Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Madam Crombie, on the issue here about vertical integration and diversity of voices, I could comment, but what I will do is send the members of this committee two articles that speak in a non-partisan way of what's been going on.

In one article, Stéphane Baillargeon of Le Devoir talks about the control of information in the Quebec market on the Quebecor issue. He quotes journalists who share evidence about their directors force-feeding them and dictating the content of some articles.

In the other article that I will send you, Norman Spector of the Globe and Mail basically reminds everyone that every time Quebecor and the Toronto Sun and the Ottawa Sun attack the broadcaster, it obviously benefits their properties in the province of Quebec, because, as you know, there's an interesting relationship between Quebecor and Radio-Canada and the Quebec markets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Madame Lavallée.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome Mr. Lacroix, Mr. Lafrance and Ms. Stewart. It's a pleasure to see you here in this committee again to talk essentially about convergence.

In your presentation document, Mr. Lacroix, you say: "We have concerns about the control and distribution of content by these integrated companies. How do we ensure Canadians..." When you say concerns, I sense that that's a euphemism. Usually when we say we're concerned, our concerns are clear and they are misgivings.

It is also difficult not to talk to you about Quebecor, which is the symbol of convergence in Quebec. That business has been around for much longer than any radio or television broadcasting company even in Canada. The convergence of Quebecor started in the early 2000s, whereas the rest of Canada got into convergence only a few years ago.

Quebecor is established in Quebec, at least as a cable company, where 60% of households are hooked up to Videotron, which is a lot. That doesn't leave a lot of room for the others, which gives it real power, about which some organizations have come to speak to us here.

As we know, Quebecor owns the TVA network and the radio network that is your main competitor, in addition to magazines and newspapers, and the cable undertaking I just mentioned, and is now operating in the wireless field. We sense that this business is extending into virtually all areas of communications and telecommunications.

I would like you to talk to us about the problems you're experiencing because, as I told you earlier, when I saw the word "concerns", I thought there was quite a lot more behind that word. I would like you to tell us not only about the problems, but also about the solutions that have previously been considered in Quebec or that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage could consider.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

I'm going to let Sylvain explain to you, in two seconds, all the work that has been done to ensure an even greater presence in the various regions of Quebec.

It must be said that we're investing dollars in local stations and assigning journalists there. However, this work that we are doing in the regions of Quebec is becoming virtually pointless, hence my comments, when the local station's signal isn't easily accessible. It now comes via satellite.

When the cable company chooses to have an agreement with us, our position on cable is also the topic of a conversation that is both difficult and important for us. When this is the only business we work with, obviously the position of the national public broadcaster, the only independent at this time, becomes more complicated.

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

My colleague Roger will be talking to you about satellite in a moment, but I would simply like to point out that the Bloc Québécois has submitted a brief on this subject to the CRTC; so this is a file we know well.

However, I'm going to talk to you about cable because when you talk about Quebecor, you're talking about cable.

[Sylvain Lafrance, Executive Vice-President, French Services, CBC/Radio-Canada]

Incidentally, it's true that, from a practical standpoint, it's an understatement to say that the position this group occupies is a good topic for discussion. The entire issue of the diversity of voices is very important, especially in the specific context of Quebec, even more than in the Canadian francophone community as a whole. The Canadian francophone community is another issue in itself. So this is specific to Quebec. The conference of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec has made diversity of voices its main theme. This is a real issue that is on all tables.

That said, we have done a lot to ensure our presence. Let's take the case of the regions, for example. We're currently making sure that we're more present than ever in the regions, precisely because we offer a response to that. We, the public broadcasting service, are presenting something of a response to diversity. We offer an increasingly specific line-up. Our presence in the regions is increasing. We're offering Canada the ability to be a very energetic presence in the digital age. So this is indeed a response to that.

Whatever the case may be, we're not always in the best position to talk about the position this is occupying, but I would say—and it's the old journalist in me that's going to respond to you—that the problem of the diversity of voices in Quebec merits study because a real problem is emerging in the media world in Quebec in this respect.

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

I'm not quoting you because I don't have your exact words in front of me, but you say you're afraid that Quebecor is granting preferential treatment to its own properties.

Do you have any examples of that?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

In the current model, whether it be Quebecor, Bell or Rogers, the environment may impose a choice on them. For example, as I said in my presentation, they could choose to slow down bandwidth speed for technical reasons. If they do that, however, CBC/Radio-Canada's signal shouldn't be affected so that a signal associated with Bell or Rogers, for example, benefits from that choice.

When you're vertically integrated, when you're accountable to your shareholders, and major financial interests are associated with those choices, you're in a conflict of interest. In view of that situation, we're raising our hand and saying we have to watch out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Lavallée and Mr. Lacroix.

Mr. Angus, go ahead, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming this afternoon.

This has been a very interesting study. I must say, at the start, that I think the CBC has certainly led the way in many areas in terms of new platforms--i.e., the original iPod downloads. Any show that you want to be able to hear, you're hearing it in multiple platforms. I think we're seeing right across the spectrum with the private broadcasters that they're exploring more and more new ways.

The question of importance for us, in terms of dealing with suddenly very large integrated empires that are dealing with control of the platforms and content, is on the anti-competitive nature and the potential problems.

I always think back to one of CBC's first real experiments, when you made national and international news when you wanted to show Canada's Next Great Prime Minister using BitTorrent. Part of the reason you made international news was that the show was completely throttled by the cable companies, because they saw it as.... Maybe they didn't even know what it was, but the experiment fizzled.

Are you concerned now that many of your number one competitors, and sometimes very hostile competitors, who are running the bandwidths might decide to throttle a little more content if you attempt to use new avenues like BitTorrent?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

The answer is yes, and that's the purpose of my remarks. When we talk about integration, basically we focus on carriage issues, we focus on having a wider range of programming, and we talk about the concentration of voice issue. You heard my comments on what is happening with Quebecor in Quebec and my reference to the two articles.

But yes, in terms of the carriage of our signals, we would not want the competitors that basically compete with us every day, but now actually own the pipes, to create an unlevel playing field. That's what the comment is.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

In order to just ensure that we have a level playing field, one of the suggestions has been administrative monetary penalties that the CRTC could bring to bear; otherwise, they don't really have much in their tool box. I don't really think they can pull a CHOI-FM decision on a national broadcaster. Quite frankly, they don't have really many options if someone doesn't want to play ball or just wants to slow things down.

Do you believe we should enshrine administrative monetary penalties?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Mr. Angus, this is a position in which we are in a conflict of interest position, because our conditions of licence can't be imposed on us without us agreeing to them. So the relationship we have with the CRTC is very different from the one that the other broadcasters have and the other companies have.

And I don't want to be making public policy, because that's not our job.

I'm simply highlighting the fact that there's an issue there, and it's for the policy makers to focus on that issue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Fair enough.

I want to ask one question on the Quebecor issue. My colleagues have raised it. Certainly we know it's been a bit of a blood feud. You guys fight like dogs for the Quebec market, but hey, that's competition. I think that's great.

I don't really have.... You know, they run almost every newspaper in the country now. As A. J. Liebling said, “Freedom of the press belongs to those rich enough to own one”, and Mr. Péladeau is certainly rich enough to own as many presses as he wants.

My concern is that when I pick up my little local paper, in which we used to have editorialists and we used to have a lot of local content, it's all gone now. We get the same three voices. We have Peter Worthington ranting on about the threat from the Middle East, and a couple of old dinosaurs like that. No offence to Mr. Worthington, but I read him every day, in all the same papers.

But now I'm reading from these little small-town newspapers that the best thing we can do is get rid of the CBC, and I'm thinking, “Why would a small-town paper editorial be writing about getting rid of the CBC? Don't people watch it? Wouldn't you want the content?”

I'm concerned that we have someone who's very hostile to the CBC in terms of Quebecor. Mr. Péladeau has made it clear again and again, and yet he's now in a position where he's got the papers. Quebecor runs the pipes. They want your market.

Do we need some clear ground rules just so that we can set aside personal political agendas from the public interest and make sure that for viewers like me, back home, I will be able to watch my content or read my newspaper and know that it's not being fingerprinted from up high?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

If you want a comment on that, Mr. Angus, yes, in Quebec right now there is a situation where what we do with Radio-Canada is...and TVA, and V, and a couple of other smaller players, is we to try to interest as many French-speaking Canadians as possible; they're not only in Quebec.

The environment in which we live is the one that is dictated by the framework, and the framework right now is that Mr. Péladeau and Quebecor have a vertically integrated company. They can use their Sun papers and create all sorts of stories that smear the public broadcaster, and we do what we need to do to make sure the information is corrected when it is used in ways that we feel is not fair.

Do we need a framework for that? I don't think that will change over time. It's back to diversity of voices. It's about making sure that our voice is heard, that we have access to the pipes, and that we are not put in a position where we play on an unlevel playing field. That's the message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Lacroix and Mr. Angus.

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your submission.

I want to return to something Ms. Crombie brought up that has to do with the Federal Accountability Act and the access to information compliance of the CBC.

As you know, there were 70 agencies and crown corporations open to access to information for the first time recently. We believe access to information is a right that should exist in any democratic government. This is an important step toward openness and transparency. It's something that all parliamentarians worked toward cooperatively and passed that legislation.

With the CBC receiving $1.1 billion in taxpayer money, are you aware that it is viewed as the most un-compliant crown corporation or agency in the 70 that this legislation opened up access to information to?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

So there are two issues here.

Let's talk about accountability, because I think that's the point you're raising, Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Sure.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Accountability is something that starts with us and Parliament in annual reports. It goes into corporate reports. It goes to us in front of these committees. It goes to us in front of the CRTC. It goes to a new website where we now will be posting all of the information that is available and of interest to Canadians.

We were bombarded, as I said, by an inordinate number of requests under ATIP, 400 or so from the same group working for the same organization, in the first months after we became subject to the Access to Information Act. It was so much so that we had to sit down with the commissioner to try to figure out how we were going to deal with this, because this was not only about CBC; it was about the commissioner being swamped, and his office--well, it's now “her” office, but not at that time--not understanding how we were going to do this.

Today, as of November 26, 2010, of the 1,202 requests we've received, we have met 1,202. Since April we have received zero complaints on our timing for the requests that we are receiving. We have improved. We have not always been very good, but we are improving, and we have been learning from the situation.

I would like to remind you that 1,000 or so--because this is the information they've put out to the public--are coming from one office: two people. David Statham was actually in front of the Federal Court again and lost in front of the Federal Court. Both courts, the first court and the second court, actually declined Mr. Statham's request to blame us for our conduct in this file. Not only that, the appeal court endorsed the findings of the first judge and said--and I'm quoting--that Mr. Statham's conduct was less than exemplary.

When you put all of that in context, I would like to tell you, sir, Mr. Armstrong, that we believe in accountability. We're doing a better job. I'm very proud of the work we have done to handle this massive number of requests we have been the subject of.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Have there been requests refused--for example, to release expenses of executives? I mean, why would you want to--

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

My expenses?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Expenses, office furniture....

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

You can go to the website of CBC/Radio-Canada. My expenses are there. The expenses of all the CEP members are there.

They're very transparent. We believe Canadians should have access to those, so they're there.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Are you currently at the Federal Court with the Information Commissioner?