a complete absence of discussion as to the analytical framework.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12535 At least struggle with that. Try to get something down on paper on that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12536 And, certainly, we think there has been an absence of a good discussion here on a layered approach to remedies, because there is a range of things that could be done, depending on the nature of the problem at the time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12537 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any other jurisdiction which uses this approach?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12538 Or, is this purely a Bell creation?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12539 MR. BIBIC: If there are others, I don't know about them. We came up with it as an option to put to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12540 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are quite right, there are other hearings that we have to cross‑reference, like the BDU and specialty hearings, new media, et cetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12541 Also, we have announced that you have until October 5th to make written submissions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12542 If you have some idea of putting flesh on the bones of this framework, I would be very interested in that. It is the first really new approach to this issue that I have seen, and I would like to see a bit more on how it would play out, how you would attempt to do some of these things.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12543 MR. BIBIC: We would be delighted to do that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12544 If we can't crack the measurement nut by then, we will certainly, when we come up with a good idea, send it to you, in any event.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12545 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you can, you will deserve the Nobel Prize.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12546 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you could just share some thoughts with us, that would be appreciated.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12547 Are there any questions from my fellow commissioners?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12548 I guess you have stunned us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12549 Thank you very much. It is a very interesting proposal, and I do appreciate it, because, clearly, you have tried to put yourselves in our shoes as to how we would approach it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12550 You have understood the problem, although I am not so sure you have found a solution, but that is already halfway there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12551 Thank you very much for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12552 MR. BIBIC: Thank you. Much appreciated.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12553 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12554 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12555 We will adjourn for lunch, and we will be back at 1:30.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1218 / Suspension à 1218
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1331 / Reprise à 1331
LISTNUM 1 \l 12556 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12557 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12558 We will now proceed with our next intervener, Evanov Communications Inc. Ms. Carmela Laurignano will be introducing her panel, after which you will have 10 minutes for your presentation. Please go ahead.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12559 MS LAURIGNANO: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair von Finkenstein, Vice‑Chair Arpin, commissioners and Commission staff.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12560 My name is Carmela Laurignano and I am Vice‑President of Evanov Communications Inc. Joining me today for this presentation are, to my right, Bill Evanov, President of Evanov Communications Inc. and Sean Moreman, our in‑house legal counsel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12561 We are pleased to appear before you today to expand on our filed brief and to respond to the submission and presentations made in response to this call for comments.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12562 To begin with, we would like to summarize our view of the issues. Firstly, plurality is necessary for diversity. Secondly, concentration does not lead to diversity. Thirdly, radio cannot be replaced by new media. Fourthly, independent broadcasters provide balance to the system. And lastly, diversity must be sustainable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12563 We subscribe to basic economic principles, one of which is that competition is a good thing. One of the values of competition is that it drives the market to better serve consumers and frequently drives innovation. The arguments used to support consolidation of media ownership run counter to this.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12564 It has been argued that consolidation will improve service to consumers, creating economies of scale that allow for increased provision of programming to all audiences, including niche interest groups and smaller demographics. We see little evidence of this. Per capita tuning and broadcast media is on the decline.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12565 All of the markets we looked at have less tuning today than a decade ago and, in most cases, there is a clear downward trend established. The Decima Study commissioned by the CRTC shows satisfaction scores are not that impressive. Only 57 per cent of television and 39 per cent of radio respondents are satisfied with these media as a source of news and information. As detailed in our filing, our own tracking of consumer perception meshes with these findings.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12566 In our studies we frequently find that consumer perception is that many radio stations are indistinguishable from the competition, repetition of tracks is too high, song selection is limited and local news is insufficient.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12567 MR. MOREMAN: Data from Mediabase supports many of these findings. We were surprised to hear that the CAB described Ottawa‑Gatineau as an example of diversity in the face of consolidation. Our examination of the spin data from last week calls into question what is meant by diversity in this context. Thirty‑three point six per cent of Rogers' tracks are duplicated across the other ownership groups, 41.5 per cent of Astral's, 44 per cent of CTV Globemedia, 44.5 per cent of NewCap and 72.2 per cent of standard spins were all duplicated in the market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12568 Although the duplication within ownership groups was only 10 per cent, the true measure of diversity must be on the market level. Certainly, that is how the consumer hears it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12569 In our focus group research we hear comments like the song that was on the radio when they went into the mall was on again two hours later when they came out or they switched stations to get away from a song only to find it playing on another service.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12570 The notion of differentiated services uniquely serving demographic groups and improved economic positions inspiring creation of distinctive services has not transpired in practice.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12571 MS LAURIGNANO: Simply put, stronger broadcasting groups has not translated into happier or more loyal listeners. Some of our colleagues will say new media is eroding our share and nothing can be done to stop it. We disagree. As it was 10 years ago, radio remains music on demand, a first stop for local news and information and the number one source of new music and, in particular, Canadian new music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12572 Radio has a role to play and a clear opportunity. We believe consumers have been abandoned for profits and that the passion that once ruled the broadcast media has been replaced by spreadsheets and accountability to shareholders.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12573 We understand the challenges, but believe a realistic balance must be restored to the system, a system that should boast both diversity and plurality. A system that at one time concentrated on growing audiences instead of spending time trying to stem their exodus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12574 MR. EVANOV: We will now address our recommendations for the radio industry. The key is to strengthen independents. We believe that plurality is one of the underlying conditions of diversity of voices. As such and as we described in our written submission, much about a regulated system currently acts as a disincentive to diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12575 There are barriers to entry for independent players and advantages for large broadcasters that cannot be matched. New owners have huge challenges to deal with, but we think they play a vital role in bringing listeners back to the medium.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12576 So we recommend that the Commission take into consideration the totality of a broadcaster's media holdings when considering the suitability of an applicant in its proposal for a new licence. To achieve diversity recognition must be given to those applicants that bring not only new programming format but also new voices to the markets.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12577 We agree a test for concentration that applies equally well to all regions of Canada is difficult to establish. However, we suggest that the current radio ownership rules that apply to frequencies could be expanded to apply to all media holdings.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12578 For example, in the case of markets where there are eight or fewer stations no single broadcast entity can own more than three local media, that is any combination of radio and TV. And in competitive markets no more than four. Clearly, some broadcasters would be offside with this policy in various markets. What exists could be grandfathered in, but going forward we would reintroduce real diversity in the system by introducing new voices into the market. These limits are recommendations, whether these actual caps are workable would need further study.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12579 Our second recommendation qualifies our first. The Commission must also consider the sustainability of that diversity. We recommend that unless there are dire prevailing conditions that can be addressed at a public hearing, the Commission should require all new licence holders to commit to at least one licence term.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12580 We have recent examples where new independent voices did not last for a single term before selling out to a larger corporation. In these instances was the sale necessitated by economic or market conditions? As a result, these markets have lost an independent broadcaster. We contend this is not good for the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12581 Our third recommendation is that the Commission expedite wherever possible the strengthening of independent broadcasters by fast‑tracking approval on such operational issues as tower relocation or improving competitive balance, such as providing an expanded signal within the market where there is concentration of ownership.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12582 We agree with Vice‑Chair Arpin's point yesterday, that diversity should be represented in ownership structures. We believe the Commission should give preferential consideration to applicants that extend ownership to designated groups within the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12583 The rash of new applications demonstrates that radio is a healthy medium, but for many the only route into the system is through licensing and not purchase. Consequently, we recommend that the media benefits be removed where the broadcaster purchasing is not a large broadcaster. The Commission already defines who is a large broadcaster and that definition could apply here.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12584 It is unlikely independents will be able to match the ability to raise the type of money of those broadcasters who have access to capital markets. However, if the benefits package were removed from purchases made by independents, the cost to enter would be lower, thereby encouraging expansion of independent voices through the purchase of established assets.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12585 MS LAURIGNANO: The broadcast system is a public trust and one we believe must be carefully preserved. The dire conditions forecast for radio in 1999 thankfully did not transpire and, instead, many of us operate in what is arguably one of the most profitable sectors in the Canadian industrial landscape.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12586 It is agreed consolidation has allowed larger Canadian broadcasters to compete on an international scale. However, we contend that something has been lost in this endeavour and all evidence suggests it is the consumer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12587 The answer to this problem is not to layer on more regulation to that which has been established. We think the solution lies in policies that recognize the importance of plurality to creating diversity and the need for real consumer choice. Independent broadcasters have shown their flexibility, creativity and commitment to develop new markets and new audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12588 Collectively, we have taken the risks, learned the lessons and believe we provide the balance between global aspirations and local considerations that are lacking today. We respectfully encourage the Commission to implement recommendations that achieve these goals.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12589 Lastly, I would like to just mention something. Commission Williams has been in hearings in the last couple of years where we have acknowledged your birthday. It just happened that, I think three or four years in a row, it was your birthday when we were in a hearing. Today happens to be Bill's birthday, so I am going to wish him a happy birthday.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12590 MR. MOREMAN: Happy birthday, Bill.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12591 MS LAURIGNANO: For a change, the tables are turned.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12592 We thank the Commission for asking us to appear today and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12593 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12594 I am somewhat unclear about your definition of diversity. You take issue with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters who suggest there is diversity in the Ottawa‑Gatineau market because there are five groups represented.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12595 So can you explain to me why you feel that is not diverse? I gather they do rebroadcast stuff from other regions, but doesn't diversity mean that they are more than one owner, more than one voice?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12596 Whether that voice sells or not, whether that is original or not, that is up to the broadcaster. Presumably, he takes the risk of what will happen in the market if he doesn't appeal to his audience.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12597 MS. LAURIGNANO: We were referring to, in this case, the duplication, the diversity in format and music, distinct music titles and the duplication that they referred to yesterday. And our analysis showed, which we did, that while it is true that there is not too much duplication, that is only in the case where it is in a single group.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12598 But when you take all the groups together and you do an analysis of what is being played in terms of musical diversity you will find that the duplication is quite the opposite of the impression that they gave. We actually have a document that we would be pleased to submit to show where that came from.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12599 The question about the diversity and the plurality ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let us go back. We asked everybody to come here to sort of address the issue in terms of plurality, in effect are there sufficient different voices from different owners and independents so we have different points of view, mainly editorial. That, as far as I can see, you have no issue with that, taking this example. You actually have five different radio voices here.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12601 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12602 THE CHAIRPERSON: But when it comes to diversity of programming choice you say we don't get it. Just because we have multiple owners doesn't necessarily mean you get diversity of ownership.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12603 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12604 THE CHAIRPERSON: You need independents, if I understand you correctly.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12605 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes. And our comments were in fact limited to the music that we were talking about, that is what that was referring to, the duplication and the lack of diversity in that regard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12606 THE CHAIRPERSON: O!àkay. And your recommendation about the eight rules. You make the recommendation, but then you come up with and say these limits are recommendations, whether the actual caps are workable would need further study. What exactly do you mean by whether they are workable?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12607 MS LAURIGNANO: Well, we mean that we obviously have not had the benefit of testing them or to put them into practice. This is an offering from what we have been able to gather in terms of our experience and in terms of what could work, what could not work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12608 We don't have a magic bullet by any stretch of the imagination about any number of the issues that we were talking about. Either this is a possible way of doing it and perhaps it warrants further investigation, maybe more consultation or some other form of determining whether it is feasible or not.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12609 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Stuart, do you have some questions?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12610 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes, Mr. Chair, thanks very much. Hello and thanks for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12611 I just want to clear one thing up. I noticed you had a couple recommendations in your written submission that didn't pop up this morning and I didn't know whether you had abandoned them or not. So let me just jump right to those if I could and then we can come back to the recommendations as you have ordered them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12612 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12613 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Getting near the end of your written submission, the second last page, you talk about some suggestions for format protection.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12614 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12615 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: And you speak there about freezing existing formats in the market after the awarding of new licences or a new licence and a new rule that would stop existing ‑‑ how does it work sort of, some form of format protection. I will just read what you have got here, should be accorded ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12616 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes, and the market ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12617 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: ‑‑ whether if that is achieved through allowing new applicants to alter their format prior to a hearing in response to changes in the market. That is right, so they see a change in the market and they get ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12618 MS LAURIGNANO: Right.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12619 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: ‑‑ or by freezing it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12620 MS LAURIGNANO: Right.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12621 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Are you still recommending this change?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12622 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes, we are recommending some changes. As you will note here, it is an or, these are examples of things that could be done. And it doesn't mean that we have to stop here or limit ourselves to these. Because the question that is begged, at what point do you draw the line? Because you could take it up to the awarding of the licence, but let us say the successful applicant will take the full two years to implement that format then, you know, you are just doing all kinds of other things.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12623 So perhaps another thing that could be added here could be that in the event that there is a format or a reorder in the market of some sort, as we have seen recently, for example, in Kelowna and other places, that perhaps, and this is another perhaps, then the Commission should go back and analyze what the status quo was at the time. And given, you know, that environment and how it looked and how it was proposed and if that was a quality of the application, you know, good and did the business plan fit and is there a hole now that that applicant could satisfy regardless of ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12624 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Essentially, you are looking for a fair chance here. You have put together a market study, you have put together all sorts of research.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12625 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12626 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You hire engineers, you hire lawyers, you put together an application. But once it is out there in the public some existing broadcaster can grab your idea before you even get there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12627 MS LAURIGNANO: That is right. And the thing is it is for the compound or for an independent broadcaster or somebody who is trying to enter into the market because, you know, whereas the cost of an application if somebody does it right, you know, you are looking at your consumer demand, your economic study, the expertise, all kinds of stuff. It is a lot of money for people. So how ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12628 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: That happened to you once, didn't it, in your Foxy station or whatever? But you still beat the pants off them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12629 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes, we did.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12630 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So, you know, you guys are tougher than you would like us to think, you know.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12631 Okay, anyway, we hear you on that and you are still adhering to that change. I wanted to just jump to some of the comments you made just in the last 10 minutes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12632 I am kind of interested, when I look at your spin data, you have got all this spin data to prove it is all the same, is there something you expect us to do about that or is that just evidence that there is not as much diversity of sound as people would like to pretend? Do you expect us to somehow limit spin data or in some way redefine formats so there isn't so much overlap?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12633 MS LAURIGNANO: No, that was not the intention. We believe that with more plurality and more diversity it will naturally flow, that that will happen. And especially in the case where broadcasters are allowed to serve niche demos and niche markets and niche programming, that that will be a natural consequence of, you know, offering a variety to the consumer which, in the end, is good for the overall system. Because, as you know, if one radio station is programming well and the other ones don't, then the ones who don't drag everybody down and as a consequence everybody suffers, because when you punch in the dial nothing attracts you at the other end, you either abandon it or you stay tuned less.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12634 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: There is nothing much as regulators we can do about that, is there? I mean, that is people ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12635 MS LAURIGNANO: No, not regulators. But we believe it will flow from choice. If the consumers are given more choice, then the conditions will arise where that will happen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12636 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So in fact from your perspective, as a reasonably small broadcasting group, it would kind of be better if we didn't fix this, isn't it, because you can get into a market like Ottawa, pick a niche and again knock the pants off the competition because they are not ready for you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12637 MS LAURIGNANO: In effect, all we ask is the ability to compete.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12638 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Right. So you want some licences, you don't need us to change the format rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12639 MS LAURIGNANO: Right, we don't have the deep pockets to go out and buy whatever we want, so we have to, you know, grow our business and ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12640 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Right.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12641 MS LAURIGNANO: ‑‑ as you know, sometimes we take what sometimes we call the crumbs that nobody else wants and, you know what, it is great. I mean, radio is healthy and nobody is knocking anything. But the tendency is if you can, you go down the middle because that is where the critical mass is, that is where the big advertising is, that is where the big demo is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12642 And really, that has a bit of a life, because if you are serving a 25 to 64 all you have to do really is age one year for a while and you have got that market. But the problem is if you don't feed the system, you know, which is bring you thin and take up both ends of the demographic where we know that the tuning is done. Unless you have, you know, somebody feeding it, then where are we going with it? You know, and if the ears are not trained, if people don't grow‑up with radio the chance of them picking it up later I think are less.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12643 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Do they have to be independents though? I mean, you mentioned Rogers, Astral, some of the bigger players. But if Rogers and Astral aren't, for example, in Ottawa, just taking as a hypothetical. We know they are, but let us assume for a moment they aren't. Would it be just as good to let an Astral in as an Evanov?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12644 MS LAURIGNANO: With all things being equal, no, because I think that the aim is to balance the system. And if you are going to balance the system you are going to have to look at the total picture. And yes, it is true that maybe ‑‑ and I have heard that argument well, you know, we don't have a station in such and such a place. Well, they have a got a station everywhere else. You know, so it is almost like a right that they should be there because they don't have a station.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12645 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: What about from a consumer's point of view though? I mean, isn't it the same for them? They just want a new sound in town, they want a new player, they want ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12646 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes, but from a consumer's point of view chances are that it is going to be a cookie cutter format that has been somewhere else. I mean, obviously it has to be evaluated as to what the proposal is but, you know, with all things being equal, if we are encouraging diversity and if we are encouraging plurality and you want to balance the system and you want to find, you know, some middle ground there, then I think that the stronger or the capable or the ones that you believe will be sustained, you know, and be there for the long run should be licensed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12647 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: This is a related question. You talk on page 4, about two‑thirds of the way down, about the totality of a broadcaster's media holding that should be examined prior to assessing their application, prior to licensing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12648 MS LAURIGNANO: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12649 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Well, what do you mean? Do you mean the totality in a given market like Ottawa, for example, or do you mean the totality right across the country?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12650 MS LAURIGNANO: Well, I think it has to start with across the country, just as a general overview. And then, you know, you dig and you get into it. And in fact, you will find, you know, things like ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ just an example, like a CHUM in Kelowna, for example, you know, they don't have ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12651 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: A CHUM what, sorry?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12652 MS LAURIGNANO: In Kelowna, for example.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12653 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Right.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12654 MS LAURIGNANO: They don't have a radio station perse but, you know, you are aware that there are a lot of holdings and they get through from Vancouver on cable distributions and all kinds of other stuff. So we are not saying that it should be at the exclusion necessarily of, you know, those people who have media holdings, but that should be weighted into the decision or into the criteria or the adaptation of the rules or in some form or another.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12655 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It is tricky, isn't it? Because along come people like you with new ideas, and you are living proof that we welcome you and we, in a sense, almost encourage you, not that your applications aren't good, you earned every licence you got.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12656 MS LAURIGNANO: Yeah.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12657 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But still, you came out of nowhere in a way and you got your licences and we want to encourage that. On the other hand, we don't want to penalize success, do we? I mean, just because the NewCap group has grown over the years and acquired some stations, you don't want to say, well, there is no more licensing for you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12658 MS LAURIGNANO: No, absolutely. And I think Bill may want to add something to that. But we are not saying that. We are just saying that it is like, you know, people who earn more should pay more, whether it is a broadcaster or an income‑earner, you know ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12659 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So they can afford to buy is what you are saying?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12660 MS LAURIGNANO: They can afford, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12661 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12662 MS LAURIGNANO: And, you know, to advantage some other ones which, in the end, will be good for the system and that is what we have to keep our eye on. And it will be balanced, it should be balanced because how are we going to provide competition at some point or other? I mean if, you know, one gets, the other gets, the other gets the other and we don't have the farm team sort of, you know, like coming through the ranks then we don't know where it is going to end, that is all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12663 And the way to help it along is, you know, to keep those things in mind. Where I say all things being equal, well then the advantage should go to the disadvantaged to a bit of a degree.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12664 MR. EVANOV: I just want to add that if you want diversity in the market you have to add independents in various markets. In Ottawa I believe we are the only independent. In Halifax we are the only independent. But it is a dying breed across the country in the last number of years. So I think that the Commission has to look at it and say, okay, if you want diversity then you need plurality and then to do that you have to licence independent broadcasters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12665 And I know that there is a club of four big broadcasters in Ottawa and we are an independent and we provide an independent voice, but the four share quite a number of signals, so is that diversity? I don't know, you know, the Commission will have to assess that. We don't believe it is. We believe that four operators that control the whole market is not a good thing for the market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12666 We believe that if all the stations then ‑‑ and I will just pick a town anywhere, Kitchener, are corporate, then that is not good for Kitchener. There should be an independent broadcaster in each of those markets at least. And if it can be a standalone, fine, because they will fight harder to stand alone against two or three combos. But I think that is what is required if you really want diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12667 You are not going to get diversity by licensing the corporate chains, because they will simply provide ‑‑ they are looking for a PBIT and bottom line and that is the goal and it rightfully maybe should be, but also I think there has to be a broadcast angle to it in terms of providing diversity in the market. And you can't do it if, you know, four stations in the market, you are not really providing four news diversities. You are providing really one when it comes down to it no matter how watered down it may be. That is our feeling.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12668 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We have a bit of a spectrum problem in some of the markets, but I guess we will have to see what technology can do to help us out of that one.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12669 MR. EVANOV: Absolutely.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12670 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I am just going through your list here and making sure I understand them. You propose a one‑year freeze on sales as a kind of solution to licence trafficking or one‑term freeze I suppose, first‑term freeze, not one year.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12671 Do you think that might be just a bit too rigid? I mean, what is wrong with the approach we take now, which essentially is that but we allow exceptions, for example, somebody dies, obvious exception? The family doesn't want to run it, they have got to sell it, surely you are not going to penalize that person. It was a little beyond their control. Someone gets sick, you know, there are good reasons. Isn't it better to have a rule against trafficking which outlaws the notion of kind of profiting in an untoward manner, but at the same time leaves us some flexibility to meet special requirements?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12672 MS LAURIGNANO: Of course, you know, that those sorts of things can happen. We are saying that there be a freeze unless there is perhaps another layer of scrutiny in place.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12673 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12674 MS LAURIGNANO: So we are saying whether it is a public hearing or a public process or an opportunity for, you know, other broadcasters ‑‑ and I am just sort of thinking out loud ‑‑ other broadcasters to bid or, you know, all kinds of other issues there rather than arbitrarily, you know, the deal being done somewhere and then pretty much ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12675 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Well, I am pretty sure that is the way it works now, but we will check it out and be absolutely positive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12676 MS LAURIGNANO: Right. As I say, we ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12677 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Your final points on benefits, the final point you make in today's presentation, I am kind of interested in it. I mean, it is kind of an interesting concept. Let us let the little guys off the hook for benefits, they can put a little more money into programming, they can put a little more money into diversity of sound. At the same time it steals from another pocket, doesn't it? A lot of benefits go to Canadian talent development, that is where they go, or they go to school projects or whatever.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12678 So as I sat there I was trying to figure out where there is a middle ground. So keeping in mind that I just made this up be charitable here. But how about if we looked at something like no benefits with the application, but if you are still in business for your licence renewal, for a second seven‑year term, then you come in with a benefits package?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12679 MS LAURIGNANO: I would say rock and roll, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12680 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You are good for that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12681 MS LAURIGNANO: That is great, sure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12682 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I am making deals this week, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12683 THE CHAIRPERSON: (Off microphone)
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12684 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes, yes. We are making deals. Okay, I see some more processes on the way.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12685 Those are my questions. Thank you very much. I think my colleagues may have some, but those are mine, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12686 THE CHAIRPERSON: Rita, go ahead.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12687 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you. Just one question. You did mention today there are barriers to entry for independent players. And as a regulator that always sends shivers down my spine to think that there are barriers to entry for any body into the system. I would like you to elaborate on what you see are the barriers to entry for independent players.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12688 MS LAURIGNANO: Right. Okay, first of all, don't be scared.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12689 MS LAURIGNANO: I am going to ask Sean just to elaborate on that for a second.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12690 MR. MOREMAN: Well, with any set of rules there is always a way to manipulate the rules to one's advantage, and it is not a barrier that the Commission has setup intentionally and, in fact, that is the whole purpose for having this hearing, is to find out what those barriers are and perhaps take them down to allow for easier entry into the market for independents.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12691 To touch on your question more directly, what are those barriers, one of which is the acquisition through purchase of assets. With the benefits levy that is in place, independents who don't have necessarily as much money to offer to purchase a property are basically frozen out just on cost alone. Deeper pockets are able to pay for it and acquire by purchase. So that is one of the barriers. Unintentional, but if we remove it it would allow independents to get in the door.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12692 Another one of the barriers is on this idea of format. The applications for some people, small new entrants, is one‑year's profit for them just to apply. And to be frozen out at the end of the day because somebody flipped formats without an opportunity to amend or to protect their application they have lost that investment and they are not allowed into the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12693 So those are two that come to mind and that is why we brought them up today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12694 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I mean, without revisiting the radio policy on the issue of formats, the only solution there is to revert back and regulate formats. Is that what you are asking us to do?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12695 MR. MOREMAN: No. We believe a compromise position, which is to allow an amendment of applications, would satisfy the need at least partially. As Carmela said earlier, we don't think we have the cure to this problem. But we do have some antibiotics that can help it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12696 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you. Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12697 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12698 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: I heard your presentation. I agree that at this stage of your development you surely are an independent broadcaster. But at which time do you become significant? Because today, you have five radio stations; three in the Toronto market, one in Halifax, one in Ottawa. If I was to agree with your proposal, at which time will your criteria no more apply to your own group?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12699 MR. EVANOV: I think you set a criteria of asking various broadcasters for financial information to be submitted and other broadcasters you didn't ask. And our interpretation of that was that perhaps you asked the larger broadcasters and maybe at that point ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12700 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: If you agree with the principle, we will be very happy to release your ‑‑ give us your numbers.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12701 MR. EVANOV: There is no set number of stations. Eventually maybe we will become a big broadcaster. But for the time being and what we are dealing with today we are a small broadcaster. It is really hard to define how many stations you should own before you become a big broadcaster. But in the scope of things, in terms of total revenue, in terms of number of stations, we pale in comparison to the larger corporate broadcasters in the country. So we are still a long distance to go, but I can't give you an exact answer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12702 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Okay. I am not challenging that, but I am trying to see, in your own mind, when do you see your group say moving from what you qualify a small independent to one of the players?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12703 MR. EVANOV: There is no fixed date, I would be pulling something out of the air now and the Commission doesn't have a policy on it either. But, once again, we will become ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12704 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: So that is why I am asking you. I understand where it starts, I am trying to see where it stops.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12705 MR. EVANOV: We can give you an answer by October 5, but we can't give you one today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12706 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Okay, fine. That is fair. Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12707 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. I think those are all our questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12708 MS LAURIGNANO: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12709 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Boulet, over to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12710 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12711 I would now invite the next interveners, Stornoway Communications, to come forward.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM 1 \l 12712 THE SECRETARY: Ms Martha Fusca is appearing on behalf of Stornoway Communications. Ms Fusca, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12713 MS FUSCA: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, commissioners, staff.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12714 I am Martha Fusca, President and CEO of Stornoway Communications, owners and operators of three digital speciality channels; ichannel, a public and social affairs issues channel, BPM:TV, Canada's Dance Channel and The Pet Network, both Category 2 channels.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12715 The best way I know how to speak about diversity is to take you on a brief journey of my own history through this wonderful yet sometimes daunting adventure called diversity in Canadian broadcasting.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12716 In 1983, just a few years out of university, I helped to co‑found Stornoway Productions, which to this day is a pre‑imminent investigative public and social affairs production house with many nominations and awards under its corporate belt.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12717 Our most recent Gemini‑nominated documentary is a biography of the Right Honourable John Turner. Our material has not only garnered critical praise and large audiences, it has also been sold worldwide. Even though this type of programming is much more difficult and expensive for us to finance, we made this commitment because, outside of the CBC, there was virtually no one dealing with public or social affairs issues in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12718 It was not a far stretch for me to want to go from being a disgruntled cap‑in‑hand independent producer to becoming a broadcaster. And by the fall of 1999 I was more determined than ever to have the freedom to offer viewers in‑depth explorations of the issues that were clearly of enormous importance to Canadians and to work with other independent producers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12719 An opportunity presented itself in 2000 with the CRTC call for speciality digital licences. After many around the clock calls and coffee meetings I gathered together a group of top‑notch professionals who were willing to take a risk with me. I believed there was a reasonable business opportunity for a channel dedicated to Canadian public and social affairs issues. Out of my office windows at Church and Bloor I could see both the Rogers and the Alliance Atlantis buildings from which I derived a great deal of inspiration.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12720 I grew up believing that if you worked hard enough and were smart enough you could achieve what others had before you. And while this may have sounded a little too American for some, to this immigrant farm girl it sounded perfectly Canadian. Oddly, one of the first pieces of advice I got came from David Graham, former Canadian cable magnate who sold out to Jim Shaw, oh well. What he told me was to remember that the process is not about how good you are, it is about politics. I thought I knew what he meant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12721 We partnered with Cogeco Radio‑Television and spent $1.4 million on the applications. Cogeco were astute and experienced partners and I am forever grateful to them for helping me start my dream. I also have to thank those folks at the Commission who believed in us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12722 Like these hearings, there was a great deal at stake. I so enjoyed watching the veterans of the industry at work, but I knew that we had top‑notch proposals and the proof was that we had offers to buy us out even before the end of the hearings. We ended up with one Category 1 licence and three Category 2 licences. As one of only two new entrants I was very disappointed in having been awarded only one Category 1. We had clearly proven that we could run all four.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12723 The other new entrant was Salter Street, who during the hearings made it quite clear that it would be very important for new entrants to be awarded more than one Category 1, because it would be nearly impossible to establish a solid business with only one Category 1 licence. I agreed with them, but it was not to be. Instead, the large established participants got most of the must‑carry licences, including eventually Salter Street's.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12724 What I did not know then was that at least for small independent broadcasters there is no such thing as freedom to develop a company to achieve the lofty goals I had in mind. And while my lofty goals appeared to be shared by the Commission, the environment that has evolved has made the mighty BDUs mightier still and impedes the small independent programmers like Stornoway from making the kind of contribution envisaged in the 2000 applications.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12725 But you can change all that if you have the regulatory will and rigour to do so. Despite my initial disappointment of having been awarded only one Category 1 licence, I was thrilled to be in business. We launched just before September 11, 2001 during a recession with industry plans that had anticipated penetration rates that simply did not materialize and in advertising the community that had so hyped the prospect of niche advertising, but when it came time left the bride at the alter.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12726 I was forced to make cuts to our staff and rumour had it we wouldn't last. But we have persevered, at least so far. Unfortunately, I did not fully understand what David Graham meant when he spoke to me about politics. I thought I could go about producing and acquiring the very best that Canada and the world had to offer and present this to the Canadian public. I thought it was in everyone's interest to promote the heck out of the new channels to everyone, but this did not happen. Some of the titans of the BDU sector took to spending their add dollars on knocking the others' technology. The result was that there was a great deal of confusion among the public about what digital was.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12727 It took some three years for the public to get their head around digital, but by that time the BDUs were onto cell phones, so the so‑called marketing of digital channels came and went even before the public could fully comprehend what it was all about. And as for promoting the heck out of Canadian channels and content, that too has gone by the way of cheap and easy movies, mostly American, and sports.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12728 But as we all know, there is more to life than movies and sports, so I think the question at this point is how does complete carriage authority in the hands of the BDUs advance diversity?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12729 It did not take long to realize that as an industry we were not travelling down the road that the Commission prescribed in the 2000 decisions. So I met with them to seek advice on how to deal with the problems we were confronting. And while I got a sympathetic ear, I got nothing else. When we tried to discuss the issues with the BDUs who had, it become clear, were really in charge, nearly all of our efforts failed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12730 We have tried to promote our own content. This has proved to be impossible in some instances. For example, one BDU has made it so expensive it appears that the only ones that can afford to advertise on the ad avails on their system are, surprise, them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12731 I have a shopping list of similar practices. They are in conflict with promoting diversity in Canadian content and therefore not in keeping with the goals of the Broadcasting Act. Swift and decisive action is required to end these practices. I was faced with a business that had been given life by a quasigovernmental body that could but chose to do nothing about the environment they had created or at least allowed to develop.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12732 And a group of businesses with whom I was to negotiate, they had little interest in Canadian content and with whom negotiations were not at all possible. You either took what they wanted to give you or else you could take a walk. I didn't think that that is what the Commission intended when it stated that we should negotiate carriage. This is also no way to create or sustain diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12733 For years now the Commission has authorized numerous specialty and digital channels. But the authorizations are null and void until one or more of the BDUs grants the licensee carriage. In effect, the BDUs now control not only what Category 2s get distributed, but which must‑carry services will survive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12734 Is this what is envisaged in the Broadcasting Act? Is this in the public's interest? Are the BDUs going to determine the nature of diversity for Canada or what the broadcasting system will look like in the future? Is this where we really want to go as a nation? As a Canadian consumer and business owner, I sure hope not.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12735 Diversity is a reality of Canadian culture. The Commission will have to provide the environment that reflects this cultural reality, because without a sustainable environment that recognizes and corrects the imbalance, the negotiating power between a company like Stornoway and the BDUs there will be no diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12736 Diversity surely cannot mean a variety of foreign movies and drama, mostly American, sports and foreign content served up to Canadians by your local cable or satellite company. Rather than abolish the 5 to 1 rule serious consideration should be given to increasing it to a 10 to 1 rule to support diversity within a regulatory environment and enable small Canadian businesses to contribute to the system as envisaged by the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12737 Among other measures, we suggest that ad avails must be both widely available and easily affordable and that subscriber rate minimums be established for small independent broadcasters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12738 Over Stornoway's relatively short lifespan we have produced thousands of hours of Canadian programming for our three services and have purchased many more from independent Canadian producers. In our fourth year we began pre‑buying independent Canadian production. In our fifth year be began co‑producing with Canadian independent producers. These are not modest accomplishments and we are very proud of our efforts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12739 So why did I tell you all this? I did so because I want to live in a country that would allow the next person who is looking out the window, hopefully at my offices, those of a woman, not two more guys, to dream about becoming a Canadian broadcaster. I want new Canadians to have the ability to dream their dreams. And if they work hard enough and are smart enough to have access and to participate in the ever evolving cultural fabric we call Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12740 I cannot imagine why we should choose, intentionally or not, to jeopardize that possibility or indeed shut them out. If the Commission is not careful this will happen. At the end of the day, no matter what anyone says, the responsibility for whether we have an open or closed system rests with you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12741 Thank you so very much for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12742 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12743 I wonder whether you could explain to me what you mean by your top paragraph on page 6? Where you say, "in effect, the BDUs now control not only which Category 2 gets distributed, but which must‑carry services will survive." How does the BDU determine whether must‑carry survives or not?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12744 MS FUSCA: Well, in effect, because we have virtually no leverage there are discussions about, you know, what the rate will be or won't be. And then of course there is what I call the infamous MFN. So the minute that you negotiate or are forced, in effect, to negotiate a certain rate, that means that the MFN makes it impossible for you to be able to negotiate any other kind of rate with anybody else.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12745 We have absolutely no say in terms of how we are carried, in other words, which package we are carried. They might give you notice, but there is absolutely no discussion with regards to which package you might be put in. You might want to choose to argue if they allow you the meeting time to argue that, but typically not. So is that enough examples?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12746 THE CHAIRPERSON: DMFN, does that mean distributors ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12747 MS FUSCA: I beg your pardon?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12748 THE CHAIRPERSON: What does DMFN mean?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12749 MS FUSCA: DMFM?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12750 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what you ‑‑ or what did you just say?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12751 MS FUSCA: Oh, MFN, most favoured ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12752 THE CHAIRPERSON: Most favoured nation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12753 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12754 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Principally, I understand.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12755 MS FUSCA: I am sorry. And on the Category 2s, you know ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12756 THE CHAIRPERSON: Category 2s I understand.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12757 MS FUSCA: Oh, fine.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12758 THE CHAIRPERSON: But were you here yesterday?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12759 MS FUSCA: I beg your pardon?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12760 THE CHAIRPERSON: Were you here yesterday?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12761 MS FUSCA: I have been here since the word go.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12762 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wonderful, so you heard Mr. Shaw testify yesterday?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12763 MS FUSCA: I did.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12764 THE CHAIRPERSON: And suggesting exactly on this very point that there is no issue between the BDUs and specialty channels, that they always work these things out, etc., and it is in his best interest to produce a greater diversity, and if he didn't do that then he would lose market share to his competitors. So therefore, if I understood him correctly and I am sure you have a different point of view here, but he suggested that it is in his interest to make a deal with you and have you survive because you enrich his programming, gives him programming gives him market share.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12765 MS FUSCA: Well, that would all be very nice. But actually, what I am bout to tell you isn't about a point of view, it is a point of fact. I think it has taken up until very recently to negotiate, you know, our Category 1 carriage. They have, during the course of the licence period, reduced my rate. I complained about it, but nothing has happened.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12766 I have been waiting very patiently for an opportunity such as this and future hearings to make this public. Because while I have had conversations with the Commission in the past I think that, you know, keeping things private hasn't really helped me any. And while it is a fearful situation that I am in I would rather, you know, sort of die fighting than just die period.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12767 THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess I don't quite understand why you feel you have no leverage. If you are Category 1 you are must‑carry, so you are in a much better position than if you are Category 2. I mean, you are totally dependent on cutting a deal ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12768 MS FUSCA: Well, you would think so, but that is not true.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12769 THE CHAIRPERSON: So explain to me the reality of the business.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12770 MS FUSCA: The reality of the business is that I have no ability to negotiate ‑‑ there is no such thing as negotiation, for starters. So the package that I am put in, I am put in. The rates that I am, you know, given are the rates that I am given. The MFN precludes me from, and they all demand it, the MFN precludes me from being able to negotiate, you know, potentially a slightly better deal with one carrier versus another, but that precludes me from doing that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12771 Being bumped from one package to another and losing something like 70,000 households is just not accurate. I found it very interesting that they had recently, and these were launched Category 2s, but coincidentally that has all happened in the last six months.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12772 THE CHAIRPERSON: So if you were in my chair what would you do?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12773 MS FUSCA: Actually, I am so glad you asked, because ‑‑
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12774 MS FUSCA: ‑‑ I have been wracking my brains and I have been working with, you know, some of the very best people, including former Commission chairs, vice‑chairs, that kind of thing, to try to come up with some models, you know, to streamline because there seems to be this desire to streamline the process. Unfortunately, the little bit that I read of the Dunbar/Leblanc report, I don't know, I just sort of prefer what was going on now than what they are necessarily recommending. I am not sure we are going to streamline.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12775 But I thought of two things that could be enormously helpful. One, why don't you, the Commission, go back to issuing the licences, that is number one, and then determine a rate. At least the BDUs would have to carry those licences and people would have an opportunity to figure out whether the could or couldn't run a business.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12776 I mean, I think it is very simple at the end of the day. And unfortunately, I haven't done a lot of work on this, because it was just an inspiration from one of this morning's discussions. But I think that that would really solve a lot of the problems. You are the one that issues the licence, you are the one that determines the rates and is up to, you know, the applicant to show whether or not to the BDUs whether they deserve one kind of packing over another by doing some market studies.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12777 You know, for example, on The Pet Network we have got studies all over the place, but I can't get carriage outside of Rogers and a few Cogeco systems. Now, Pet Network, I mean, it is such a huge ‑‑ I only say this because it is like such no‑brainer, but go figure, I can't get it on anywhere in this country outside of, as I say, Rogers and Cogeco.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12778 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12779 Ron, you are a former BDU, maybe you have some questions I believe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12780 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12781 Good afternoon, Ms Fusca. It is hard to believe seven years ago I think I was actually in the same room, I might have actually had a different chair.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12782 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12783 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you were presenting your ideas for these services and I had the pleasure of helping learn more about your application at that time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12784 So here we are again and I guess this time we are looking for advice from you and some recounting of your experiences in this industry over the last seven years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12785 You offered in your written comments under paragraph 4 that you would like to be heard in the oral presentation phase of this public hearing in order to provide us with a more detailed statement of your diversity experience.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12786 Do you have more to add to that in terms of ‑‑ I note in today's remarks that you have covered a lot of stuff in a general way. And on page 5 you say, "I have a shopping list of similar practices that are in conflict with promoting diversity."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12787 MS FUSCA: M'hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12788 COMMISSIONER WILLIAM: Would you be willing to share that shopping list with us?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12789 MS FUSCA: I could share a few things with you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12790 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12791 MS FUSCA: Some of it I will keep, only because I think it pertains to the other hearings.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12792 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is another proceeding, correct.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12793 MS FUSCA: Right. But, for example, if there are systems that do not carry your channels, they do not allow you to use the ad avails. I don't quite understand why that is the case. I mean, how can Canadians know about what is available and have anyone have a reasonable ability to compete if you are not even allowed to use those avails? That is one.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12794 The other is why there is a duplication of carriage fees. I mean, when you add it all up. Oh, and I have to tell you something that I think is of vital importance, HDTV, we have made ‑‑ most of you have never been to our offices. They are really quite impressive. We went all out, we have got a state of the art digital broadcast facility, lots of people that work there and prepared to actually make further investment to go HDTV, but I have been told very clearly that it doesn't matter whether I do or not, because I may not be carried.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12795 That was in total conflict with what I think the Commission said only perhaps half a year ago when they were really trying to encourage the Canadian marketplace to go, you know, HD. So there are a couple more examples for you, Commissioner Williams.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12796 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Fusca.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12797 Can you tell me in a few words why is diversity of ownership so important to Canadian the broadcasting system?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12798 MS FUSCA: Well I actually, you know, even almost if you take the Broadcasting Act aside, which I don't think we should by any stretch of the imagination but, you know, you look at the kind of country that you want to live in and we seem to be so excited about supporting, you know, ethnic services, and I am all for that. I would hope that we would support Canadians who have these ethnic services, rather than allowing, you know, ethnic services to come in or other foreign channels to come in without considering first the Canadian possibilities.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12799 I am sorry, I have lost track of where I was going with this. What was your question again, sorry?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12800 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is diversity of ownership so important?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12801 MS FUSCA: Yes. Because, you know, do we want to live in a country that actually has one or two players? And nobody has asked me this question, but in terms of, you know, the concentration and the precautions that we want to take with freedom of, you know, the press and diversity of voices in journalism and that kind of thing, you know, I mean one of the things we were talking about at my office was are we going to get the public at large to hear our story or is it going to really stay contained in this room? And then we thought, okay, well who is going to write about our story, you know, I mean and whose interest is it to write my story? That is one question we have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12802 The other is, you know, in whose interest is it to promote my content when my competitors own virtually everything? And I might add, that the one thing that we are forgetting is, you know, the properties of Rogers. I mean, you know, not only the community channels, but CPAC the magazine, I think some have mentioned obviously Quebecor, but there is more to that. So just as a Canadian, just a regular Canadian, the idea that you have so much concentration just doesn't feel right, it is just an intuitive thing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12803 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12804 In paragraph 18 of your written presentation you speak a little bit about the gate keeping problems and issues that you have come up against. Mindful of the fact that we have a hearing dealing specifically with the BDU issues earlier next year, can you tell me, specific to the diversity of voices, discuss various ways of promoting the diversity of voices in the face of what you perceive to be strong gatekeepers? How can we help preserve the diversity of voices?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12805 MS FUSCA: Well, I think I have made a few recommendations, some of them are very small and I think reasonably simple. I don't think that it was, you know, the Commission's view that ad avails should be priced at some exorbitant rate. I mean, I may have missed somebody else using the ad avails in one particular system, I have been trying to watch as much as I can, but I don't see anybody on those avails other than the properties belonging to that specific BDU on those.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12806 I called the, I had a chat with them, I told them that this was not what the Commission had in mind and that I simply couldn't afford it. So there is that kind of small thing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12807 The other, which is a little broader is, you know, why are other BDUs, you know, shutting us out from having the ability to promote our content just because they don't happen to carry the channel? I mean, it is almost like having one broadcaster saying that no, you know, Dove can't advertise on here because you are spending most of your ad dollars there. I mean, some of this simply doesn't make sense and I just don't think it is very good for diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12808 The other thing is that I don't think that the Commission, when they had licensed the channels in 2000, you know, fully appreciated ‑‑ and you have heard this, you know, other folks are really nervous about changing the regulations right now because at least they know what they have got for the moment. They don't know where they are going to go and I think that that makes them nervous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12809 Well, I think at the time of the 2000 we made huge financial commitments for a, you know, small new entrant and we thought that we knew what the rules were. I very naively, obviously, believed that negotiation was really going to happen. Well, you know, that is not true. And I find myself in a situation where I do have one Category 2 on say half of the systems in this country, but it is in jeopardy because there is nothing there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12810 And I think the other question we have to ask ourselves is just because you happen to have a must‑carry, you know, how do you grow your business with no ability to negotiate at all? And is this what we really want?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12811 And just as, you know, some of the other folks have mentioned, I think The Weather Network, we get people calling us all the time to want to sell, want to sell, want to sell? No, we didn't get into this business to sell. We got into this business because we want to grow, we want to participate and I actually love what I do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12812 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess those are examples of what you meant in paragraph 9 of your written remarks on the arbitrary exercise of dominant power by the large entrants. Is that what you meant by that statement?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12813 MS FUSCA: In part, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12814 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does this affect your participation as an independent editorial voice? What has been the major impact to you of this?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12815 MS FUSCA: Well, you know, this is probably going to be a bit of a sore point with the Commission but the so‑called I still call it the so called CPAC licence renewal has been, you know, it was a huge blow.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12816 Genre protection, now, you will notice ‑‑ I mean who is asking for genre protection? It is the people with all the power that are asking to remove all of these rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12817 But the business of CPAC was hugely damaging. I am now competing where I thought originally and I was told originally that we were going to have genre protection in the 2000 hearings that, you know, outside of the CBC and perhaps a little bit of "Newsworld" that we were the new public and social affairs issues voice and the fact that this cable company owned licence is mandatory to everybody in the country gets ‑‑ I don't know, are they at 10 cents yet? They used to be started at 7, now they are at 10. I mean does anybody have any idea how much revenue that generates and, you know, how do you compete with that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12818 But I tell you that despite that, I have heard a lot about Afghanistan and I will just boast a little here. We were in Afghanistan. We were independent producers in '88 and '89 while the Soviets were still there and withdrawing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12819 I don't understand why some of the BDUs are actually saying well anyway, one said that they need the strength and all of that sort of stuff to cover this material. I mean we have been to Afghanistan on numerous occasions, not even as a broadcaster but as independent producers. So I don't quite understand that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12820 The other impediments are okay but, you know, there is every other channel that you have to compete with and there is a lot of talk about diversity but nobody has really broken down I am afraid, Mr. Chair, I don't have the results yet because we are still working on it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12821 But there is an enormous amount of diversity. That is where I agree with everybody. We have to decide how much of that or we have to determine how much of that is actually foreign because even when you have Canadian channels, a good chunk of that is actually foreign, and then when you work it all down, you have to say to yourself, okay, well what is really Canadian, what is left that is really Canadian.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12822 So this preponderance issue of 51 percent I find incredibly shocking, that we evaluate Canada's cultural policy on the basis of 51 percent, which when you really dilute, take out the foreign content, may turn out to be 25 or 30 percent. I mean I find it quite staggering.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12823 I didn't answer your question. I am really sorry. There are just so many impediments that I hardly know where to start and that will come later on.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12824 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. Well, if you think of some more in the next little while, you are more than welcome to bring them forward.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12825 MS FUSCA: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12826 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You spoke of the arbitrary exercise of dominant power by large players, with an appeals recourse and arbitration that is an inadequate mechanism to address it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12827 Can you elaborate on that statement? What appeals recourse and arbitrary mechanism are you referring to?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12828 MS FUSCA: Well, I have actually never come to the Commission for arbitration because, quite candidly, my initial meetings didn't give me any confidence that arbitration would get me anywhere. That is number one.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12829 And I guess I was feeling a lot weaker and a lot more fearful because what would be the point of my coming to the Commission and not believing that they would do anything when my livelihood is actually in the hands of the very people I am coming to complain about?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12830 So actually, one of the questions I asked myself before appearing today, and I asked myself for days last week, was I am either really brave or really stupid and I still haven't got the answer to that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12831 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I can't help you with that.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12832 MS FUSCA: I actually think you could.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12833 THE CHAIRPERSON: But, Ron, a lot of these statements we will deal with in January.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12834 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12835 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's go back to diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12836 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12837 So I guess with that, that concludes my line of questioning. Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12838 MS FUSCA: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12839 THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12840 Stuart?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12841 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: If you could just help me with a question of fact that I have so I can understand one of the barriers that you spoke of to presenting this diverse voice.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12842 I want to understand exactly what has happened after these negotiations you have had. So maybe you could pick one or two BDUs you don't have to name them and maybe you could tell me what your wholesale rate is that you negotiated with them and then how much per month they are charging, if they are different, for your service.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12843 MS FUSCA: Well, I don't think it would be really wise for me to disclose to you in this venue what our subscriber rate is, I am afraid.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12844 I think with regards to, you know, what the difficulties have been, I think most
LISTNUM 1 \l 12845 Well anyway, our experience is that on the marketing front I will give you the marketing scenario we were either asked for a lump sum by some distributors and/or a penny per subscriber by other distributors.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12846 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You were asked for sorry, you asked for or they asked you?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12847 MS FUSCA: No, they asked for.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12848 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: They wanted you to accept one penny per subscriber?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12849 MS FUSCA: Yes, either you pay an ongoing one penny per subscriber for their efforts in marketing your services or a lump sum.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12850 Now, fundamentally, you know, that is not the problem. The problem is that when you take a look at, you know, are they indeed marketing your services and do you have any say in how they are marketing your services because you want them to market your services. In fact, for people like us, we desperately need the BDUs to help us to market the services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12851 Okay, so that is one of the problems. In other words, you have absolutely no say in how or if, indeed, you are paying for marketing and it is actually happening.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12852 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So you could take ‑‑ for an example, you could have a wholesale rate of 20 cents a month and they would give you 19 because they would take a penny off for marketing; is that what you are saying?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12853 MS FUSCA: Yes. Yes. And that is not the problem.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12854 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Right. No, no.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12855 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12856 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But if, for example let me pick a figure, it doesn't have to be your rate.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12857 But from your knowledge, if someone had a wholesale rate of 20 cents a month, what typically would a BDU charge a subscriber? If they were giving you 20 cents or 19 after marketing
LISTNUM 1 \l 12858 MS FUSCA: Yes, yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12859 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: ‑‑ what would they be charging me as the subscriber?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12860 MS FUSCA: That is a really good question. I don't have a clue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12861 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: But have you ever tried to ‑‑ I mean you must get it at home. Do you have any idea what the gap is between what you are paying at home and what you are getting at the office?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12862 MS FUSCA: You know, I am afraid that I subscribe to virtually everything just so that I am aware of what is going on and my bill is huge. So I am afraid I I have never done it. I have never stopped to consider.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12863 There will be some financial information that we are going to be coming up with at the BDU hearings ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12864 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12865 MS FUSCA: ‑‑ and specialty hearings that I think could be of interest to the Commission, I think just the industry in general but I don't know that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12866 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: That is the detailed picture and you are right, that is the right place for much of it but in the sense of barriers to diversity, if money becomes a barrier, if somehow you can't negotiate on some sort of an equal playing field, if the sort of statements that Mr. Shaw's team made to us yesterday which led us to believe that he's happy to have anybody the consumers want and pays a decent rate, if somehow that isn't accurate, then this is the place we have to know that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12867 MS FUSCA: Well, you know, I can't be sure that that is accurate or not because I am not privy to the number of calls or e‑mails they make but what I can tell you is that we have tried for years to get BPM TV on and at one point we did an analysis that indicated that if we had carriage on Shaw and Star Choice that BPM TV was as ‑‑ the sub numbers would be just as good as MTV, right? We tried to make that case. We got nowhere.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12868 We have had people e‑mailing our offices for years now, you know, continuing to harass and harangue for BPM TV ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12869 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Maybe they are phoning the wrong office. I mean I am not trying to be cute.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12870 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12871 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It sounds like the pressure points are elsewhere.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12872 You gave one example ‑‑ last question. You gave one example in an answer to someone I can't remember who anymore, one of my colleagues ‑‑ that at one point you were repackaged and lost 70,0000 households.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12873 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12874 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Did I hear that right?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12875 MS FUSCA: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12876 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So that means 70,000 monthly subscriptions stopped coming in to you but it also means that whatever profit there is, whatever the markup is or pass‑through or whatever you want to call it for that BDU, it stopped going to them too.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12877 How does that make good business sense?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12878 MS FUSCA: I don't know but I will tell you it screwed up my business plans for the entire year ‑‑ well, over a year and a half.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12879 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes. Well, I can't force you to give us more facts but if you do change your mind between now and October 5th and can give us some sort of a notion of figures, because if we are to assess this as a barrier to a diversity of voices, this is certainly the place to do it, but I find it difficult just on narrative.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12880 Though I have a huge sympathy from what you are saying, I find it difficult to weigh the evidence of a kind of narrative horror story that you are telling us without some facts and figures. So perhaps you can, with your associates, consider how you might be able to add to the record by October 5th and send us something along that would help.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12881 MS FUSCA: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12882 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12883 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. I think those are our questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12884 We will go to the next intervenor, Madame Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12885 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12886 I would now call on the Independent Programming Services to come forward for their presentation.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM 1 \l 12887 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Brant Kostandoff will be introducing the panel, after which you will have 10 minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12888 Please go ahead.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12889 MR. KOSTANDOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12890 My name is Brant Kostandoff. I am the general counsel with the S‑Vox Trust.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12891 Also appearing today are:
LISTNUM 1 \l 12892 Cal Millar, VP and General Manager of Channel O;
LISTNUM 1 \l 12893 Suzanne Gouin, President and CEO of TV5 Québec ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12894 MS GOIN: Québec Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12895 MR. KOSTANDOFF: ‑‑ Québec Canada, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12896 And Martha Fusca, who you just heard from, of Stornoway Communications.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12897 We want to thank the Commission for the opportunity to appear today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12898 In addition to the parties represented before you, we are here on behalf of APTN, who you are going to speak with directly later this week, Ethnic Channels Group and Fairchild Television, the Independent Canadian Programming Services, signatories to our written submission of 18 July 2007, filed in the first part of this proceeding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12899 As independents, we are broadcasters who own and operate programming services, both analog and digital. We are neither affiliates of a BDU nor are we integrated into any of Canada's large broadcasting corporations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12900 Some of us were among the first specialty services to be licensed by the Commission, one of us as early as 1982, with other services having been licensed as recently as 2006.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12901 Our presentation today will speak to the first two of the three issues identified by the CRTC in its Notice to Appear for this hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12902 Commissioners, in our written submission, we expressed views on :
LISTNUM 1 \l 12903 ‑ the role of Canadian independent programming services in providing a diversity of Canadian voices and a diversity of programming content in the Canadian broadcasting system;
LISTNUM 1 \l 12904 ‑ the necessity for regulatory intervention to ensure that independent Canadian services such as ours have a sustainable access to the broadcasting system; and
LISTNUM 1 \l 12905 ‑ pending the upcoming review of the regulations governing BDUs and specialty services, recommendations regarding some of the regulatory tools need to secure the ongoing contribution of Canadian independents to the diversity of voices in the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12906 It is crucial that the Commission recognize and appreciate the role that new entrants and independents play in making available to Canadians an appropriate plurality of voices and a diversity of content choices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12907 Only with this understanding will the Commission maintain or adopt the regulatory tools necessary to ensure that independent programming services have sustainable access to the broadcasting system so that Canadian viewers can have access to our content.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12908 Given the concentration and integration of ownership that have characterized the Canadian broadcasting system in the last 15 years, the independents fear that absent regulatory intervention, we will not be able to discharge our respective mandates for very long and each reduction in the number of separate Canadian owners in the broadcasting system risks, in our view, a reduction in the diversity of editorial voices, of approaches, of perspectives, of opinion, of choice, in short, risks a reduction in the diversity of content available to Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12909 First then, we want to address the relevance of the role and mandate of the independents as they concern this proceeding, that is, the provision of a diversity of Canadian broadcast content and a diversity of Canadian programming choices to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12910 Secondly, we will address the need for effective regulatory tools to ensure that we can fulfill our role and mandate as independent Canadian voices in the broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12911 We strongly believe that independent programming services are part of the effective means of ensuring that all Canadians are exposed to an appropriate plurality of voices and of broadcasting choices in local and national markets.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12912 We were licensed specifically to widen the range of programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system and to enhance the opportunity for the Canadian public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12913 In fact, we were licensed by the CRTC to meet the programming needs of underserved audiences: Aboriginal peoples, third‑language or ethnic audiences, official languages audiences in a minority context, audiences seeking faith or religious programming, audiences seeking alternative approaches to issues programming or information programming not otherwise available.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12914 We were licensed to operate services that speak to our diversity as Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12915 On that basis, independent services should be available to as many Canadians as possible, at affordable prices and across all distribution channels.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12916 How do we form part of the effective means of providing diversity?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12917 Well, the Commission has long recognized diversity of ownership as one of the keys to ensuring a diversity of voices and of programming choices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12918 CRTC policies in this regard reflect the link between the diversity of ownership and the diversity of voices in the system. They also reflect the need to alleviate by regulation the likely result of breaking this link.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12919 For example, where consolidation, horizontal and vertical integration and cross‑media ownership have been allowed in order to further other policy goals, on balance, rules have been created in an attempt to lessen the potential for a resulting reduction in voices and choices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12920 By our very nature as independents, we can be a counterpoint to the negatives for diversity inherent in a consolidation trend.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12921 We provide a better balance between the delivery of programming stemming from but a few corporate conglomerates and programming from independent voices and perspectives, between the delivery of mainstream content targeting mass audiences and innovative niche content designed for more targeted demographics.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12922 Where consolidation homogenizes the same content across multiple platforms, independent services add to the range of content available to Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12923 Recognizing the fact that the independents are an effective means of ensuring that Canadians are exposed to an appropriate plurality voices and choices is only a first step.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12924 Cal Millar is going to speak to the importance of regulation to ensure fair access of consumers to program services and vice versa.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12925 Cal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12926 MR. MILLAR: Thanks, Brant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12927 Maintaining effective regulatory tools is essential to assure appropriate access for independent programming services to distribution channels and broadcasting platforms so that an appropriate plurality of voices and the diversity of content that we can provide are made available to all Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12928 That access must be fair and predictable. It requires regulatory intervention to balance against the negotiating strength and leverage of programming conglomerates and the gate‑keeping of distribution conglomerates.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12929 Canadians will only have access to the diversity that we can provide if we can sell our services to BDUs at reasonable prices and on reasonable terms and conditions with regards to carriage, pricing and packaging and if we can have a reasonable expectation of certainty in a relationship with those BDUs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12930 But access to the system and to Canadian audiences is illusory for independents if the BDUs have a virtual veto in negotiations, can use their bandwidth for foreign services in preference to comparable Canadian services, can force sudden fee reductions unless the fee is regulated, can cancel channel assignment or impose reassignment all without prior consultation and with little or no notice, or, in fact, if they can launch their own competitive service at their complete discretion and with devastating effects on subscriber and/or advertising revenues for small players.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12931 Access to dispute resolution and timely resolution of disputes is also illusory when one party is the gatekeeper with the uncontested power to repackage, reprice, realign at will, often with little or no notice, and when one party has the financial means to complicate, prevaricate and delay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12932 For reasons familiar to all those involved in the Canadian broadcasting system, it can be demonstrated that most of the broadcasting legislative goals set out by Parliament in the Broadcasting Act cannot be attained by relying on market forces alone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12933 In fact, the attainment of many of the objectives have required and continue to require artificial economic constructs with interdependent parts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12934 Many parties, often the very ones pressing for deregulation, have benefited from regulation in the past. While under regulatory protection, they have established themselves and often avoided financial risk, gained negotiating strength and bargaining power, audience reach, opportunities for cross‑promotion, joint marketing, shared overhead and costs, and scale in programming acquisitions. They can now make their own rules and avoid those that limit them, often without regulatory consequence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12935 For us, regulation is necessary to narrow the gap between rhetorical adherence to legislated broadcasting objectives and the performance of the regulated in achieving them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12936 We have proposed in our written submission some areas where existing regulatory tools should be strengthened and new ones put in place to address the challenge facing the independents who are an effective means of providing programming choices to Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12937 The ability of BDUs to carry foreign services in preference to Canadian ones, even on the basic service, should be reviewed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12938 Similarly, the BDU ability to offer preferred carriage terms to their affiliated program services must be examined.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12939 The issue of the number of Canadian viewing options to be distributed, particularly on the basic service, should be considered.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12940 The role of genre exclusivity in protection Canadian services from undue foreign competition, particularly after launch, needs to be strengthened, not abandoned.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12941 The effectiveness of the rules put in place in 2004 with regard to the distribution of foreign ethnic services should be reviewed to assess their impact on the distribution of Canadian ethnic services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12942 The five‑to‑one rule established by the Commission to ensure that non‑affiliated services are treated fairly by distributors should be reviewed for its effectiveness in achieving its goal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12943 Affiliation agreements between BDUs and specialty services should be a requirement for all services that BDUs must or choose to carry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12944 A regulated wholesale rate should be established for both analog and digital distribution of any must‑carry specialty service. Without it, small players can have no leverage to negotiate the terms of their distribution or to avail themselves of the Commission's dispute resolution process, a process which in itself should be reassessed for overall effectiveness.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12945 The requirements found in the Commission's 2005 Good Commercial Practices should be made part of the BDU Regulations and strict adherence to them should be enforced.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12946 Brant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12947 MR. KOSTANDOFF: Commissioners, thank your attention and for the opportunity to express our preliminary views on the importance of independent Canadian programming services and the regulatory tools required for us to continue providing diversity in the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12948 In summary, we believe:
LISTNUM 1 \l 12949 (a) That diversity of Canadian ownership is a key component to achieve diversity in the Canadian broadcasting system because it acts as a built‑in safeguard against a single or limited perspective becoming predominant;
LISTNUM 1 \l 12950 (b) That the focus of the Commission's policy should be on assuring that a diversity of Canadian voices will continue to have access to the broadcasting system and be effectively distributed to Canadian audiences;
LISTNUM 1 \l 12951 (c) That through regulation, the Canadian broadcasting system should support and prefer Canadian program services and Canadian voices over foreign alternatives; and
LISTNUM 1 \l 12952 (d) That independent Canadian voices should be assured carriage and distribution ahead of or at least on terms equitable to affiliated program services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12953 This concludes our formal presentation. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12954 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12955 A lot of issues that you touch upon, of course, we will go into in depth in January in the BDU and specialty hearing. So we will restrict ourselves to those that have relevance to plurality and diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12956 You were here this morning, I believe, when Mr. Lavoie from Quebecor made his presentation and he said that there is no link, to our knowledge, between the diversity of broadcasting and the number of owners. You say exactly the opposite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12957 Are these both statements of faith or is there some evidence, has somebody done a study?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12958 I mean what are we to believe? We have one major distributor saying there is absolutely no link, to our knowledge. There is you coming in saying exactly the opposite, saying diversity is directly linked to ownership. How do we resolve this conundrum?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12959 MR. KOSTANDOFF: Well, I would start by going back to the Broadcasting Act, which says, and I will paraphrase, that the system should be owned, operated, controlled by Canadians. That is plural, it is not singular. It doesn't say three or four Canadian companies. It is emphasizing that the system exists as a public service to all Canadians and that it is supposed to use a majority of Canadian resources whenever it can.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12960 So in achieving the diversity objectives, if we accept that diversity is a fundamental goal of the system, then it follows naturally in my mind that a diversity of owners should be a key component of that definition of diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12961 But diversity is a huge concept that includes not just diversity of ownership but diversity of program choices, diversity of content, diversity of production sources, diversity of news and editorial perspectives, diversity of sources in terms of geography, local, regional, national, international, cultures, languages. All of those things lead to a diversity of choice for consumers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12962 But what you are hearing from this group and from other intervenors is that a key element of achieving diversity and avoiding one voice becoming predominant or unduly influencing the system is to have a diversity of owners participating in the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12963 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that and I don't necessarily disagree with you but we have several broadcasters, we have BDUs, et cetera. So Canadians doesn't ‑‑ it just says that, it doesn't say many Canadians, all Canadians or something like this. So I think you can interpret it either way.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12964 Now, I was picking up on the very specific statement made by Mr. Lavoie saying that there is no link in his mind between diversity in broadcasting and the number of owners.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12965 I gather from your answer that you are not aware of any study, experiment or whatever that has tried to establish this link?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12966 MR. MILLAR: No. Mr. Chair, if I can add to that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12967 No, we don't, and we have all read the submissions, a lot of comments that were put in the off‑com reference.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12968 One thing that I would say, and I say this with all due respect, it seems to me that if we had many voices, if every programming service was owned by a different owner, we wouldn't be having a hearing today into the diversity and the plurality of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12969 It seems to me it may in fact be an accepted common knowledge that wide dispersion and diversity of ownership does lead to a plurality of voices and that only perhaps a concentration of ownership could lead to a concentration and a reduction in the diversity of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12970 That is as far as we can take it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12971 THE CHAIRPERSON: So undeniably, you have diversity of voices if you have many owners, that is clear here.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12972 Now, in your submission today, at the bottom of page 5 and the top of 6, you are making a whole bunch of sweeping statements:
"...BDUs have a virtual veto in negotiations, can use their bandwidth for foreign services in preference to comparable Canadian services, can force sudden fee reductions unless the fee is regulated, can cancel channel assignment or impose reassignment all without prior consultation and with little or no notice, or, in fact, if they can launch their own competitive service at their complete discretion and with devastating effects on subscriber and/or advertising revenues for small players."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12973 Just take one of them:
"...launch their own competitive service at their complete discretion..."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12974 What do you mean by that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12975 MR. KOSTANDOFF: The distribution undertakings, in our submission, do play a gate‑keeping role in the system and if a programmer wants to reach viewers, subscribers in Vancouver, they have to be talking to Shaw. If they want to reach subscribers in Toronto, they have to talk to Rogers. That is just the reality of the marketplace.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12976 For the BDUs, if they want to offer programming to their subscribers, they have hundreds of choices that they can talk to and negotiate with and put onto their systems and they control the decision‑making in terms of how those services are going to be carried, who is going to be carried, where and how.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12977 In terms of launching their own, it is often in the context, if it is not a new licence of their own, of bringing in a foreign channel that is providing virtually the same content that is being offered by a Canadian alternative, or even, if they really like the idea, of going out and applying for a licence and making it part of their immediate group.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12978 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that is precisely the point, it is not at their own complete discretion, they have to come to us and get the licence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12979 MR. KOSTANDOFF: Certainly. If they are going to launch a service of their own, we recognize that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12980 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And so all of these statements, there is some modulation and some nuancing there. You are just describing ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12981 MR. KOSTANDOFF: You probably picked the one with the most nuancing involved in it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12982 MR. MILLAR: I would just add that there is ‑‑ and certainly, this is perhaps more à propos to the public hearing 2007‑10 that we will deal with in our filings on the 6th of October.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12983 But there is also a blurring when we talk about specifically distributors launching their own services. There is beginning to be a blurring between linear services and on‑demand services and there is currently no restriction to specifically cable and the telcos providing alternative programming in direct competition to licensed programming undertakings on an on‑demand basis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12984 So they can create a virtual channel, very much as Comcast has done in the United States, direct competitors to a licensed programming undertaking. So that would be one.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12985 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12986 Michel, I believe you have some questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12987 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Oui, bonjour.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12988 J'ai
regardé votre document, qui comporte quand même huit pages, et dans ce document
de huit pages, je ne vois pas beaucoup de chiffres qui m'indiqueraient que l'industrie,
enfin, de la production indépendante au Canada se porte mal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12989 Au
cours des derniers jours, ce que nous avons entendu de la part de l'industrie
privée, en fait, des câblodistributeurs et des programmeurs en général, c'est
qu'on fait de plus en plus appel aux indépendants et que les chiffres sont là
pour le démontrer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12990 Alors,
je me demande... vous nous présentez... vous parlez beaucoup de règles, de
règles qui pourraient, évidemment, sécuriser la production indépendante, mais
est‑ce que cette production indépendante n'est pas déjà sécurisée? Est‑ce que le système canadien actuel
ne fait pas déjà une très large part aux indépendants qui sont en croissance?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12991 MME
GOIN : Monsieur le Commissaire, il est évident que, depuis quelques années, le
système de la production indépendante est vivant au Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12992 Je
pense que ce que vous faites... ce à quoi vous pourriez faire référence, c'est
que, dans l'éventualité où nous aurions une trop grande concentration de
propriétés, est‑ce que nous aurions autant accès à de si nombreux
producteurs à l'intérieur du Canada, qui sont aussi, par le travail que nous
faisons avec eux, un lien direct sur la diversité des voix à travers le pays.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12993 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Quand vous composez des règles très précises, je ne veux pas entrer
dans le détail, mais vous parlez de contrats d'affiliation, de taux de
gros en page 7 de processus de résolution des conflits.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12994 Je
me demande si vous n'êtes pas... Est‑ce
que, à travers le monde, il existe des règles, ces trois‑là en
l'occurrence, qu'on retrouve dans d'autres systèmes de réglementation, qui en
donnent autant aux indépendants? Est‑ce
que ça serait une première à l'échelle mondiale ou nord‑américaine que
d'avoir autant de règles?
LISTNUM
1 \l 12995 Je
me demande si ce n'est pas, en fait, un gosplan de l'ex‑URSS que vous
nous proposez en nous demandant des taux de gros, des contrats d'affiliation,
un processus de résolution. C'est beaucoup
de choses que vous demandez, compte tenu de la croissance que vous affichez
actuellement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12996 MME
GOIN : Okay. Alors, premièrement, je
vais faire une correction.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12997 Tantôt,
j'ai mal compris le sens de votre question.
Je croyais que vous faisiez référence aux producteurs indépendants. Ce à quoi vous faites référence, c'est
véritablement les chaînes indépendantes qui sont devant vous. Alors, toutes mes excuses par rapport à ça.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12998 A
la lumière du commentaire que vous venez de faire, Monsieur Morin, je dois vous
dire que les règles dont on parle sont actuellement prévues par le CRTC soit
dans la résolution de conflits, soit dans les tarifs de gros qui sont donnés à
certaines chaînes de Catégorie 1.
LISTNUM
1 \l 12999 Ce
que nous demandons à l'heure actuelle, c'est de s'assurer que nous sommes des
joueurs valables qui gardent leur pertinence dans le système et qui continuent
de maintenir le tissu social avec lequel la société canadienne a évolué et
continuera d'évoluer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13000 Et
c'est par des voix, ces voix qui sont ici aujourd'hui présentes, des joueurs
indépendants du système qui vont venir appuyer le travail fait par ces
conglomérants, qui, effectivement, disposent de moyens, et que nous comprenons
qu'ils aient besoin de grands moyens pour être capables de compétitionner à une
échelle internationale avec des joueurs extrêmement importants.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13001 Mais
parallèlement à ça, nous, les plus petits, les joueurs qui sont les
indépendants, on peut, par le travail que l'on fait, un travail de niche,
rejoindre des voix qui n'auraient peut‑être pas accès de façon aussi
précise à des contenus qui ne seraient pas nécessairement offerts par les
joueurs des grands conglomérants.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13002 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Si on mettait fin aux règles d'assemblage, qu'est‑ce que ça
signifierait pour vous?
LISTNUM
1 \l 13003 MME
GOIN : Là‑dessus, Monsieur Morin, nous en reparlerons au mois de janvier.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13004 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Est‑ce à dire que... ces règles d'assemblage, pourquoi vous ne
voulez pas en parler à ce moment, sans rentrer dans les détails là?
LISTNUM
1 \l 13005 MME
GOIN : C'est‑à‑dire que, sans entrer dans les détails, je crois que
l'agenda étant très serré, je pense qu'il faudrait s'étendre pour s'assurer
qu'il y a une bien bonne compréhension de tout le monde sur le sujet et des
enjeux qui sont sous‑jacents.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13006 Alors,
plutôt que de prendre un peu trop de temps pour la Commission à ce sujet,
laissez moi vous dire qu'au mois de janvier, nous serons... avec tous les
exemples voulus viendront vous présenter l'importance de cette règle.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13007 LE
PRÉSIDENT : Andrée.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13008 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Madame Gouin, juste pour être sûre qu'on est sur la même longueur
d'ondes, vous n'êtes pas des producteurs indépendants, vous êtes des
entreprises de diffusion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13009 MME
GOIN : Effectivement. Je m'excuse.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13010 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Vous avez des licences...
LISTNUM
1 \l 13011 MME
GOIN : Nous avons des licences, et nous ne sommes pas des producteurs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13012 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : ...de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13013 MME
GOIN : C'est ça.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13014 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Madame Gouin, hier, vous avez entendu monsieur Shaw nous parlé de la
façon dont on arrivait à négocier des ententes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13015 Est‑ce
que je peux vous demander, Madame Gouin, depuis combien d'années TV5 Québec
Canada a une licence pour opérer au Canada?
LISTNUM
1 \l 13016 MME
GOIN : Ça fera 20 ans l'année prochaine.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13017 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Je vous remercie de cette précision.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13018 Est‑ce
que je peux vous demander maintenant, Madame Gouin, combien vous avez de
contrats d'affiliation en vigueur à l'heure actuelle avec les entreprises de
diffusion? Et vous êtes un must carry?
LISTNUM
1 \l 13019 MME
GOIN : Nous sommes un must carry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13020 Je
vous dirais que nous avons actuellement... nous avons, dans les derniers six
mois, été capable de négocier à peu près... avec les tous petits distributeurs
canadiens, les tous petits, on a été capable de négocier l'équivalent de 70
contrats.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13021 On
est encore en train d'essayer d'avoir des retours d'appel de certaines
entreprises, dont celles qui vous ont dit, hier, que c'était facile de négocier
avec eux.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13022 Dans
le cas de d'autres entreprises, à la suite de la décision du 24 juillet, les
négociations vont probablement être beaucoup plus longues parce qu'on vient de
nous demander d'insérer une clause où, après un avis de 90 jours, nous
pourrions être retirés de toute distribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13023 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Et si je retourne aux grands distributeurs? Nous parlons des Shaw, Rogers, Vidéotron,
Cogeco, Bell ExpressVu et Star Choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13024 MME
GOIN : Nous n'avons qu'un contrat signé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13025 CONSEILLERE
NOEL : Avec Vidéotron?
LISTNUM
1 \l 13026 MME
GOIN : Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13027 CONSEILLERE NOEL : Merci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13028 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think that concludes your presentation. I look forward to hearing from you in January. You will clearly be very well prepared.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13029 I think we will break now and we will resume at 3:30. Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1508 / Suspension à 1508
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1528 / Reprise à 1528
LISTNUM 1 \l 13030 THE CHAIRMAN: Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13031 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. John Bitove will be presenting the next intervention.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13032 Mr. Bitove, you have ten minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13033 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bitove, before you start, as we are all aware, you have an application before us. Today is diversity of voices; we are not going to in any way discuss your application.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 13034 MR. BITOVE: I understand. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for giving me the time. My comments are brief, to make myself available for questions and answers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13035 I think I want to give you a little bit of history about myself because in the nineties I too wanted to be in broadcasting, but found it mostly a closed shop. Lots of old families who had been pioneers in the industry held on to a lot of the major assets and ultimately, over time, they decided to sell out and sell out for a lot of money and nothing to begrudge, but what I had to do was find the next thing and go after technologies to be my way to enter the broadcasting system in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13036 I am going to kind of talk about five themes today, overriding themes : the current concentration of ownership; competition for news gathering; and separation of content distribution; current state of technology; and really who is protecting the consumer at the end of the day.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13037 On my first point, concentration of ownership, it's not bad that some of the older formats in broadcasting are selling out because their growth is somewhat stagnant. It happens in every industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13038 However, there are technologies, particularly digital, that allows compression and lots of spectrum is available for other broadcasters. The Canadian independent producers and actors all want more opportunities and access to our broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13039 On a macro basis we have gone from kind of almost more than seven dominant families in television in Canada to just three entities as we sit here today. And there is lots of cross‑ownership issues between Shaw and CORUS, CTV, the Globe & Mail and Thorstar and CHUM, CanWest in the post, Astral on standard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13040 So, as an individual here and a proud Canadian, I think what the solution is is to really find ways to licence as many new entrance as we can and to provide and help in sustainable business plans for these new entrants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13041 My second point about news gathering. We have multiple independent Canadian news providers ‑‑ sorry, multiple Canadian independent news providers are crucial to our sovereignty and to the health of our country. We are in essence down to three major dailies when it comes to newspapers and three television broadcasters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13042 Again, it's an issue, you asked for comment, I think once again you have to find a way to support the utilization of spectrum, whether it is by way of fee structure or anything else, to continue to provide that we have much editorial comment, particularly on matters of national interest.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13043 With respect to content and distribution, and I haven't been here for the whole hearings, but I've heard a lot of questions on these and read in the papers and even in my comments preparing for today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13044 If unregulated, today's BDUs will really ultimately determine what people will see in the future. It really is important that content continue to have its independence and my personal view is similar to a separation of church and state long term, it's crucial to the viability of our broadcasting system that there be an independence between BDUs and content providers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13045 On the technology, things are moving fast and it is harness to what continually changes. There is new platforms which are always being provided and as I've said earlier, it was a technology which really allowed me to have a break‑through and become part of the broadcasting family.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13046 When you look at the aggregation of content where we have it today on technology, you have it coming through major networks which there are only a few left in Canada or you have it from foreign internet companies, ultimately the Googles and the Yahoos of the world. So, there really are not a lot of new Canadian content providers on those new technological platforms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13047 I don't think you can be afraid of noble approaches and new applications. They should be encouraged for adding competition where a lot of people previously thought competition is impossible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13048 However, I think it's incumbent that the process be streamlined for new applicants. We should worry less about protecting incumbents and more about seizing opportunities for tomorrow.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13049 New technologies could and should be treated the same way you treated the internet, which is just keep the pace going.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13050 Canada is and continues to be an innovative leader, but it seems some, along the way in broadcasting particular we're always behind other countries, even the U.S.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13051 If I go back in 1983 in business school, I wrote a paper at that point in time, cable tv penetration in Canada was over 70 per cent, in the U.S. it was less than 20 per cent. We were the pioneers of cable tv. We have to continue to be the pioneers in other broadcast and technological solutions that ultimately our consumers are the winners.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13052 In my last point, who is protecting the consumer? Choice should be paramount, again not the protection of incumbents. We should be more focused on increasing choices and variety at the lowest possible costs to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and we should be unafraid to create a challenging competitive environment for the incumbents as a result of providing these new opportunities.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13053 If we agree that there needs to be a regulator in a world that is becoming unregulated, then there are three questions you really need to consider in your deliberations after you hear everyone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13054 The first point is: what are the risks of sitting back and doing nothing?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13055 The second is: how can a regulator minimize the risk to achieve change for the benefit of its citizens and, thirdly, then, if you can answer those to in the positive, define what can be regulated effectively in today's world where micro regulations really don't work, but macro regulations do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13056 You are a regulator and you should be at the forefront of releasing technological advances which enhance lifestyles of Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13057 I beg you to support growth, but also watch for the dominance that could happen if there isn't a separation between church and state because in the end we will all be better off. Canada needs a new generation of broadcasting pioneers and you are the ones who can make it happen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13058 Now, I am available for questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13059 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I wrote down what you've said. You've said it's crucial that there be independence between BDUs and broadcasters/content providers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13060 What exactly does that mean? Translate it to me into practical terms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13061 MR. BITOVE: I think at the end of the day where I find out we often can get confused and the media gets confused as it's one thing to provide content, it's another thing to provide access for that content to the consumer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13062 And what happens in a lot of cases and I only heard two people up before me, but sometimes it's the BDU who controls the access to that content that ultimately decides whether the consumer has a choice for that content or not.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13063 And so, you have to keep these two things in mind when you're reviewing how to create diversity because it's one thing to license a thousand new broadcasting opportunities, if there is no way for them to get to the consumer, then we have a problem.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13064 THE CHAIRMAN: But you don't go so far as to say a BDU cannot be a content provider on content. And if I understand you correctly want to make sure that the content providers have a fair access to BDUS? If I did not, please correct me.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13065 MR. BITOVE: No. I believe you should consider a separation between content and BDUs at the end of the day. It's very easy for a BDU to leverage its position for content, it's very hard for a content provider to leverage his position for BDU.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13066 THE CHAIRMAN: You realize that that would mean separation of existing enterprises because BDUs at this point in time do own content.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13067 MR. BITOVE: It depends how far you want to go on the separation, sir, because you could set up governing models where there is independence. You could say that you can provide content, but it has to be arm's lengths to your own group.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13068 I mean, there are ways to deal with it, but if you look at what's happening here and elsewhere, the BDUs are becoming a crucial player in content providing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13069 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether you are aware yesterday and today I asked everybody what they think about the approach advocated by CBC, which basically came up with three, what they call simple easy to apply rules, one of those being that in any market nobody should be able to own both newspapers, television and radio. So, two out of three can have only two, but not all three
LISTNUM 1 \l 13070 And the other one is that no owner should have more than 33 per cent of specialty service and they didn't explain where the 33 per cent came from, but that was it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13071 And the third one was that owner should own more than two BDUs in one market and I think, presumably thinking that's what we have right now in every market in Canada at least, one BDU and two satellites, so at least there would be competition in each market over at least two BDUs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13072 The rule did not find any favour at all from the broadcasters. I think every single one of them denounced them. I wonder what do you think of that?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13073 MR. BITOVE: I applaud the CBC for a novel approach. I read the clippings and I thought that there was some ingenuity in what they had put forward.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13074 I also read Mr. Langford's comment, I believe, about you know, isn't it true that private industry wants a set of ground rules so that they can figure out the box to play in and I believe it was Mr. Langford who said it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13075 But, you know, the issue you have to watch for is dominance because you need competition, you need to foster competition where there are big players. I don't begrudge the consolidation that's happened. In fact, in a lot of ways it makes a lot of sense, but you need to then make sure through the business cycle that there is opportunities for up incomers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13076 The thing I would caution on that is that we are a unique country and sometimes dominance may be the word, but monopoly is the solution to provide access in certain areas. And so, there are certain markets where, you know, the test that works for Toronto doesn't work for somewhere else and that would be my only caution on that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13077 So, I would, if you could give guidelines on what the Commission will view as dominance, I think it would be helpful, but I would say it's a hard and fast rule from coast to coast. The issue you're going to find yourself in is I think some communities will get lost in that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13078 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll ask you before I turn you over to my colleague. There seems to be a new found case by case analysis which I found somewhat surprising. I mean in my various state of visits normally businessmen tell me predictability is key and they have clear rules so I can know how to align my business make maximum profit, but I can't deal with this now regulatory and certainty. Yet, when today I questioned them about these clear rules of the CBC, each one of them said: oh! no, no, no, at least do it case by case since you have a licence, we much prefer a case by case analysis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13079 Now, you are a new entrant or will be new entrant, where do you stand on this?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13080 MR. BITOVE: I think... again, I think you should be as clear as possible, but obviously you have to allow for exceptions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13081 I do not believe case by case as the modus operandi of the Commission is helpful because then, you create problems. I think a general framework with guidelines should be what you put forward. There is going to be cases where if it's 33 per cent, sometimes you will let it go to 35 because of the maths or the economics or whatever it is that makes it work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13082 So, I would make case by case the exception as opposed to the rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13083 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Stuart?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13084 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back to Ottawa. I hope everything well in satellite land for you. You read the newspaper and we never know how much to believe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13085 And speaking of your satellite world, this may be a bit of a stretch, but in the sense of separating church and state, in a way your own operation, REXM Satellite Corporation is a BDU and a content provider. You've got the whole shooting match. I don't hear anybody complaining about that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13086 Now, I know it's different because you've just got it all and nobody else is trying to get on, but I do recall that when we had the hearing, some student groups came up and said: how about making some room for us with our students station; we can't afford this kind of coverage and we would like to get on.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13087 So, that issue was there very much a ringent issue, but it was there. So, in light of the fact that you're kind of a BDU with content, is there any way you want to soften this separation of church and state? Have you ever thought of it that way?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13088 MR. BITOVE: It's a great question, Mr. Langford, and I did think of it and I guess the way I would define it is if the only way you could get radio was through our system, then I would say that we have landed on the same issue.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13089 But the fact of the matter is we're almost like a discretionary service. You have to rest through a radio if it's your car as the example, that you don't even need to subscribe to our business. So, I think that would be the differences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13090 We are not the pipeline to the car in the case of satellite radio with a new car. We really are just one of the pipelines that the consumer has a choice to choose from whether they want it or not.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13091 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So, why should the particular pipelines being, let's face it, Rodgers, Shaw, Videotron, why should cable and ExpressVu and Star Choice have to pay that extra price when others aren't? Over‑the‑air television, CanWest plays only its own stuff. They don't make it open to anybody else. You don't make your system open, you know, Newcap Radio doesn't make its transmitters open to anyone else.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13092 Why is there a special rule for these BDUs?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13093 MR. BITOVE: Well, you know, throughout life you have to relook at where you are and what you've accomplished and really in business you can see on the market share and what we have done. Especially when I read that there is supporters of the CRTC even getting away with over‑the‑air. Let's take television example. Some have said: get away with over‑the‑air because, you know, BDUs cover 90 per cent of households today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13094 So, there the issue is, you know, the BDUs control 90 per cent of the households. So, that's the delicate balance. If you had multiple BDUs into a home and that you could be ‑‑ you know, your point is, you know, if there is multiple BDUs, then we don't have an issue with it, but right now we're kind of still in the infancy, I believe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13095 You know, people talk about, well, you're going to have unlimited programming through the internet, and unlimited opportunities in your home. Well, that's fine, but if anyone has ever tried watching a live program on internet, it's still nowhere near what can be provided through a traditional BDU.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13096 So, I think this is one of those things you just have to continually every five ten years, relook at where you're at and what you've accomplished.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13097 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Sometimes we're accused though of looking backwards when we regulate and it may be that you're asking us to do that. I am not saying ‑‑ you may have the most brilliant idea in the world here, I am just playing around with it because that's how we get a good record.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13098 But you know, you've talked about compression technology, you've talked about what's coming. We know that the internet will get better at showing pictures, it is pretty good now and it will get a lot better, but I think that's a safe bet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13099 We have the telephone companies are getting into the cable business and they're selling to subscribers. I don't think Telus is quite launched yet, but they're pretty close. Bell has.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13100 So Bell has a satellite or what used to be Bell, the sort of B.C.E. Group, they have a satellite and they have, starting to bring the pictures through their phone lines and into the people's home. They have internet access through the Sympatico, some say it's not as good as the cable. I am not going to make a judgment on that, but it's there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13101 Do you think maybe we are just a little late jumping on the separation of church and sate? Maybe we should wait in a few years and see how these new technologies work through, how these new players work through?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13102 MR. BITOVE: Well, we can always wait and that as I've said, separation of church and state, that was the only one point. My really predominant theme is that there are lots of technological opportunities that are going to be providing multiple usage for the consumer. And I think the most important role you can play is to help foster those and to make sure that they are viable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13103 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13104 MR. BITOVE: And where I get kind of concerned is when we say: well, you know, Spectrum has taken up, there is nothing out there. We can almost go through every segment in broadcasting and there is Spectrum and with compression, there is going to be even more Spectrum.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13105 So, I would say, you know, you can't stop ‑‑ I really don't believe you can stop consolidation per see. You say stop dominance in certain markets, you can't stop consolidation because it's economic driven, but you can foster competition.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13106 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Now, you were speaking orally today and so I'm not going to try to nail you right down to your quotation, but let's move on to another one of your points, speaking sort of almost the same way what you've just said.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13107 I think your second point, maybe your first, sorry, probably your first point on concentration of ownership was to license as many entrants as you can. You said then, help them with their business plan, I am paraphrasing, but it's pretty close what you've said. I am not sure what you mean by that, by helping them with their business plan?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13108 MR. BITOVE: It's ensuring that it's viable because there are certain conditions you can impose that make it difficult. I would almost say it's like, you know, the incubation of a baby. We want a flourishing broadcasting system, we want multiple competition. You know, the onus you put on someone who is huge may not be the same onus you put on someone who is starting up, and that's all I was trying to say to be cognisant of.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13109 I do differ with some of the people I've heard. I do actually believe having large conglomerates in broadcasting does give them more money to do things internationally and elsewhere that they might not be able to do if we were a fragmented system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13110 But the flip of that is they can also afford more programming costs, more development costs, et cetera, et cetera, versus someone who is starting out at the gate. And that's all I was trying to get at there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13111 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: So, if we get someone coming out of the gate, are you thinking of things like maybe less Canadian content requirements in the first licence term as we do sometimes for ethnic broadcasters and what not, to let them get a foothold or somebody suggested earlier this afternoon: don't hit them with the benefits payments until maybe a little later on, second term.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13112 Is that the kind of idea you are thinking of?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13113 MR. BITOVE: You know more than I because ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 13114 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: I doubt that very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13115 MR. BITOVE: I think that that's one of the ways, I think in terms of how you give credits for Canadian programming? I think someone who is coming out of the gate and has a predominance of Canadian programming should may be get a benefit on something else that might not be there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13116 So, I wouldn't say Canadian content is the only way that, you know, those thresholds you can assist. It's just one of the leavers that you could use either to an advantage or a disadvantage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13117 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Okay. And as for news gathering, I just lost you a little bit there just because I don't write as fast as I should, I suppose, but really worried about the protection of editorial content and pointed out just how few dailies there are, how few over‑the‑air broadcasters there are.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13118 I am not quite sure what you mean by promoting it. Are you talking about the sort of notion where we would insist that television, owners of television services are not allowed to own a newspaper?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13119 Is that the idea you are talking about here?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13120 MR. BITOVE: No. What I was trying to get to there, Mr. Langford, was, you know right now we get our news from basically three dominant players or internationally through internet vehicles. The newer generation is more on the internet vehicles than they are on, you know, traditional forms of media.
I had this argument with my sons enough.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13121 But there may be ways that you can assist through platforms, through BDUs, to allow news gathering, Canadian news gathering forms to be made available to Canadian consumers in an efficient way possible because you really don't have a lot of, let's say, next wave Canadian news gathering as we have traditional media.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13122 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: It's a tough one. I mean because it's ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 13123 MR. BITOVE: That's why your job is fun.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13124 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes. It presses all the rights buttons in some ways and all the wrong ones because you're messing around with editorial content and the other, so we ‑‑ but I think I can understand where you're coming from.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13125 Your point that you've made in your opening remarks about lots of new internet entrants, but too few of them are Canadian. I'm just not quite sure what you think we might be able to do about that because in one sense people are really happy that we are not regulating the internet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13126 The internet people really like to be free. It must go back to the old sort of skunk works in the garages and backyards and basements where all the stuff was invented. There is something in their DNA, even though they're big as Google now.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13127 People say: don't touch the internet, but how do we promote Canadian entrants and get them dominant if we don't regulate
LISTNUM 1 \l 13128 MR. BITOVE: There could be ‑‑ look, I'm just, I don't want to prophecise because, you know, I don't have enough experience in it, but you could look at carriage fees that go in support of news gathering on new technology platforms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13129 If we have to compete with the Googles and the Yahoos of the world on news gathering for the next generation, it's going to be very difficult and my point there was we need more Canadian vehicles that the next generation wants to access their information because they are not getting their news from traditional means as much as our generation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13130 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: And in terms of this hearing, I don't want to turn this into a kind of an end landers or heavy session at the end, but you have been through a very unique process, bringing a totally new technology, a totally new voice, source of a voice, and a totally new player to the business.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13131 Have you got any lessons from us from that, and don't talk about the cost of raising money, that's not our daily whip, but have you got any lessons about what you could learn from that and what we could learn from this, because that was pretty new to us too, something bran new, new player, new technology, new content, new concept, the whole thing was new.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13132 Can you help us with that one?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13133 MR. BITOVE: Ultimately you trusted us to deliver a new platform to Canadians and we are delivering and I think if we have to sit and second guess and pre‑judge and make sure every new idea is 100 per cent baked before we put it into the oven.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13134 It's not going to happen and I would say be liberal with your applications, have an open mind with ideas on technologies and platforms and in some cases, if you have to because we're Canadian, if you have to find a way to subsidize, and I am not subsidized, but I know of certain types of content that do need assistance, we can find a way to make it work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13135 So, I would say, yes, you know, the down side, it took a long time to get the licence. I mean, I was almost at it five years. The good side is: we're of to the races and we're doing well. We are not profitable yet, but I do see a light at the end of the tunnel when we will be profitable and we have employed lots of Canadians and we are providing content on the North American platform that we weren't even doing four years ago.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13136 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Thank you very much. That's my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13137 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are getting a bit off the diversity of voices. Let me take you back to what you've said something about multiple BDU access to the home. Don't all Canadian homes right now at least have three BDUs, two satellites and one terrestrial and a lot of jurisdiction for because the telephone company is another one?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13138 MR. BITOVE: Sir, they do. I guess it's really a view of what is ‑‑ you know, when you have a level playing field, is three enough, four enough, and I am not ‑‑ I believe, you know, we just don't have, because of technology, not for the fault of anyone else, but we just don't have enough viable ways of the same kind of two‑way communication that with video enhanced quality into homes that we are going to have at some point in time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13139 I am sure there is going to be hearing just like this, 15, 20 years from now on whatever you decide, saying how do we change this and so I applaud the effort of what you are trying to do, which stirs a difference from how we viewed it in the past.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13140 I think the point I was just trying to make is, we are still somewhat limited. We are, as Mr. Langford said, we are going to have, we are going to have, when he was talking about some of these applications and it's a question of: are we too late or are we early enough that we can still shape it?
LISTNUM 1 \l 13141 I believe we are still early enough you can shape it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13142 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Those I think are all our questions. Thank you for your contribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13143 Madam Boulet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13144 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This completes the agenda for today and we will resume at 0830 tomorrow morning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 13145 Nous
reprendrons à 0830 demain matin.
Merci. Bonne soirée.
‑‑‑ L'audience est
ajournée à 1555, pour reprendre le
mercredi 19 septembre 2007 à 0830 / Whereupon the
hearing adjourned at 1555, to resume on Wednesday,
September 19, 2007 at 0830
REPORTERS
____________________ _____________________
Johanne Morin Monique Mahoney
____________________ _____________________
Sue Villeneuve Madeleine Matte
____________________
Jennifer Cheslock
- Date de modification :