Canadian Heritage Committee on April 22nd, 2009

[Paul Sparkes, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, CTVglobemedia Inc.]

Thank you, Ivan.

Thank you for your question.

Just off the top, we're very happy to be working with Rogers on the Olympics. They're a great partner, and it's working well. I can assure Canadians from coast to coast, in both languages, that we'll probably have the best games that ever happened in Canada, and we'll show the Canadians through our television properties.

We recognize the issue you mentioned before, and we've worked very hard to find solutions. We have contacted all the cable providers from coast to coast, and we have offered them a view of the RDS and TQS signal so they will be able to get it during the two-week period of the Olympics free of charge.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

There will still be communities with no access to cable. They aren't many, but they do exist. As you said, you'll continue to work on finding other solutions for those communities.

[Paul Sparkes]

Absolutely. We're always going to continue to work to find solutions for those people.

In terms of hours we're providing, just to give you a comparison from past games, there were 613 hours of English coverage in Turin, for example. For Vancouver there will be 1,125. There are repeats obviously involved there. In Turin in 2006, there were 408 hours of French coverage, and in Vancouver 2010 we're going to be offering 822, which is double what was offered in Turin.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you. I will leave the time I have left for Ms. Dhalla.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead, Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much for coming to the committee today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You're going to have just a short time, though.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Yes. I'm going to keep my preamble short just to get right to the question.

We had the chair of the CRTC before us a few weeks ago, and when he came before this committee he stated that CTV and Canwest had not committed to providing any type of local programming support if fee-for-carriage was implemented. I noticed, when looking through the transcripts that were done before the CRTC hearings, that I had asked him at that particular time whether a commitment had been made by both yourself and Canwest. Can you please elaborate for the committee as to what the truth is? There seems to be a great deal of confusion between what the chair of the CRTC is saying in regard to your position and what the position of the CRTC is.

[Ivan Fecan]

Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

I read that transcript with interest. We thought we were very clear on the record when we said, as outlined in our joint submission, we submit that a fee would be tied to local reflection as defined by the commission. I guess maybe we weren't clear enough. Maybe they didn't hear us. Maybe we both need to do better in listening and explaining ourselves, but gee, we thought we were really clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Pomerleau.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fecan, and thank you to all the witnesses who have come here to meet us today.

First, does CTV provide French-language services in Quebec?

[Ivan Fecan]

No, the only French language services we offer are on specialty with RDS and RIS, the two sports channels.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am asking the question because I feel that, as we move forward with our study, we will see that—because of the language barrier—the problem in Quebec is substantially different from the problem in the rest of Canada.

At one point, someone said that the problem with Quebecers was that they did not speak English like Americans, and the problem with English Canadians was that they spoke the same language as Americans. Those are indeed two problems that may lead to roughly the same solutions, but that have completely different origins.

You claim that you wish to maintain as many of the services that are currently available in local communities as you possibly can. I'd like to know whether I have correctly understood what you said. You said that, because of the current crisis, you have two options: you can seek additional sources of revenue to pay for the services, or you can cut the services in order to turn a reasonable profit, given that your company's primary goal is to turn a profit.

You claim that instituting a system like that in the US would solve part of your problem, provided that the airtime was not used for other ends. Thus, if you denied another company your rights to use your broadcasting network, no one could establish contact with you other than by going through this system, and that would mean people would have to pay. That's what you are saying.

If you had a system like the one in the US, would you be able to seek additional funding and maintain the existing services in the regions?

[Ivan Fecan]

First of all, I think you have a language advantage, not a barrier, because that's what's allowed your culture to flourish. So I think it's an advantage actually.

Just to correct the record, we had been the minority shareholder of TQS up until it went under, obviously, and now it has a different owner.

We feel there has to be some sort of fee-for-carriage solution, whether it's the one advocated by Mr. Lind or whether it's the one we advocated a year ago or so, which would not require the American signals to disappear, because it would still have simultaneous substitution.

Without getting into the mechanics of whether it's A or B , or how you get there, with some kind of vehicle, some sort of structure like this, we believe that would go a very long way to protecting local television in Canada.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Is there time for one more question, Mr. Chairman?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Earlier, you asked for a chance for the television industry people to hold a discussion amongst themselves. First, I'd like to know whether I understood you properly.

Then, I'd like to know whether there has recently been a meeting among top-level television industry people.

[Ivan Fecan]

There was a meeting I think back in November that the chair of the CRTC convened among CEOs of broadcasting companies to talk about digital transition. I noticed he referred to that in his testimony. I think that's what he was referring to.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Do you think it might be useful to have a top-level meeting, a large meeting that would bring together everyone in the television industry and make it possible to settle the differences among you? Cable companies have their differences with non-specialty services, and non-specialty services have their differences with specialty services. Do you think such a meeting could be part of the solution?

[Ivan Fecan]

I think it's always of benefit to talk. I believe, however, there has to be a framework that basically says, “Look, you work it out, but you have to pay for what you use. You can't just keep taking it for free and you let us work it out.” But I think both parties have to be told to sit down and work it out. I don't think it needs to affect the consumer. That's a choice that distributors may make, but they don't need to make that choice, in our opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Welcome. I want to take a moment to thank you for recognizing recently one of your female communicators and the excellence that she has portrayed. We met very recently at the gala. I just want to thank you for doing that and for highlighting her accomplishments.

[Ivan Fecan]

You're speaking of Susanne Boyce.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

She's fantastic, yes.

I of course come from Winnipeg, so unfortunately we've seen some changes with our A-Channel, our CTV news, and with our Citytv news as well. It's of course a huge concern, because we place a lot of importance on our local news programs, particularly at this time, because of our flooding, etc. If it weren't for local broadcasting, local news, we would have a very tough time helping to protect those families.

I want to ask this on behalf of Canadian citizens who want more local programming, who want to get access to those news channels. Exactly what are they going to get out of this fee-for-carriage deal, if it's made? Frankly, and bluntly, you are in this business to make profit. You're not in this necessarily for the public good, although you do a lot of things that are in the public good, and I congratulate you on those things as well--donating to the United Way, helping with the humane society.

What are the citizens going to get out of this? Are you going to rehire those people who lost their jobs? Are you going to open up those morning news programs again? What exactly are you going to give back to the public if they're putting their taxpayers' dollars on the table so that you can get out of this mess?

[Ivan Fecan]

You may not know this, but Elaine has run our station in Winnipeg for many years, and she runs all of our local stations now. I would like to turn to her in a second, but I would like to just remind everybody that people are already paying for local television.

If our Brandon station goes off the air, do you really think the local cable company will refund fees? They're already paying for it; we're just not getting the money. When people get their cable bill, they believe they're paying for local television. We've done countless surveys and it's absolutely consistent.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Fee-for-carriage is going to be another cost, and someone is going to absorb that cost.