Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
www.crtc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT/SUJET:
DIVERSITY OF VOICES PROCEEDING /
AUDIENCE SUR LA DIVERSITÉ DES VOIX
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Portage IV Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
September 17, 2007 Le 17 septembre 2007
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
DIVERSITY OF VOICES PROCEEDING /
AUDIENCE SUR LA DIVERSITÉ DES VOIX
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Konrad von Finckenstein Chairperson / Président
Michel Arpin Commissioner / Conseiller Rita Cugini Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrée Noël Commissioner / Conseillère
Ronald Williams Commissioner / Conseiller
Stuart Langford Commissioner / Conseiller
Michel Morin Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Chantal Boulet Secretary / Secrétaire
Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager /
Gérant de l'audience
Shari Fisher Legal Counsel /
Bernard Montigny Conseillers juridiques
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Portage IV Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
September 17, 2007 Le 17 septembre 2007
- iv -
TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR:
CBC / Radio-Canada 7 / 45
Canadian Association of Broadcasters 60 / 369
CTVglobemedia 122 / 691
CanWest MediaWorks Inc. 168 / 938
Shaw Communications Inc. 216 / 1218
Gatineau (Québec) / Gatineau, Québec
‑‑‑ L'audience débute le lundi 17 septembre 2007
à 0857 / Upon commencing on Monday,
September 17, 2007 at 0857
LISTNUM 1 \l 11 THE SECRETARY: Please, be seated. We will be commencing in a couple of seconds.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12 Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 14 Welcome to this public hearing on diversity of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 15 Today's panel is made up of Michel Arpin, Vice‑Chair, Broadcasting; Rita Cugini, Regional Commissioner of Ontario; Stuart Langford, National Commissioner; Michel Morin, National Commissioner; Andrée Noël, Regional Commissioner for Québec; Ronald Williams, Regional Commissioner for Alberta and Northwest Territories; and myself, Konrad von Finckenstein, as chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 16 L'équipe du Conseil qui nous assiste se compose notamment de Nick Ketchum, gestionnaire de l'audience et directeur principal, Radiodiffusion; Shari Fisher et Bernard Montigny, conseillers juridiques; et Chantal Boulet, secrétaire de l'audience.
LISTNUM 1 \l 17 The issue of media concentration is an important one that has preoccupied policy makers in Canada for some time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 18 Several studies have touched on the subject, most notably the Davey Report in 1970, the Kent Commission in 1981, the Lincoln Report in 2003 and the Fraser Report in 2006.
LISTNUM 1 \l 19 The concern over media concentration is not limited to Canada. Many other jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, are currently studying this issue, and Australia has recently passed new legislation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 110 Pourquoi la concentration des médias fait‑elle l'objet d'une telle attention ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 111 Tout simplement parce que la présence d'une diversité de voix s'avère essentielle au bon fonctionnement d'une démocratie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 112 Lorsque les personnes ont accès à l'information à partir de différents points de vue, elles sont mieux en mesure de participer aux débats publics et de devenir des citoyens bien informés et engagés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 113 C'est la première fois que le CRTC tient une audience pour examiner la politique globale de son approche sur la propriété des médias et son incidence possible sur la diversité des voix accessible aux Canadiens, et ce, au moment où la vague de fusions que connaît l'industrie de la radiodiffusion fait en sorte que les entreprises contrôlent non seulement un large éventail de médias traditionnels, mais également le contenu qu'elles peuvent diffuser sur leurs plateformes numériques.
LISTNUM 1 \l 114 The main purpose of this proceeding is to ensure that the broadcasting system provides Canadians with the greatest possible diversity of voices, and especially editorial voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 115 Any policy guidelines that may be developed as a result of this proceeding should be simple, consistent and clearly articulated.
LISTNUM 1 \l 116 As you are all aware, the three major ownership transactions announced prior to March 13, 2007, will be considered under the existing rules and will not be affected by the guidelines arising from this proceeding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 117 The hearing starting today will focus on three key issues: the plurality of commercial editorial voices, the diversity of programming choices and the safeguards for journalistic content in situations where different media outlets in a given market are controlled by a single entity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 118 Those are our three major concerns.
LISTNUM 1 \l 119 When speaking of the plurality of voices, the Commission is referring to the number of editorial voices, including news and current events programming, owned by separate entities.
LISTNUM 1 \l 120 In Canada, the broadcasting system is divided into public, private and community elements, and each plays a role in informing the perspectives of Canadians on local, national and global affairs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 121 During this hearing, we will only examine the most effective means of ensuring that private broadcasters offer Canadians an appropriate num ber of different editorial voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 122 The diversity of programming choices, on the other hand, refers to the content available to Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 123 The Commission has different regulatory tools at its disposal to ensure that our broadcasting system offers diverse content to listeners and viewers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 124 We will be taking a broader look at our regulatory tools during upcoming proceedings, such as the review of our policies for discretionary services and BDUs and the licences renewal hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 125 Enfin, nous étudierons également l'efficacité des dispositifs en place concernant l'indépendance journalistique, ainsi que le Code d'indépendance journalistique que le Conseil canadien des normes de la radiotélévision a proposé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 126 The Commission will accept additional comments on the areas identified by the panel at the end of the oral hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 127 Parties will have until October 5 to submit their final written comments.
LISTNUM 1 \l 128 Now we have five very full days ahead of us. I will not bother you with any more speeches.
LISTNUM 1 \l 129 We will go right to the various interveners.
LISTNUM 1 \l 130 Madame Boulet, over to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 131 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, et bonjour à tous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 132 Seulement quelques petites annonces d'ordre procédural.
LISTNUM 1 \l 133 I would now ask you, if you have a blackberry or a beeper or a cell phone, if you could please turn it off. I would appreciate your cooperation throughout the hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 134 The simultaneous translation is available is available during this hearing. There are receivers available from the commissionaire outside this hearing room.
LISTNUM 1 \l 135 The English translation is on channel seven, and the French translation on channel eight.
LISTNUM 1 \l 136 We expect the hearing to take one week.
LISTNUM 1 \l 137 We will begin tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. and every other morning, and adjourn each afternoon at approximately 4:30 p.m.
LISTNUM 1 \l 138 We will take one hour for lunch, a break in the morning and in the afternoon.
LISTNUM 1 \l 139 Pendant toute la durée de l'audience, vous pourrez consulter les documents qui font partie du dossier public pour cette audience dans la salle d'examen qui se trouve dans la Salle Papineau, située à l'extérieur de la salle d'audience à votre droite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 140 Une transcription est aussi disponible sur notre site Internet à la fin de l'audience, ou vous pouvez vous en procurer une copie auprès de la compagnie Mediacopy en parlant peut‑être avec le sténographe qui est situé à ma droite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 141 Veuillez noter qu'un intervenant a été ajouté à l'horaire de cette audience pour mercredi. Il s'agit du Syndicat des travailleurs de l'information du Journal de Montréal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 142 We will now proceed with the presentation of CBC/Radio‑Canada. Appearing for CBC is Mr. Sylvain Lafrance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 143 Monsieur Lafrance, une fois que vous aurez présenté vos collègues, vous aurez dix minutes pour votre présentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 144 Merci.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 145 M. LAFRANCE : Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 146 Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, au nom de la Société Radio‑Canada, il nous fait plaisir d'être présents ici ce matin pour discuter de cette très importante question qui est la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 147 Je suis Sylvain Lafrance, donc, vice‑président principal des Services français.
LISTNUM 1 \l 148 A ma gauche se trouve Jane Chalmers, vice‑présidente de la Radio anglaise.
LISTNUM 1 \l 149 Et à ma droite de monsieur Richard Stursberg, vice‑président principal de CBC télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 150 Et à la droite de monsieur Stursberg, Bev Kirshenblatt, première directrice, Affaires réglementaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 151 Dans le cadre de ses audiences, le Conseil examine l'un des objectifs fondamentaux de la réglementation sur la radiodiffusion au Canada, soit la promotion d'un système de radio diffusion qui reflète la composition démographique du pays et qui garantit que les auditoires ont accès à une diversité de voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 152 Comme nous l'avons expliqué dans notre mémoire, nous pensons que, dans le cadre de cet examen, le Conseil devrait porter une attention particulière à la contribution des diffuseurs publics pour assurer la diversité des voix, contribuant ainsi à la santé du système de radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 153 L'étude que nous avons faite de la situation dans d'autres pays ainsi que les études de portée internationales effectuées par d'autres parties dans le cadre de ces audiences confirment la reconnaissance du rôle important des diffuseurs publics en cette matière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 154 La présence d'un diffuseur public solide dans le système de radiodiffusion d'un pays constitue un contrepoids important à la concentration des médias et permet de s'assurer que la diversité des voix est bel et bien présente.
LISTNUM 1 \l 155 A titre d'exemple, dans une seule semaine de diffusion en 2007, la radio de Radio‑Canada dans ses seules émissions d'information reçoit près de 1500 invités différents. La télévision de Radio‑Canada, près de 900 invités différents.
LISTNUM 1 \l 156 Ça parle beaucoup de ce qu'est la diversité à la radio et à la télévision de Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 157 Ce matin, nous aimerions discuter plus en détail de ce concept avec vous et vous donner des exemples concrets de la manière dont CBC/Radio‑Canada contribue à promouvoir la diversité des voix au Canada sur diverses plateformes, enrichissant ainsi la vie démocratique et culturelle des Canadiens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 158 J'aimerais m'arrêter un instant sur deux points cruciaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 159 Premièrement, le caractère singulier du marché québécois, qui, de par sa taille réduite, son environnement médiatique hautement concentré et sa proximité avec les marchés anglophones qui l'entourent, constitue un défi pour le maintien d'une saine diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 160 Vous savez déjà que l'intégration verticale entre les distributeurs et la télévision est très présente au Québec. Québécor contrôle Vidéotron, TVA et LCN. Cogeco contrôle TQS.
LISTNUM 1 \l 161 On sait aussi que le niveau de concentration des médias est particulièrement élevé sur le marché québécois.
LISTNUM 1 \l 162 Il n'est pas surprenant que le rapport de Nordicité conclut que, si on applique le système australien de calcul de concentration des médias, le marché métropolitain de Montréal est déjà en dessous du seuil acceptable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 163 On note cependant que cette méthode australienne de calcul n'inclut que les groupes de médias privés commerciaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 164 Il ne tient donc pas compte de Radio‑Canada, qui joue un rôle absolument essentiel pour maintenir une diversité des voix dans un contexte où les médias au Canada, tout comme ceux de plusieurs autres pays, se concentrent de plus en plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 165 Dans ce contexte, les avantages qu'apporte la radiodiffusion publique au système sont doublement importants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 166 Je me ferai un plaisir de discuter plus avant de ce point avec vous pendant la période de questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 167 Le second élément est un point essentiel défini par le Conseil dans son avis public : le critère de l'accès raisonnable au système pour les entreprises canadiennes de programmation afin de promouvoir un système de radiodiffusion diversifié et sain.
LISTNUM 1 \l 168 Le défi que constitue la promotion de l'accès au système de la programmation canadienne n'a jamais été aussi grand, surtout dans le cas de la télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 169 Et soyons clairs sur ce point : il n'y a pas de liberté de parole sans la liberté d'être entendu. Il n'y a pas de diversité des voix sans une distribution équitable de ces voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 170 La tâche du Conseil sera colossale, car plusieurs défis se présentent. D'abord, la quantité et la variété grandissantes de contenu étranger que l'on peut trouver sur Internet et sur les plateformes multimédias, puis la domination croissante de la programmation étrangère à la télévision canadienne anglaise, le contrôle accru du contenu des nouveaux médias par les distributeurs et par les entreprises de télécommunications qui distribuent ce contenu, et enfin les contraintes incessantes, liées à la petitesse du marché, auxquelles est soumise la programmation canadienne de langue française.
LISTNUM 1 \l 171 Nous discuterons avec vous plus en détail de certains de ces points dans le contexte de prochaines audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 172 Toutefois, nous souhaiterions souligner aujourd'hui au Conseil qu'il ne doit pas envisager la diversité des voix dans le seul contexte des genres de programmation ou des choix éditoriaux et de propriété, mais aussi dans le cadre plus large d'assurer un accès raisonnable au système pour la programmation canadienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 173 La question de l'accès n'est pas une question technique ou une simple question de tuyaux. Elle est au coeur de la partie sociale et culturelle du mandat du CRTC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 174 Jane ?
LISTNUM 1 \l 175 MS CHALMERS : Thank you, Sylvain.
LISTNUM 1 \l 176 As we noted in our submission, UNESCO and the Council of Europe in their assessment of diversity and the role of public broadcasting services have characterized four specific qualities of public broadcasting.
LISTNUM 1 \l 177 These are:
1) universality of access to every citizen throughout the country;
2) independence from commercial or political influence;
3) diversity in program type, in audiences targeted and in subject matter; and
4) distinctiveness from other broadcasting services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 178 First, universality of access to public broadcasting services is an essential precondition to the provision of a diversity of voices in any broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 179 CBC/Radio‑Canada has established near universal access to service in the analog world.
LISTNUM 1 \l 180 Our analog over‑the‑air TV and radio services are available to 99 per cent of Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 181 In the digital world, the challenge is greater as Canadians consume media across a variety of different platforms ‑‑ both regulated and unregulated.
LISTNUM 1 \l 182 We continue to work to secure a place for our services on traditional media platforms by extending over‑the‑air distribution and securing access to satellite and cable distribution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 183 As well, we are broadening our reach onto emerging platforms like the Internet, mobile TV, podcasting and now the potential of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting.
LISTNUM 1 \l 184 We have to reach every citizen in Canada as best we can and we have to do that on every available platform.
LISTNUM 1 \l 185 The second characteristic of public broadcasting is its independence from commercial or political influence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 186 CBC/Radio‑Canada's capacity to provide a distinct and unique perspective in the Canadian broadcasting system is rooted in that independence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 187 In radio we offer a commercial‑free service: no one else is able to provide such a service.
LISTNUM 1 \l 188 In television while we do compete for advertising revenues, we insulate news and current affairs from the pressures of the advertising marketplace.
LISTNUM 1 \l 189 We also enforce the highest standards in respect of journalistic accuracy and accountability across all of our services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 190 Our Parliamentary Appropriation provides the base on which our services are built and it gives us freedom to provide services that are unique in the system and to program in ways that simply is not possible in the private sector.
LISTNUM 1 \l 191 I would like now to turn things over to Richard.
LISTNUM 1 \l 192 MR. STURSBERG: Thank you, Jane.
LISTNUM 1 \l 193 The third characteristic of public broadcasting that Jane mentioned is diversity in programming.
LISTNUM 1 \l 194 CBC/Radio‑Canada provides a diversity of programming both within its network services and in combination with its more niche‑oriented services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 195 For example, within our network services we cover a range of program genres from comedy to drama to sports to variety to performing arts to news and current affairs and documentaries to an extent no other conventional broadcasters do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 196 There is something for everyone on the schedule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 197 Our niche services also play to our strengths as a public broadcaster and enhance our contribution toward our mandate ‑‑ performing arts programming on ARTV, Canadian music on Radio2, news on Newsworld and RDI and documentary programming on The Documentary Channel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 198 With respect to the fourth characteristic of public broadcaster ‑‑ distinctiveness from other broadcasting services ‑‑ CBC/Radio‑Canada's public service obligations are, as they should be, greater than that of other broadcasters and that makes its contribution to a diversity of voices that much more vital.
LISTNUM 1 \l 199 For example, CBC Radio and Radio de Radio‑Canada's prime time schedules are home‑grown and distinctively Canadian.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1100 CBC Television and Television de Radio‑Canada's schedules are similarly distinctive and overwhelmingly Canadian at 80 per cent and 88 per cent in prime time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1101 To sustain this high level of content, 95 per cent of CBC/Radio‑Canada's programming budget is expended on Canadian programming.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1102 CBC/Radio‑Canada provides a level of distinctiveness that is simply not possible from the rest of the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1103 For example, we operate 13 international bureaus around the world; CTV has, I believe, two bureaus outside this country, Global has none, and TVA has one individual in Washington.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1104 Canadians simply would not have an original Canadian perspective on international events without us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1105 We do more current affairs, more documentary, more international news and more Canadian drama programming than any other player in the system and we do it when Canadians are watching and listening ‑‑ in the heart of prime time.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1106 For economic and commercial reasons, this is just not available from other broadcasters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1107 Because of simultaneous substitution, CTV and Global simply cannot consistently put Canadian shows in deep prime time. Only we can.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1108 CBC/Radio‑Canada provides a range of Canadian programming, across this country, including in the North in French, English and nine native languages and to Francophone communities outside of Quebec. No one else can do this.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1109 In conclusion, we believe CBC/Radio‑Canada as Canada's national public broadcasters in an essential counterweight to the effects of consolidation and concentration of ownership within the private broadcasting industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1110 We also believe therefore that the strength and vitality of public broadcasting should continue to be a key concern of the Commission and CBC/Radio‑Canada should be considered by the CRTC as a key pillar in the Commission's efforts to encourage a diversity of voices in the system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1111 Thank you. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1112 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1113 I would like to go to your submission because what you told us this morning is very interesting.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1114 It basically deals with CBC and its vital role as a Canadian broadcaster, which is not really the key focus of this hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1115 As I told you, the key focus is plurality of voices, diversity of programming and journalistic code.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1116 If I understand your submission correctly, you basically make two suggestions. You suggest that we have a very rich, diverse system and that no drastic overhaul is suggested.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1117 But your first rule is a simple rule on ownership relation over discretionary services and basically you said no person may own or otherwise control more than 33 percent of licence discretionary services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1118 Can you explain to me what the rationale is for the first rule and on what basis you picked 33 percent?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1119 MR. STURSBERG: We don't maintain that the 33 percent is any sort of magical number. It could be 25 percent, it could be 40 percent. But what we are saying is that if you are going to have diversity then you have to establish some kind of rule that is relatively clear with respect to the maximum number of channels that any party could own.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1120 But as we say, whether this is like 33, whether it is 25, whether it is 40, we don't have a strong view about that but we do think it is essential that there be some minimum floor established.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1121 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are focusing only on 33 percent of licence discretionary services. So I presume that this rule is mainly ‑‑ does it apply to broadcasters as well as BDUs or is that different?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1122 MR. STURSBERG: Actually, we have two different rules that we have proposed and I might just take you to them in our submission.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1123 First of all ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 1124 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, my question was discretionary services can be owned by both BDUs or broadcasters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1125 MR. STURSBERG: Correct.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1126 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the 33 percent would apply to both of them?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1127 MR. STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1128 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And then on BDU ownership, you said no person should own or otherwise control more than two BDUs serving a single territory ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 1129 MR. STURSBERG: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1130 THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ that is within the Canadian market and a single BDU should control no more than a certain portion such as again 33 percent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1131 MR. STURSBERG: That is right.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1132 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you could explain to me the rationale for this rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1133 MR. STURSBERG: Well, the rationale for the rule is that we take the view that the BDUs become more and more important in terms of the control of content, that what you want to do is you want to establish a rule that is going to ensure that there is not one, two BDUs who are completely dominant in the marketplace.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1134 The capacity of the BDUs now, it is not just their ability to be able to determine in very large measure which discretionary services win or lose in terms of their ability to establish price or establish position on the dial, it is that the BDUs now are, of course, extending much further into other areas with respect to their control over internet and high‑speed internet particularly, with respect to those of them that are involved in mobile devices of one variety or another.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1135 Then what happens now is that their ability to be able to influence the distribution of content, whether it is sitting on the internet or whether it is sitting on mobile and hand‑held platforms, increases accordingly.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1136 So we think it prudent under the circumstances to establish again some simple rules as to what would constitute reasonable levels of diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1137 M. LAFRANCE : Si je peux ajouter une chose sur le principe, parce qu'on suggère ces deux questions là, puis on dit que le reste dans le fond du système fait un peu la job en matière de protection de la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1138 Mais sur le principe, il y a une chose importante, c'est qu'on dit, il faut une certaine forme de réglementation pour freiner la concentration, et ça s'inscrit dans un contexte plus global au Canada, comme partout dans le monde, d'ailleurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1139 Vous savez, ce qui trouble un peu mon sommeil, ce n'est pas le phénomène de la concentration en soi. Ce qui trouble un peu mon sommeil, ce n'est pas non plus le phénomène de la déréglementation. Ce qui trouble mon sommeil, ce n'est même pas le phénomène de la mondialisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1140 J'avoue que ce qui m'empêche parfois de dormir, toutefois, c'est de voir arriver de front la concentration, la déréglementation, et la mondialisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1141 Ça, ça pourrait poser une véritable menace à l'identité culturelle canadienne, et, à long terme, il y a vraiment lieu de se poser des questions sérieuses pour s'assurer qu'on n'est pas en train de préparer un terrain pour que, à long terme, il y ait vraiment une érosion de l'identité culturelle canadienne dans cet univers là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1142 THE CHAIRPERSON: If I understand your two rules correctly, they are really prospective. If, for argument's sake, the Commission would say: CBC, brilliant, we adopt your rules, they wouldn't bite, nobody would be offsite, so to speak. It would, however, ensure that the situation does not become more concentrated than it is now.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1143 I understand that nobody has more than 33 percent of discretionary services, and adopting this rule regarding BDUs, the net effect would be that Shaw could not buy ExpressVu.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1144 MR. STURSBERG: Well, what you say is correct, that they are forward‑looking rules, they are not backward‑looking rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1145 With respect to the BDU markets, I think ‑‑ well, first of all, I think, generally speaking, we have to see both the discretionary services markets as falling into two camps. There is a French market and there is an English market and so the one‑third rule should apply to the French market, as it should apply to the English market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1146 When it comes to BDUs, I think we should think of it as being effectively four markets. There is the major metropolitan markets, the urban markets, and then there is the rural and remote markets. Satellites effectively compete in the rural and remote markets. Their capacity to put competitive pressure on the cable companies in the urban markets is much more limited.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1147 So I would say that when we think about the BDU markets, we should actually think about them as being the French urban, and then rural and remote, and the English urban, and rural and remote.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1148 So to come back to your question, Chairman, the way it would work is that Shaw could not buy ExpressVu because then ExpressVu and Star Choice in the rural and remote markets would breach the rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1149 By the same token, Shaw and Rogers could not buy each other because then they would breach the rule in its totality.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1150 THE CHAIRPERSON: They would breach the 33 percent rule?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1151 MR. STURSBERG: Yes. In the English markets.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1152 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1153 MR. STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1154 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I understand.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1155 Then lastly, Mr. Lafrance, you mentioned the Australian model and that applying it to Montreal, the situation already is beyond what Australians find an acceptable level.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1156 You are speaking about the French market in Quebec or the English market?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1157 MR. LAFRANCE: We are talking about the French market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1158 THE CHAIRPERSON: The French market?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1159 MR. LAFRANCE: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1160 THE CHAIRPERSON: And how did you come to that conclusion? Because the Australian model is sort of intellectually very fascinating but the key is in how you apply it, how you assess the points and what you consider markets.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1161 MR. LAFRANCE: Yes, I think I will ask Bev to ‑‑ she is our specialist of the Australian market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1162 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1163 MS KIRSHENBLATT: The reference there was with respect to the CFTPA's filing. They filed an appendix with respect ‑‑ it was filed by Nordicity, and in applying the Australian model, the five‑point model, in looking at various markets, in the French market there was a concern.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1164 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm. The Australian model is very peculiar to Australia because they talk about capital cities and it so happens that the capital cities are also the largest cities in Australia. And then they have a little problem with Tasmania, so they say only as far as continental Australia is concerned because Jojoba doesn't fit the bill.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1165 So how do you translate this to Canada? Wouldn't you have to ‑‑ since we don't have most provincial capitals in the largest cities, we have to adopt that rule and if we wanted to go the Australian way we would have to find some other threshold. And what would be the logical threshold?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1166 MR. STURSBERG: I think that the issue ‑‑ we don't argue that you should necessarily adopt the Australian model but rather that the point of the example is to illustrate the level of concentration in particular markets given some international tests.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1167 The Australian model actually applied to the English market in Montreal, the English market would also fail on the five‑point test.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1168 If you took their other test, the two‑out‑of‑three test, i.e., that you cannot own more than two of radio, television and newspapers, then Toronto would fail because Bell Globemedia owns, obviously, a newspaper, radio stations and television.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1169 In our report we summarize a series of other measures that are used in other different countries in terms of acceptable levels of concentration and I think it would be fair to say that whatever the measure that you use, this country has levels of media concentration that would be in many instances unacceptable in other countries.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1170 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is interesting you mention the two‑out‑of‑three rule that the Australians have superimposed on their point system. I notice in your submission you don't comment on that at all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1171 What is your view of this?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1172 MR. STURSBERG: I think our view is that generally speaking the level of concentration is already too high and that if the Commission wanted to adopt the two‑out‑of‑three rule, I think that would be prudent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1173 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1174 I don't want to dominate the questions, I know my other colleagues have interest in this matter very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1175 So I will ask Michel Morin, our newest Commissioner. This is your first hearing, so allez‑y.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1176 CONSEILLER MORIN : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1177 Monsieur Lafrance, je vous ai entendu plusieurs fois dire, finalement, qu'il y a beaucoup de gens qui sont interviewés chaque semaine à Radio‑Canada, et que, finalement, vous assumez un peu la diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1178 Ma question est la suivante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1179 Pendant les campagnes électorales, on tient à Radio‑Canada, minutieusement, un registre des interventions des différents participants, de manière à s'assurer que le mot * diversité + ‑‑ que vous et vos collègues avez prononcé ce matin je ne sais pas combien de fois ‑‑ est vraiment réalisé que tout le monde a sa part de l'opinion politique, disons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1180 Dans les autres sujets, qui sont aussi intéressants, parce qu'il n'y a pas que la politique, le réchauffement de la planète, la privatisation du système de santé, de grands enjeux sociaux, est‑ce que, à Radio‑Canada/CBC, est‑ce que vous tenez, vous faites, ponctuellement, des recherches, des relevés, pour vous assurer vraiment qu'il y a cette diversité?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1181 Je pense au réchauffement de la planète. Il n'y a pas que les Nations‑Unies, mais il y a bien d'autres théories qui acceptent ou qui accepteraient partiellement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1182 Est‑ce que vous pouvez vous assurer que sur des enjeux majeurs qui ne sont pas politiques, vous pouvez dire, Radio‑Canada, la diversité en ce qui concerne le réchauffement de la planète ou tout autre sujet que vous pouvez choisir, nous l'avons?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1183 M. LAFRANCE : Bien, il existe, d'abord, plusieurs outils pour s'assurer qu'on le fait, et il existe plusieurs outils pour assurer les citoyens qu'ils ont droit aussi de nous poser des questions là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1184 D'une part, on tient compte de l'ensemble des entrevues qui sont faites sur une journée de production, pas seulement aux émissions dites d'information, mais sur l'ensemble d'une grille, que ça soit la radio ou la télé, et je peux vous dire qu'il y a une très grande gamme d'opinions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1185 Est‑ce que, sur chaque dossier, il y a toujours une assez large gamme d'opinions? C'est une préoccupation qu'on doit toujours avoir. C'est une préoccupation qu'on doit toujours garder, et je dirais que c'est une préoccupation qu'on a de plus en plus, parce qu'il y a plusieurs débats sociaux aujourd'hui qui n'existaient pas il y a 10 ans et sur lesquels il faut s'interroger.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1186 Cela dit, un coup qu'on a appliqué nos politiques journalistiques, un coup qu'on a fait certaines analyses de nos antennes, il existe aussi des moyens pour les citoyens, s'ils se croient lésés ou s'ils croient qu'il y a des opinions qui ne sont pas représentées, ils peuvent aller à l'Ombudsman, ils peuvent aller à différents endroits pour dire, écoutez, je pense que Radio‑Canada ne fait pas sa job là‑dedans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1187 Moi, je pense qu'on tient généralement compte de l'ensemble des opinions, et je ne vois pas beaucoup de sujets actuellement sur lesquels je ne serais pas tout à fait à l'aise de dire que Radio‑Canada reflète l'ensemble des opinions existantes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1188 Cela dit, on n'est pas dans une science exacte, hein, ce n'est pas tout à fait simple, et, selon les régions, parfois, nous exprimons des idées qui sont plus exprimées que d'autres. Donc, on n'est pas dans quelque chose de simple, mais je peux vous assurer de la grande responsabilité des journalistes et dirigeants de l'information à Radio‑Canada pour s'assurer qu'il existe une grande diversité d'opinions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1189 CONSEILLER MORIN : Mais ce matin, par exemple, vous ne pourriez pas, comparativement à la couverture politique, arriver ici avec un bilan, disons, le réchauffement de la planète, voici, on a le spectre entier qui a été respecté?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1190 M. LAFRANCE : Bien écoutez, je peux vous affirmer qu'oui, mais je ne pourrais pas vous déposer un document sur les entrevues qu'on a faites sur le réchauffement de la planète. Je peux vous dire qu'il y en a eu sûrement des centaines dans les trois derniers mois, et qu'il n'y a sans doute pas eu une seule opinion là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1191 Encore une fois, on n'est pas dans une science exacte. Mais c'est une préoccupation qu'on doit toujours avoir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1192 CONSEILLER MORIN : Dans votre exposé, vous parlez que Radio‑Canada assume cette diversité en tant que diffuseur public, et vous avez bien raison, c'est, je pense, un objectif que tout le monde doit avoir. J'ai un petit problème, c'est vos cotes d'écoute. Quand vous citez l'Allemagne, quand vous citez la Grande‑Bretagne, quand vous citez la France, leur part de marché comme diffuseur public est vraiment très important.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1193 Donc, est‑ce qu'on peut se demander si Radio‑Canada, avec les cotes d'écoute que vous avez, est‑ce que vraiment vous êtes une sécurité dans le système, si vous voulez? Est‑ce que vraiment, avec vos cotes d'écoute, vous pouvez dire : Nous, on assume la diversité que le secteur privé ne peut pas assumer?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1194 M. LAFRANCE : Bien, tout à fait! Elles ne sont pas tout à fait gênantes les cotes d'écoute de Radio‑Canada en télévision, c'est peut‑être 16 pour cent. En radio, c'est assez élevé aussi. Certaines de nos stations sont premières dans leur marché. Donc, c'est important.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1195 Je vous dirais sur cette question‑là que, quand on compare avec l'Europe, il faut faire attention, il y a plusieurs grosses différences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1196 La part du service public en Angleterre est plus grande, mais le service public a beaucoup plus de chaînes. Je crois que Radio France a sept chaînes publiques de radio en France. Nous n'en avons que deux. Alors, quand on additionne les sept, ça donne une part de marché beaucoup plus grande.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1197 Les moyens consacrés per capita aux services de radio‑télévision publique dans la plupart des pays européens sont énormément plus élevés qu'au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1198 L'historique des services publics en Europe, l'histoire est beaucoup plus longue. Il existait en France... jusqu'en 1980, il existait à peu près que des services publics.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1199 Donc, toutes ces choses‑là font que c'est différent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1200 Mais moi, je peux vous dire que la radio de Radio‑Canada est écoutée chaque semaine par environ un million de citoyens. Ça peut faire une assez grosse différence dans la diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1201 Quand une émission comme * Tout le monde en parle + attire jusqu'à un million et demi de personnes qui suivent des débats à la télévision, ça fait, fatalement, une différence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1202 Quand on additionne l'ensemble des gens qui, à l'intérieur d'une journée, vont chercher un bulletin de nouvelles à Radio‑Canada, à la radio, à la télé, sur l'internet, sur RDI ou ailleurs, ça fait pas mal de monde, et je pense vraiment que ça peut faire une différence énorme.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1203 MR. STURSBERG: May I just add something to what Sylvain said because I think the question is a very good question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1204 The strength of the counterweight that the public broadcaster can provide is obviously a function of its presence in the market and what Sylvain says is, of course, quite right, that in many European markets, particularly in Britain and in France, the public broadcaster has many other channels and, indeed, that the level of public financing for the public broadcaster is substantially greater.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1205 One of the things we put in our presentation ‑‑ it is in our presentation?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1206 MS KIRSHENBLATT: No.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1207 MR. STURSBERG: No. All right, it doesn't matter. I brought it along in any event.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1208 We can give you copies of it but we filed this with the Commission before, which is the Nordicity Report on government support for public broadcasting, which says that per capita public funding for public broadcasters across a whole range of European countries, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, France, Belgium, et cetera, is about $80 Canadian per person. In Canada, it is about $33.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1209 But it illustrates, I think, and this is the really fundamental point, that if we want to be able to have a good counterweight to the increased consolidation of the system, then it is very important that the public broadcaster be strong whether that has to do with its financing or that it be strong whether it has to do with the number of channels that it disposes of.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1210 M. LAFRANCE : Peut‑être ajouter aussi, Monsieur Morin, en radio que la radio de Radio‑Canada ‑‑ écoutez, je m'excuse, je n'ai pas les chiffres toujours en tête ‑‑ je pense, est environ 15 pour cent de part de marché.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1211 Si on enlève les stations qui ne sont que musicales et qu'on regarde dans le marché de l'information radiophonique, Radio‑Canada sur Montréal occupe probablement, et je le dis là à peu près de mémoire, 35 ou 40 pour cent du marché des radios d'info. Alors, ça fait naturellement une assez forte différence en matière de diversité des voix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1212 CONSEILLER MORIN : L'indépendance des salles de nouvelles, on va sûrement en parler au cours des prochains jours, notamment, avec les entreprises du secteur privé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1213 L'an passé, vous avez fait un exposé à l'Association professionnelle des journalistes à Québec, je pense c'était en novembre 2006, et vous aviez acheté, peut‑être pas le mot, mais au moins l'esprit de la convergence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1214 Ma question est la suivante.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1215 Dans la mesure où vous avez une salle de nouvelles radio, une salle de nouvelles télé, le secteur affaires publiques, et qu'une information d'une émission d'affaires publiques est diffusée à la radio, et puis ensuite à la télé, vous ressemblez beaucoup à l'entreprise privée, d'une certaine manière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1216 Ma question : Est‑ce que vous avez mis en place des mécanismes pour vous assurer qu'au point de vue journalistique, on ne fait pas que reprendre ce qui est diffusé sur une plate‑forme, mais qu'il y a vraiment une vérification d'un certain nombre d'informations à partir du moment où cette nouvelle est issue, par exemple, du secteur public ou inversement?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1217 M. LAFRANCE : J'avais mentionné à Québec que l'intégration à Radio‑Canada, ce n'est pas vraiment une question de convergence, c'est une question de gros bon sens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1218 Ça se fait déjà à l'intérieur d'une seule organisation où il y avait déjà un seul patron, un seul conseil d'administration, et donc, sur ce plan‑là, on n'a pas changé la nature même de l'organisation. Ce qu'on a fait, c'est qu'on a dit, puisqu'on est une même marque et une même entreprise, on va travailler un peu plus ensemble pour l'efficacité du système.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1219 Ça n'a, d'ailleurs, jamais visé des objectifs d'économie de coûts. Ça fait qu'on n'a pas, par ça, réduit le nombre de journalistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1220 Ce qu'on a fait, c'est que là où c'est très coûteux, par exemple, dans le journalisme quand on va à l'étranger, quand on va dans des régions éloignées et tout ça, on s'assure que, effectivement, l'information puisse servir l'ensemble de nos plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1221 Pour moi, l'obsession, de toute façon, de cette intégration‑là n'est ni une obsession économique, ni une obsession technologique, et sur ce plan‑là, ne menace pas les salles de nouvelles. C'est une obsession de marque.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1222 Moi, je veux que, quelle que soit la plate‑forme sur laquelle les Canadiens écoutent leur information, que ça soit de la radio, de la télé, de l'internet, de la téléphonie cellulaire ou autre plate‑forme qui puisse exister, on reconnaisse toujours les valeurs et la qualité du service public. Pour moi, c'est ça qui est fondamental.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1223 Alors, ça n'a pas changé les lignes de décision éditoriales. Il y a toujours des chefs de pupitre radio, des chefs de pupitre télé ou des chefs de pupitre web qui décident de ce qu'ils vont diffuser. Ça n'a pas changé la ligne éditoriale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1224 Mais ce que je veux, c'est que, vraiment, les valeurs du service public et la qualité du service public transcendent les plates‑formes et qu'on les retrouve partout pour que le Canadien comprenne bien ce que ça représente pour lui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1225 Je pense qu'il y a une certaine efficacité dans les couvertures très coûteuses, comme l'Afghanistan ou des choses comme ça, de demander à des journalistes qui sont, de toute façon, sur place d'intervenir sur différentes plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1226 CONSEILLER MORIN : Dernière question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1227 Évidemment, quand on parle de diversité, on parle de différentes sources, et ces sources sont d'autant meilleures en matière de journalisme que les journalistes ont un beat, un secteur d'activité, parce que c'est généralement un spécialiste de l'économie, de l'environnement, de la santé, qui va générer beaucoup de nouvelles et, donc, beaucoup de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1228 J'aimerais savoir si CBC/Radio‑Canada a une politique pour développer... compte tenu que vous êtes un diffuseur public, compte tenu que vous êtes largement subventionné par l'État, est‑ce que vous avez une politique pour développer des beats, pour développer des journalistes dans des secteurs spécialisés qui, dans leur univers médiatique, vont faire autorité?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1229 M. LAFRANCE : Non seulement la réponse est oui, mais on est de loin ceux qui en ont le plus, parce que je vais donner l'exemple des émissions d'affaires publiques. Nous sommes sans doute les seuls à présenter de façon hebdomadaire deux émissions sur la science.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1230 On va lancer jeudi le 26 septembre (sic) une grande émission sur l'information internationale. Ça sera un beat où il y a aura beaucoup de journalistes spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1231 On a une émission sur les ressources de la terre, l'agriculture, qui est spécialisée, qui est sur trois plates‑formes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1232 Donc, si on prend simplement l'exemple des affaires publiques, ça constitue des beats spécialisés en matière d'information, où on a là des ressources extrêmement compétentes pour faire le travail.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1233 A l'intérieur des salles de nouvelles, il y a aussi des journalistes spécialisés, naturellement, pour suivre différents beats. Ça se retrouve, comme il y a des généralistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1234 Est‑ce que l'équilibre va changer ou pas? Je ne le sais pas, mais je peux vous dire que quand on regarde la dizaine d'heures d'affaires publiques qu'on fait en télévision, quand on regarde, de mémoire, une trentaine d'heures d'affaires publiques qu'on fait en radio, ça fait beaucoup, beaucoup, beaucoup de beats spécialisés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1235 CONSEILLER MORIN : Mais j'aurais dû préciser, au service des nouvelles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1236 M. LAFRANCE : Au service des nouvelles, il y a des beats spécialisés. Est‑ce qu'il y en aura plus, est‑ce qu'il y en aura moins, je ne le sais pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1237 Je vous dirais là‑dessus que la question de l'intégration n'y change rien. C'est‑à‑dire que, pour nous, les journalistes spécialisés sont là, ils doivent travailler, et la question de l'intégration ne change pas, encore là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1238 Il n'y a pas d'économie de ressources dans notre stratégie d'intégration. On ne veut pas diminuer le nombre de journalistes. On veut, au contraire, s'assurer que le citoyen qui paie pour les services de Radio‑Canada peut trouver son information là où il la veut.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1239 Écoutez, je n'ai pas une indication ‑‑ puis, je serais content de l'entendre ‑‑ qu'il y a eu, par cette politique‑là, depuis deux ans la moindre diminution de la qualité de notre information ou la moindre diminution de la quantité de beats spécialisés qu'on a à la salle des nouvelles. Je ne le crois pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1240 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1241 Rita, I believe you had a question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1242 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1243 Good morning. I just want to go back for a second on your suggestion on limiting the ownership of discretionary services. Let us just use 33 percent for the sake of argument.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1244 I understand that existing services are to be grandfathered, to be applied in the future.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1245 Does this mean, therefore, that any further consolidation we would have to look at the 33 percent as the benchmark?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1246 MR. STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1247 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And that would apply too to companies who would want to apply for new services?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1248 MR. STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1249 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: In paragraph 84 of your submission, you say:
"Among other things, the opportunities for independent producers, each with a diverse voice could be limited." (As read)
LISTNUM 1 \l 1250 Are you suggesting that the safeguards that we currently have for specialty services, where specialty services have COLs that say a certain percentage of their programming must come from independent producers, that that is not sufficient to ensure diversity from independent producers?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1251 MR. STURSBERG: Yes, and the reason for that is that when it comes to ‑‑ there are two things that are of concern to me.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1252 One is that when it comes to negotiating with independent producers, your capacity to make deals and the position that you can put yourself in within a deal can vary widely.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1253 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1254 MR. STURSBERG: The more powerful you are in your negotiations, the better a deal you can make for yourself.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1255 The second thing is that if you are very powerful, then your capacity to be able to tie up talent, i.e., tie up the most gifted independent producers against others, increases.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1256 So for both reasons, I think that it would be unwise to allow people ‑‑ and these are things that you cannot get at with conditions of licence, if you follow me. You can't get there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1257 So for both of these reasons, I think when it comes to the independent production community, the wiser thing is not to allow any of the services to become so powerful that they can dictate terms that advantage them significantly more than any other broadcaster and/or tie up the talent in a way where it is denied to others.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1258 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And because you started that sentence with "among other things," I am going to ask you what are the other things that you feel would constrain diversity if we weren't to set a limit on the ownership of discretionary services?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1259 MR. STURSBERG: Well, I think we are going to get into this a little bit more in the next round of hearings but there's a lot of issues around this, some of which have to do with the diversity of editorial voice that we have been talking about, some of which have to do with economic power and with market power.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1260 When I am talking about the independent producers and the relationship of the services to the producers, I am really talking about the extent of their market power. Market power will reflect itself not just in the relationship to producers, it will reflect itself in your capacity to be able to make deals with BDUs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1261 So if you are very, very powerful, then your capacity to be able to strike those deals ‑‑ in other words, if you own a vast array of services that they absolutely must have, your capacity to be able to extract rents from the BDUs that will be higher than normal will be increased.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1262 But, of course, then what happens to the other services, because the BDUs have to maintain their margins, is that creates pressure on them then to lower what it is that they pay by way of fees to the other services who are not part of the larger group.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1263 The other way you would see it, of course, is in terms of advertising revenue ‑‑ and we have talked about some of these things in other hearings ‑‑ but to the extent that people are dominant in the advertising market, then what economic dominance means is, of course, your ability ‑‑ precisely what it means is your ability to be able to price higher than would happen in a normally competitive market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1264 So again, you will see those kinds of effects.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1265 So to avoid those kinds of effects, whether it is economic dominance vis‑à‑vis the production community, economic dominance with respect to advertising revenue or economic dominance vis‑à‑vis negotiations with BDUs, we think it prudent to be able to maintain some kind of limit on size.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1266 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: And while the vast majority of specialty services are national in scope, there are a handful of regional services.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1267 Would you apply the rule to both?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1268 MR. STURSBERG: We think issues of ‑‑ yes. I don't think it is going to be much of a problem, frankly, at the local level but we think, obviously, diversity issues are important at the local level, as they are at the national level.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1269 Obviously, we think that diversity with respect to local views and issues, whether those are news issues or whether they are lifestyle issues or whatever they happen to be, it is very important there as well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1270 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1271 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, those are my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1272 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1273 Stuart, you had a question?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1274 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1275 I want to come back to what I take to be the kind of main thrust of your argument, and by that I do not mean your comments on BDUs or limits on diversity ownership, because if I have got it right the main thrust of your argument is don't worry about what the private sector does within the sort of limits, we will take care of diversity, a strong CBC will do the job.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1276 Essentially, is that it?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1277 MR. STURSBERG: I would say that ‑‑ let me put it slightly differently but in a similar vein.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1278 Subject to some reasonable limits with respect to concentration on the private side, what we are saying is that the public broadcaster can be an important counterweight to further consolidation in the private sector.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1279 We take this view ‑‑ you know, it is not just our view. As we cited in our stuff, the Council of Europe, UNESCO and various others believe exactly the same thing, that if you want to have a healthy policy with respect to concentration of media, it is very important that you have a strong public broadcaster.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1280 Now, having said all that, I wouldn't say that we would say, "Leave it to us," partly for the reasons that Sylvain mentioned earlier and partly because ‑‑ and I sort of expanded on it a bit in English ‑‑ when you look at those public broadcasters in other countries that are really powerful counterweights to private sector consolidation, whether in France or in Britain, those are public broadcasters that are better financed and have more channels at their disposal.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1281 So, if you want to use the public broadcaster ‑‑ and we think you should, and we think that is consistent with practice in other countries ‑‑ as an important counterweight, then all we are saying is, be sure that you try, to the extent that it is within the Commission's power to do so, to make sure the public broadcaster is strong.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1282 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: You have foreseen my second question, because, with respect, we can't do it. That's the problem, isn't it?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1283 On the one hand you are saying: Try to leave it to us. Do what you can to leave it to us. That's the solution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1284 On the other hand you are saying: In Europe it is $80 per person, approximately, that goes to the public broadcaster. Here we are being starved at $33.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1285 If that is the case, if you need seven channels, like France, and you don't have them, and if you need $80 per capita and you don't have it, and we are not a taxing authority, how precisely do you expect us to take the risk of following your main point, when there is practically no way we can guarantee that type of environment?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1286 MR. STURSBERG: Commissioner, maybe I can come back to your findings in the Television Policy hearings.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1287 As I understood what the Commission's finding was, it said: We do have the power to establish subscriber fees for conventional broadcasters, if we want to.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1288 If we want to.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1289 Then, you kind of left it at that. You had some further views as to whether the advertising markets for conventional broadcasters were sufficiently eroded, et cetera, et cetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1290 Our position had been, quite apart from the erosion of the advertising markets, that one of the things we may want to come and talk to you about in the future is whether it would be prudent to put in place such a fee that would be applicable to the satellite and cable companies to finance other kinds of activities, and we set out a number of the kinds of things there might have been: more Canadian content, high‑definition television, et cetera.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1291 So, there, I think you have found yourselves that you have the power to be able to do that in the first instance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1292 In the second instance, I would just say that, frankly, I think it is too bad that the CBC finds itself now, after the great round of licensing of specialty channels in the past, in a situation where it has so few specialty channels.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1293 There is nothing much that can be done about that. We are where we are. But I would say that, to the extent that we can acquire or grow specialty channels of one variety or another, the Commission could be helpful there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1294 We were very pleased, obviously, when you agreed to the transfer of the Documentary Channel from Corus to us. It is a small thing, but it was helpful.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1295 M. LAFRANCE : Si je peux aussi ajouter, je n'adhère pas au résumé un peu bold que vous faites du rapport en disant Radio‑Canada est une réponse, donc, on peut déréglementer joyeusement et tout ça. Je ne pense pas que c'est ce qu'on dit du tout.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1296 Ce qu'on dit ici... et, d'ailleurs, je ne crois pas du tout que le libre‑marché pourrait régler en lui‑même les questions de la concentration. Si le libre‑marché était une réponse aux grands enjeux de culture et de démocratie dans le monde, ça se saurait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1297 Alors, il y a, donc, d'autres outils qui sont nécessaires, et on le dit dans le rapport. On dit, la réglementation actuelle, par exemple, est très utile. On suggère même d'ajouter d'autres réglementations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1298 Donc, on ne dit pas que le diffuseur public est en lui‑même la seule réponse et qu'en dehors de ça, on peut, donc, tout faire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1299 Ce qu'on dit, c'est que c'est quand même une réponse importante puisque ses forces sont précisément dans le domaine de l'information, dans le domaine de la création dramatique, dans le domaine de la création variétés. Donc, effectivement, il y a là une force qui est importante et qu'il ne faut pas abandonner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1300 Ça, on le dit. On précise très bien partout qu'il y a un certain nombre de réglementations non seulement utiles, mais fondamentales, pour qu'il y existe des formes de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1301 Donc, je n'adhère pas du tout au résumé que vous avez fait un peu du rapport.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1302 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Well, I would say this. I take your point, Mr. Stursberg ‑‑ and I did hear your eloquence, sir ‑‑ that we could, for example, give you fee‑for‑carriage. We could tax every cable and ExpressVu satellite viewer or DTH viewer in Canada. We could add a tax to it and give you a fee, and increase, but what would you give us in return?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1303 I think that would be a fair question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1304 For example, I would say that, if we are looking for diversity of voices, when I look at the amount of money ‑‑ and we don't know your budget right down to the dollar, but some things are publicly stated ‑‑ when I look at the amount of money that goes to hockey, for example, even though people like hockey, it doesn't add that much diversity. They can get it on TSN, as well, and it's a huge amount of your budget.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1305 When I look at the guarantees that we thought we had for local news at the last licence renewal ‑‑ and then there was a process a number of years ago where CBC began to gut local news. That has been reversed somewhat now, but one would think that wouldn't happen if you were going to come to us and say: Get us more money. Make Canadians pay more for our service, and we will handle diversity for you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1306 What is the quid pro quo? What do you do for us?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1307 By the way, this isn't an attempt to beat up on the CBC; this is an attempt for us to say, "If we are going to buy into this guarantee, there has to be a guarantee," and I don't see the other side of it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1308 MR. STURSBERG: I don't mind beating up on the CBC. I do it a certain amount myself.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1309 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: That's because you are paid to do it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1310 MR. STURSBERG: Can I come back through it very quickly?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1311 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just make sure we come back to diversity of voices. This is not a CBC renewal hearing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1312 I heard the question, but keep it focused on diversity of voices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1313 MR. STURSBERG: I understand, but I have to respond to one little thing, which is: Hockey makes money for the CBC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1314 One of the reasons why we like hockey is precisely that it contributes margin that allows us to finance the things that would otherwise lose money, whether that's news or whether that's Canadian dramatic programming.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1315 To your more general question, I think it is perfectly fair that you say: What would we do for a sub‑fee?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1316 We have not actually made an application on that yet, but we agree with you that, were we to do so, the fee would be tied to concrete deliverables.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1317 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: Only the fee.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1318 So what you are saying is: Add more, and we will do more. But if we don't do a fee, and if we can't, for some reason, persuade the government to give you more, then your offer to guarantee diversity, and to allow the market forces to take off on the other side, shouldn't give us that much comfort, should it?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1319 MR. STURSBERG: I agree with you on that. I completely agree with you on that. I think that was the point we were making earlier when we said: The extent to which the public broadcaster can be a useful counterweight for your purposes in terms of diversity is a function of the strength and vitality of the public broadcaster.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1320 I completely agree with you about that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1321 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD: We will have to be looking for some other answers then.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1322 Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1323 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1324 Andrée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1325 COMMISSIONER NOEL: Mr. Stursberg, you mentioned that CBC/SRC is a counterweight ‑‑ and I heard you mention it again a few seconds ago ‑‑ a counterweight to the concentration of media in Canada, and you mentioned this morning, at page 8 of your oral presentation ‑‑ and I will quote you:
"We do more current affairs, more documentary, more international news and more Canadian drama programming than any other player in the system, and we do it when Canadians are watching and listening, in the heart of prime time. For economic and commercial reasons, this is just not available from other broadcasters. Because of simultaneous substitution, CTV and Global simply cannot consistently put Canadian shows in deep prime time, only weekend." (As read)
LISTNUM 1 \l 1326 When you mentioned that, were you referring to the English CBC, or were you referring to both sides of the equation?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1327 MR. STURSBERG: With respect to simultaneous substitution, obviously the English side. But with respect to other matters, including documentaries, current affairs, et cetera, in deep prime time that would be true of French, as well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1328 COMMISSIONER NOEL: Could you tell us if all of these investments in developing content ‑‑ Canadian drama, for example ‑‑ pays in terms of viewership in prime time?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1329 I know the answer for the French side; I am looking for the answer on the English side.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1330 MR. STURSBERG: Yes. Over the course of the last little while we have put a particular emphasis on trying to redo our drama and entertainment strategy to focus on building audiences for Canadian shows.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1331 Our view is the fundamental cultural challenge in English Canada is to make popular Canadian television shows, whether it is drama or comedy. We have not done this very well over the course of many, many years. I can think, maybe, of three or four shows in the last 15 or 20 years that have managed to get more than a million viewers on a consistent basis ‑‑ Due South.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1332 And I would say to the people at CTV that they have done a very good job with Corner Gas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1333 Most recently it was Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is our show.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1334 We think it is very, very important to put particular emphasis on actually building audiences for Canadian shows on television, so we have changed a lot of our strategy. We have changed how we go at things, how we develop them, whether we want a series versus a mini‑series or MOWs, and we are starting to have some success.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1335 I hope very much that we will have more success with this coming season, and more success with the season after, because I think that would be good.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1336 But, as I come back to it again, we are the only broadcaster, which is not hobbled by simultaneous substitution in English, that can put Canadian shows consistently on in deep prime time, when Canadians are actually viewing. So those shows will have a chance of actually getting some successful audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1337 COMMISSIONER NOEL: Merci, Monsieur Stursberg.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1338 Monsieur Lafrance, voudriez‑vous commenter pour le réseau français?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1339 M. LAFRANCE : Bien, naturellement, la situation est très différente, comme vous le savez. Les émissions canadiennes ont beaucoup de succès. Les francophones du pays sont très attachés à leur télévision, que ça soit Radio‑Canada, TVO ou TQS, d'ailleurs, ou les autres chaînes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1340 Alors, la situation se présente énormément différemment en matière de dramatiques, quoique c'est vrai qu'en matière d'affaires publiques, Radio‑Canada joue un rôle assez unique, avec 10 heures d'affaires publiques par semaine.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1341 En matière de créations dramatiques, on a lancé, l'an dernier, je pense, 11 nouvelles créations dramatiques. C'est cinq fois plus, je pense, que notre plus proche concurrent. Donc, en matière de créations dramatiques, on est de loin devant tout le monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1342 Et je dirais qu'en matière de création de diversité, si on pense aux émissions spécialisées scientifiques, religieuses ou autres, à l'antenne de Radio‑Canada, c'est une télévision de diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1343 Pour la radio, je pense que je n'ai même pas besoin de le mentionner parce que c'est évident qu'en arrivant à l'antenne de la radio de Radio‑Canada, on reconnaît tout de suite le service public.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1344 CONSEILLERE NOEL : Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1345 THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel, you have a correction to make?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1346 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: I heard Mrs. Kirschenblatt stating data based on the Nordicity study, trying to show that the Montreal French market is already below the threshold that has been established for Australia.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1347 I think if we were to make the real count, based on the Australian system, the diversity index would be 10 rather than 4, because Nordicity forgot to put Gesca, "La Presse," "Le Devoir," three other radio groups, Radio Nord, le Groupe Azulé, la station de monsieur Coallier. Puis on pourrait même ajouter * Métro + de Transcontinental. Donc, on passerait même de 10 à 11.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1348 Donc, je fais le commentaire juste au cas où d'autres voudraient aussi se servir de l'étude de Nordicity pour essayer de montrer que, dans le marché francophone de Montréal, il y a une lacune de diversité, basé sur le modèle australien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1349 Il pourrait y en avoir, mais basé sur un autre modèle. Basé sur ce modèle‑là, je pense qu'il y a eu des oublis majeurs dans le décompte fait par Nordicity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1350 Donc, c'était ma contribution à votre comparution.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1351 THE CHAIRPERSON: In speaking of that, Mr. Stursberg, when you threw out 33 percent for discretionary service, you said that would be if it doesn't bite anybody, if it doesn't affect anybody. Is that the same for the English and the French markets?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1352 I am getting a message here that, actually, in the French market, somebody may already be over 33 percent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1353 Would you suggest the same 33 percent for both language markets, or do you think it would be appropriate to have a different one for the French market, as we can under the Act?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1354 MR. STURSBERG: It is also a forward‑looking measure, right?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1355 We are not suggesting that anybody, even if they were to breach the 33 percent rule, needs to be rolled back. We are just saying that, as a going‑forward matter, you should ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 1356 THE CHAIRPERSON: And for the existing years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1357 MR. STURSBERG: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1358 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Those are our questions. Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1359 Madame Boulet, who is next?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1360 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1361 I will now invite the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to come forward for their presentation.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM 1 \l 1362 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. O'Farrell, have you brought your entire association?
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 1363 MR. O'FARRELL: We are still a little more numerous than that, sir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1364 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame Boulet, over to you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1365 THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1366 The Canadian Association of Broadcasters will be introduced by Ms Charlotte Bell.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1367 If you could please introduce your panel, and then you will have 10 minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1368 Ms Bell.
INTERVENTION
LISTNUM 1 \l 1369 MS BELL: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1370 Bonjour, Monsieur le Président et membres du Conseil. Je m'appelle Charlotte Bell, et je suis présidente du conseil d'administration de l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs et vice‑présidente Affaires réglementaires pour CanWest MediaWorks.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1371 J'ai le plaisir de m'adresser à vous, aujourd'hui, au nom de l'ACR, au sujet de la diversité dans l'environnement canadien des médias.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1372 Permettez‑moi, d'abord, de vous présenter les personnes qui m'accompagnent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1373 Commençant à l'extrême droite :
LISTNUM 1 \l 1374 David Goldstein, vice‑président Affaires réglementaires, CTVglobemedia;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1375 Sophie Émond, vice‑présidente Affaires réglementaires et gouvernementales, Astral Média;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1376 Lyndon Friesen, vice‑président exécutif et chef des opérations, Golden West Broadcasting; et
LISTNUM 1 \l 1377 Glenn O'Farrell, président et chef de la direction de l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1378 A ma gauche :
LISTNUM 1 \l 1379 Pierre Lampron, vice‑président Relations institutionnelles, Quebecor Média;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1380 Gary Maavara, vice‑président et avocat général, Corus Entertainment;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1381 Debra McLaughlin, Consultant, Strategic Inc.;
LISTNUM 1 \l 1382 Pierre‑Louis Smith, vice‑président Politique et agent en chef de la réglementation, Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1383 Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs les conseillers, j'aimerais demander à Glenn O'Farrell d'entamer notre présentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1384 MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1385 Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I will focus on three issues that you have identified as priorities: first, the diversity of commercial editorial voices in Canadian markets and the most effective means of preserving that diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1386 You will hear me say that a strong and vibrant journalistic culture anchors editorial diversity in Canadian media.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1387 Secondly, the diversity of programming choices on offer, and whether additional regulatory tools are necessary to preserve it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1388 On this you will hear me argue that policy measures in place have fostered an abundance of diversity in programming choices across diverse formats and demographic segments, and that the best way of preserving this and sustaining this is to provide regulatory support to players who risk their capital to provide Canadian media choices in an increasingly competitive marketplace, including a new unregulated market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1389 You will hear me say that the current system is working very well and no new rules are necessary.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1390 Furthermore, it would be a huge mistake to borrow on proven regulatory models developed elsewhere, for different policy reasons, than those that exist in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1391 Finally, our views on the effectiveness of the proposed Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's code as a means of sustaining editorial independence in cross‑media ownership situations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1392 On this issue you will hear our views that this code has a proven track record, and has effective outcomes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1393 Let's begin with the diversity of commercial editorial voices, also described as editorial pluralism or viewpoint diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1394 This is a subjective notion and, thus, hazardous, in our view, for policy makers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1395 The British regulator, Ofcom, admits that there is no accepted way of measuring viewpoint plurality, and rejects the idea that media ownership is an acceptable proxy.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1396 For example, differently owned media outlets use the same news sources.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1397 This is the case in Canada with Canadian Press and Broadcast News.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1398 Although it defies quantification, editorial diversity is a cornerstone of democracy in Canada as elsewhere. There is no body of research to demonstrate that editorial diversity is in trouble in Canadian media, because, quite simply, it is not. It is alive and well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1399 No evidence exists or suggests any demonstration that consolidation or concentration can strain editorial diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1400 What is more, the explosion of internet use has promoted new outlets for viewer‑generated content and citizen interaction.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1401 Canadian television and radio broadcasters enrich their stories by engaging audiences interactively online, adding the audience's voice to the editorial orchestra.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1402 Let me turn to diversity in programming choices, which is more plentiful in all media formats today than at any time in our history.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1403 It springs from the depth of format and demographic diversity in Canadian markets, and the investments of broadcasters in Canadian content and choices.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1404 The depth of format diversity in the regulated component of the Canadian marketplace is without parallel. In the Toronto market alone, over the course of the past decade, there has been a greater than 200 percent increase in the number of television services available to viewers, from 82 in 1996 to more than 260 services today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1405 The level of ownership diversity has also risen. Twenty‑one new companies have entered the pay and specialty sectors since 1997.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1406 Barriers to entry have come down in radio, as well, with new entrants coming onstream.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1407 In total, Canada today can boast over 1,590 private radio and television stations, in addition to the national public broadcaster and networks of campus and community stations across the country.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1408 These developments have resulted in audience fragmentation on an unprecedented scale. As a response to this phenomenon, ownership consolidation has occurred. Consolidation enables media companies to reaggregate fragmented audiences to preserve the economies of scale that are necessary to sustain program acquisition and content creation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1409 While critics suggest that consolidation undermines format diversity, we believe the opposite is true. Owners of multiple outlets in a given market have an economic interest in covering as many diverse niches as possible, without duplication.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1410 Evidence that this model naturally encourages diversification can be observed in the Ottawa‑Gatineau market here, where three ownership groups operate ten highly diversified radio stations in two languages.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1411 Demographic diversity is enshrined in the Broadcasting Act, but it has also been stimulated by the economic realities of Canada's ever‑changing population. The regulated broadcasting sector offers services in 45 languages today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1412 From 1996 to 2006, Aboriginal, ethnic and multicultural broadcasters have flourished, with tuning to multilingual programming in major Canadian markets rising from 163 percent in Toronto to an even more significant increase in Ottawa.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1413 Such levels of demographic diversity make Canada the envy of the world.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1414 Diversity in programming choices is facilitated by consolidation. With economies of scale that provide critical mass, consolidated media companies can acquire or create programming which they then can exhibit sequentially in windows across multiple platforms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1415 Large, well‑funded companies are vital to Canadian content production, as several stakeholders on the creator side acknowledge in their submissions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1416 Spending on Canadian content has increased, not decreased with consolidation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1417 Between 2001 and 2006, private conventional television increased total expenditures on Canadian programming by almost $100 million.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1418 Pay and specialty Canadian program expenditure increases are to the tune of $283 million over the same period.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1419 New rules, therefore, limiting ownership of multiple broadcasting properties are not necessary to improve this output. Broad public policy measures support a robust program rights market in Canada, producing $8 billion in direct revenues and over 26,000 jobs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1420 While it is to be expected that certain stakeholders will argue for incremental financial commitments from broadcasters to support their particular businesses, it is important to remember that labour market stimulation is not one of the objectives of the Broadcasting Policy.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1421 Moreover, in an age of declining profitability, introducing new micro‑regulatory oversight of content spending will simply constrain multiplatform content creation at a time when original Canadian content production has never been more expensive.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1422 MME BELL : Nous avons vu d'autres pays tentés, sans succès, de formuler des règles pour limiter la concentration. Ce simple constat devrait déjà nous mettre en garde, mais si le Conseil en venait à penser qu'il faut absolument des règles, s'inspirer de l'expérience de ces pays serait, à notre avis, commettre une grave erreur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1423 Les règles dont se dotent d'autres pays répondent aux conditions particulières qui caractérisent ces pays et ne sont pas conçues pour les Canadiens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1424 Take Australia for an example. We share a common language but our broadcasting systems could not be more different. Australia developed its own point system for measuring concentration to respond to changes in the business environment produced by easing restrictions on foreign ownership. That was the driver of change. There is no such change in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1425 I could go on but I think the point has been made. No new rules are necessary and rules from elsewhere will not work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1426 J'en arrive maintenant au Code d'autoréglementation du CCNR à l'usage des médias de propriétés mixtes. Ce code a bien réussi jusqu'à maintenant à garantir l'indépendance éditoriale, qui est, comme je l'ai dit, profondément ancrée dans la culture des salles de nouvelles de tous les médias. Il n'y a rien qui incite à penser le contraire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1427 Dans les activités de collecte de nouvelles, il est courant de voir des réseaux concurrents de partager le même avion nolisé ou l'alimentation par satellite. On ne redoute jamais la contamination éditoriale lorsque les réseaux rivaux font des partages logistiques. Alors, pourquoi se mettre à imposer des restrictions aux entreprises de médias mixtes?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1428 Le code maintiendrait la séparation structurelle des nouvelles et de la gestion éditoriale, mais il éliminerait les restrictions improductives sur la collecte des nouvelles au Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1429 Un des syndicats s'oppose à l'adoption de ce code sous prétexte qu'il n'a pas été écrit par les journalistes. Là n'est vraiment pas la question. Ce qui intéresse les Canadiens, c'est d'avoir davantage de nouvelles qui viennent de régions difficiles d'accès comme l'Afghanistan et de ne pas être limité en cela par une réglementation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1430 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, this hearing is timely. It allows the Commission to confirm and, we believe, revalidate its approach to diversity. To do so, we submit that a mature conception of the public interest in this new environment is required, an environment consisting of an ever‑expanding unregulated media component, and a regulated media component that was conceived on the basis of controlled market entry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1431 A mature conception in this regard, in our view, should deal with two fundamental principles: what is in our interest to prevent, first of all; and second of all, what should we seek to accomplish?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1432 To the first question we answer: It is in the public interest to prevent consumers or to encourage consumers from not checking out of the Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1433 To the second question we answer: It is in the public interest to strengthen all Canadian programming services, both public and private, to ensure that they are given every opportunity to remain relevant to the Canadian audience.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1434 We recommend that these principles guide you in your deliberations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1435 This concludes our remarks, and we would be pleased to take your questions and offer all answers that are available to us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1436 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1437 First, a preliminary issue. You probably are aware that some of the intervenors have criticized us for holding this hearing and not providing the necessary background, especially financial, et cetera ‑‑ and especially as it concerns broadcasters; that disclosure on large broadcasters is not the same as on specialty and pay services, suggesting that, really, this hearing cannot be held unless such disclosure was made.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1438 We have notified everybody, including you, that we would ask the question: How would you feel, not for this hearing, but generally, if the CRTC were to adopt a rule for the disclosure of financial information for broadcasters similar to specialty programming?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1439 Could you comment on that, please?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1440 MR. O'FARRELL: I will ask my colleague Pierre‑Louis Smith to give you the details, but our submission and our position, I think, is quite clear in our response, and I think it is consistent with how the Commission should conceive its role, in terms of regulating the system going forward on a basis of fairness.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1441 Pierre‑Louis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1442 MR. SMITH: Yes, we believe that it is important to have information for the public, but that providing detailed financial information per services, including for radio and for television, wouldn't be warranted. And we believe that the Commission has decided that it would apply it for specialty services because they were in a situation of one per genre, which is not the case for conventional television nor radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1443 Does that answer your question, Mr. Chair?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1444 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you basically are putting our rationale to me and saying it is valid rationale and continue as you have done in the past?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1445 MR. SMITH: That is right, that is correct.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1446 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. In terms of plurality, I must say I am somewhat surprised by your answer. You basically suggest we don't need to do anything in terms of plurality, that there is no accepted way of measuring plurality and essentially we do not have a problem in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1447 Does it suggest, for instance, the Australian has this two out of three rule, implying it goes to national and local markets? Let us take a local market. If I understand you correctly, we don't need such a rule, so you don't see any problem in a local market, the same company owning radio stations, TV stations and dailies?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1448 MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we frankly see no diversity deficit in the Canadian broadcasting system first and foremost. We see a diversity surplus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1449 Secondly, if we look at the numbers, I think they speak for themselves. If you look at where we are today in 2007 as opposed to where we were in 2002 and look at the growth in number of services available to Canadian consumers ‑‑ and I won't walk you through all the numbers, but I will give you just the bottom line ‑‑ in the total Canadian picture we saw overall an increase over that period, 2002 to 2007, five years, a 45 per cent increase in services available to Canadians. Now, that is the big picture.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1450 If you want to take it market by market across the country, as many of my colleagues on this panel will tell you, there is no diversity deficit in our view. There is a diversity of programming surplus, which is why we feel that there are no new rules required and why we think that this is an opportunity for you to revalidate what you have done because you have done it well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1451 It has been a public policy test that you have applied consistently, different generations of commissioners have done so in licence renewal hearings, in licence application hearings and in transfer of ownership hearings overwhelmingly to the satisfaction of what we would call the public interest.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1452 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let us not confuse terms here. I was talking about plurality, I was not talking about diversity of programming. I was talking plurality, which we explained quite clearly, to me, talking about the availability of professional editorial voices and I am talking about a given market. The CBC may have said basically, we are fine where we are right now, but we have to watch out for the future and let us make sure ‑‑ if I understood them, and you were here, you heard yourself ‑‑ make sure it does not get worse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1453 And this whole hearing was sparked partially because of the fear that the ongoing consolidation in the industry would diminish the number of voices which express different viewpoints. And therefore, I am asking the plurality, not diversity of programming, plurality of voices and I am talking about professional editorial voices, that is how we made it quite clear.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1454 You do not feel we need a whole, like the Australian for instance, just to take one example, we don't need to do anything, the situation is fine and can go on. And we do not have a cross‑ownership rule, so therefore having a single owner in a local market owning all three professional editorial outlets, be they TV, newspapers or radios, in your view, does not cause a problem?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1455 MR. O'FARRELL: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We do not believe that new rules are required. Looking at the Australian example, and I think Vice‑Chair Arpin qualified the situation correctly, in our view, with regard to the situation in the market that was referred to in the earlier presentation, we do not believe there is a diversity deficit there either.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1456 But as to the usefulness of taking a model such as the Australian model, conceived in a very different marketplace as we all know, that we don't need to go through those details, and bringing it here and seeking to give it currency or application here simply is not a useful exercise.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1457 THE CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't my question. I am just purely thinking whether should we do something on plurality of voices or not prospectively? That is really what ‑‑ and I think you answered it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1458 Commissioner Arpin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1459 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I believe Mr. Maavara would like to add a word on that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1460 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1461 MR. MAAVARA: I just wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, that in fact you already have an extensive set of rules. And when one looks at the application of any test I would submit that you have started in the right place, which is the particular market that you are looking at. And I would submit that you have to drill down even deeper and, in fact, look at what is the viewer getting, because that is where the Broadcasting Act starts and ends, it is about Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1462 In terms of the rules that you have now, in radio you have limits on the ownership of AM and FM frequencies. In television, as you are well aware, we have just had an extensive hearing testing the one‑stick rule and there have been some exceptions to that. But that, again, promotes plurality of voices within a given market.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1463 And then there are a host of other tools that you have; the first one being, of course, licensing and the ability to introduce new voices, the second being approval of transfers. So we would submit that the toolkit that you have now is quite extensive and effective. When you start from a market basis, the fact of Canada is that every single place in Canada is different and the Commission has, over its regulatory life, chosen to look at each market as being distinct and the rules have to be distinct. There isn't a cookie cutter rule that you can apply across the nation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1464 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I couldn't agree more with you, we do have rules. I mean, my question to Mr. O'Farrell was very simple and I was somewhat astonished by the position of your association that on plurality, even going forward, you did not see any problems. But, I mean, none of us has a crystal ball, so it is your view and I appreciate it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1465 Michel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1466 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start my questions where Mr. Pierre‑Louis Smith left us regarding access to information regarding radio and television.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1467 I heard your reply saying it was not warranted. The thing is that most of the players that we are talking about here are publicly traded companies who in their financial notes are divulging most of that information, at least in an aggregate way. And what the Commission is seeking from you and discussing here is the opportunity to release them through the system that the Commission has put in place over the years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1468 Very few of the companies that are represented at this table are not publicly traded. I can see CTVglobemedia being one and Golden as being another one. But all the others here are publicly traded companies where a good portion of the financial information that we are talking of here is available, at least annually and sometimes on a quarterly basis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1469 There is also other sources of information that from time to time gives us some leads. I know that some of your members have a rep house which from time to time are publishing news releases and in which they gave some indication to the trade. So I don't think that what the Commission wants to release in terms of information is hurtful in any way to your members. But I surely wish to hear more about it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1470 MR. MAAVARA: Mr. Vice‑Chair, Corus Entertainment is a publicly traded company, we are traded both in New York and on the Toronto Stock Exchanges. And the information that we provide to the market, and perhaps we are talking about how this information would be divulged, but obviously we have no objection to the provision of information to the CRTC itself. The question is how the information is displayed to the public on a per station basis. That is what our concern is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1471 In terms of our disclosure, we disclose information on a segment basis, in our case a radio segment or a production segment or a television segment. The difficulty that we have when we go to capital markets if we have disclosures that are different than either untraded companies or companies that don't have to disclose this kind of information, is that it impinges on our ability to raise capital. And in that sense, we would make the argument that in fact the regulation, because it is not uniform, is actually hurting us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1472 I guess the second point is that as a regulated entity certainly the CRTC has the right and the ability to understand how we are doing. But we deal everyday with large segments of players who don't in fact have to disclose, for example, the carriers who carry us and even for an over‑the‑air broadcaster that is an important issue these days, as you are aware. And the suppliers who supply us with programming also don't have to disclose. So again, it goes to the matter of fairness and our ability to conduct business successfully.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1473 We make the position that it is enough for the regulator to understand how we are doing, but if we are forced to disclose ‑‑ and I might add our stations have gone 50 years without having to do so and we are submitting that this is not the time to start doing that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1474 COMMISSION ARPIN: Well, I think the way the Commission is contemplating releasing the information, and that is what we said in our letter, is that we were looking to release aggregate numbers, not on a per station basis, but based on a very similar model that we are using for specialty services. But not on a per station basis, but by group; I will say radio, television and BDUs. We will have an opportunity to discuss with the carriers, later on in the winter, and it is also our intention to raise a similar issue with them at that time. So it will put everybody on the same footing.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1475 And while you were saying that you were concerned about having two sets of numbers coming up, the Commission has been releasing your discretionary services numbers for years now and, to my knowledge, it hasn't forbidden Corus to raise any capital when they sought the need to go to the market to raise new capital.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1476 MR. O'FARRELL: Mr. Vice‑Chairman, if I may. I think to the broader question that you ask and I thank you for adding the additional informati