Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 8 - Evidence - May 8, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 8, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 10:45 a.m. to examine the current state of Canadian media industries; emerging trends and developments in these industries; the media's role, rights, and responsibilities in Canadian society; and current and appropriate future policies relating thereto.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to our witnesses. This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which is looking into the state of the Canadian news and information media.
[Translation]
The committee is examining the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that the Canadian news media remain healthy, independent, and diverse, in light of the tremendous changes that have occurred in recent years — notably, globalization, technological change, convergence, and increased concentration of ownership.
[English]
We begin today's hearings with Professor Marc-François Bernier of the Department of Communication at the University of Ottawa. He is a specialist in journalistic ethics.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier, for having agreed to share your expertise with us. We look forward to your introductory remarks, followed by a question period.
Mr. Marc-François Bernier, Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa: First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to briefly about the impact that the concentration of press ownership and media convergence is having on the quality of journalism.
This concept of the quality of journalism is not at all elitist — it is a long-standing notion. It is based on respect for the ethical principles and fundamental codes of conduct governing journalism. The principles and rules that make up the professional standards of journalism are the following: service in the public interest that respects privacy and the truth; acknowledgement of the duty to be rigorous and accurate; fairness in collecting and processing information and in following up on events; the integrity of journalists who must always avoid conflicts of interest; impartiality of journalists in discussions and events on which they must report the facts.
It is understandable that journalists might be partial to analysis and commentary, and rightly so. Another important standard is the duty of accountability, in other words, to be accountable to the public in the way in which they assume their responsibilities as journalists. Together, these concepts create a journalistic standard which serve as a basis for the quality of information, an important element in all existing theories of democracy. These standards apply in the print, electronic and traditional media. Increasingly, it is acknowledged that journalists in the new media must comply with these journalistic trade practices.
Many studies have indicated — and will do so in years to come — that concentration and convergence have had negative impacts on the quality of journalism. This statement attacks some of the concepts that have already been enunciated.
In some cases this also represents a criticism of commercialization, since, more and more frequently, these businesses must meet the needs of shareholders who are seeking a higher yield. Commercialization and information also affect the quality of journalism. This encourages journalists to be superficial: news becomes a show, and journalists become complacent about the industries and corporations that are part of the conglomerate. Of course, the concept of journalistic integrity does suffer. What is more, we should note that the concentration and convergence of information is inordinately increasing the social, political and economic power of the media owners. Their power in society has increased tenfold because of the number of platforms that they operate. I have taken some of your questions into account in preparing my brief.
First, do Canadians have access to information of the quality and diversity that they need? We must distinguish between the consumer press and the alternative press. Diversity in the media does exist. There are a number of alternative newspapers and radio stations as well as some television stations, even if the CRTC has dropped a number of its requirements for community television in recent years. I am most interested in the commercial newspaper industry, where there is less diversity. We must not forget that the increase in Internet sites that have been set up by many conglomerates only serves to multiply the same platforms. This only serves to hammer home the same messages. There is no increase in the diversity of what these large corporations have to say.
On the other hand, the recent example of Quebecor in Quebec is extremely disturbing. We saw a media baron and his wife literally using the air waves to flood the media and culture of Quebec by recruiting journalists from the print and electronic media belonging to Quebecor. They were made to take part in the promotion of Star Académie. Next year it might be something else. I am choosing my words carefully, but, in this case, it was certainly possible to speak of a process of corrupting the mission of journalists.
In that case, at Quebecor, their work was no longer geared to the public interest but was forced to serve individual, private interests. This not only affects the integrity of journalism but its credibility as well.
I must point out that concentration does not always lead to such excesses, but concentration and convergence alone make such excesses possible. We need a firm hand over the multitude of press barons, owners, and managers, which in some way or another must trickle down to the journalists.
I am also worried about what could happen. We saw what occurred with the advent of the Asper and Desmarais families. Now we are witnessing what is happening with the Gesca group, which owns the print media, and most of the Quebec dailies are involved in increasing strategic alliances with Radio-Canada, a public institution whose resources are being diverted for private purposes. That has not yet been debated. I think we should be concerned about the fact that Radio-Canada is increasingly being used for a piecemeal convergence with the Power Corporation newspapers.
How can we ensure that Canadians have access to news and information about themselves? When we listen to the main news programs, the information that is the easiest to find is American. Even on the French networks, when something occurs in the United States, they flood the francophone air waves because it is less costly. They simply need to take the information from the satellite and translate it. That is also done quite extensively in English as well. The CRTC should have to force all radio and television stations to devote part of their budget to local news with commercial-free news programs that would be sheltered from all sponsorship and free from the pressure of advertisers that contaminate the quality of the information.
In the old days of broadcasting, it was prohibited to air commercials during certain news programs. When those restrictions were removed, we witnessed a change in the quality of the news programming.
Secondly, we wonder if there are public policies that might respond to the new problems without infringing upon freedom of the press. I understand that you are treading carefully and I share your concern. I believe that institutions and governments must be concerned about this and must take certain steps that are limited to structures. They must not interfere with the daily management of the newsrooms; that is unacceptable. However, a governing principle needs to be set out stating that any increase in convergence and concentration requires greater accountability in view of the increased social and political influence of those who head up these conglomerates.
It is possible to ensure greater accountability without the government having to intervene directly in the newsrooms. This can be achieved if the government provides more funding for research and for the means of disseminating the results, as well as by encouraging public debate through the funding of research on the quality of information. This could also be done by requiring the media to adopt a code of conduct, establish an office of ombudsman, and by increasing the punitive powers of the CRTC. We cannot allow the press barons and the journalists to be the sole arbitrators of their own performance. Giving others moral authority generally leads to nought. I think that some type of monitoring unit should be created to study, document, and monitor the quality of information without becoming involved in the day-to-day operations of the newspapers.
In the brief there are indicators taken from scientific research which serve to measure the diversity and quality of information. I am sure it would be possible to find indicators that would more closely relate to the Canadian situation.
Research already suggests that there are what my anglophone colleagues call information ``blind spots.'' These are issues that have not been extensively examined. These issues should be raised more often or be the subject of more frequent scientific examinations. We cannot remake the entire broadcasting system. I am not expecting the governments to force the corporations to divest themselves of their property. We should emphasize research on non- evasive mechanisms in order to better monitor the quality of the information.
In closing, and I mentioned this in my brief — I will not quote all of the figures — public opinion polls have been fairly constant. The degree of public trust in the media is declining. There is more criticism about the power of the press. In the United States, surveys have shown that many citizens, in most cases the majority, feel that the media hinder democracy because the reporting is too negative, and because the news programs only feature the stories that are likely to attract widespread attention.
The public is not indifferent to this. A survey was undertaken in Quebec. In my analysis of the statistics, I noted that those who doubt the integrity of the journalists and newspapers state that they are more likely to favour some type of government intervention. They are not in the majority, but some people are questioning the integrity of journalists. They are more and more convinced that the media exist to serve their own interests rather than those of the public. This is an important variable amongst citizens who are reluctant and do not want to encroach upon the freedom of the press. But there is a feeling that the more widespread this attitude becomes, the more likely it will favour some type of government intervention.
I have suggested a few mechanisms to ensure the accountability and transparency of the media. We must not seek perfection from the newspapers. That is the worst thing that could happen to us.
I will close with something that I have been saying for many years now. Medicine does not belong to doctors and the law does not belong to lawyers. Journalism does not belong to journalists nor does it belong to press barons. Journalism is a public good, something that we need. The press barons and the journalists are the custodians, but not the owners. So it is reasonable to ask that they leave it in better shape than it was in when they found it.
The Chairman: You have said many controversial things, Mr. Bernier. It was quite interesting.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Bernier, you have certainly given us food for thought. Most professional groups that we find in society, have, within their organization, some type of disciplinary committee that ensures that the profession has an ethical image. Do you think that within the journalistic profession in Canada there might be some type of self- monitoring committee, in view of the various virtues that you have just enumerated?
Mr. Bernier: There are press councils. These are institutions. I read in the minutes that representatives were here to speak to you last week. These institutions were created in order to escape government intervention here in Canada as well as in other countries. That is about the only thing that exists.
Given that journalism is not a profession in the legal sense of the word, anyone who chooses to do so can call himself a journalist. There is no self-monitoring by the profession, no mechanism to apply sanctions. Press councils, where they exist, can, at best, attribute moral blame but, there are no sanctions.
Only civil tribunals can impose sanctions on grounds of defamation under civil law in Quebec and common law in Canada. There are also sections pertaining to hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. However, some of these sections are virtually never cited. There is no formal self-regulation mechanism, nor sanctions.
Senator Ringuette: In your conclusion, you spoke of a survey which was carried out by the Fédération des journalistes du Québec. The members of this federation are becoming increasingly aware of the general public's perspective.
Mr. Bernier: The federation came into being 30 years ago as a result of this move towards change and improvement in the quality of information. At our last annual convention, when this survey was unveiled, we debated a mock bill with a view to lobbying the Government of Quebec. We talked about setting up a professional body or, at the very least, a legal framework to prevent just anybody from calling themselves a journalist. Anyone who has an Internet site can call themselves a journalist. This can cause huge problems. Everybody wants a press card to get into places without paying. These people do this for social recognition and in order to interview people who would not speak to them otherwise.
There is a lot of confusion in the profession. Journalists have rejected this strategy because they are against any initiative or attempt to professionalize their work. They will perhaps change their minds in 10 or 15 years' time. For the moment, however, they have rejected such a strategy.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question. When we speak of a profession, we cannot escape the question of restricted and controlled admission to the profession, something which could, possibly, lie in the hands of the State. We should not be giving the State this sort of control. Am I right?
Mr. Bernier: When you set up a professional body, there can be no half measures. The rules have to be followed. That was the strongest argument. Then there is the issue of homogenized training. Can we really insist that all journalists come from the same mould? We want diversity. We do not want to cookie-cutter journalists. It is a major problem.
The issue of State intervention is also a major problem. I believe that it could be an erroneous argument. The government would not be determining who could call themselves a journalist. There would be negotiations. Professional bodies are independent and set the entrance competitions for their profession.
People are afraid of becoming too conformist. In one scenario, it was proposed that those who wished to become a member of the profession would have to sit an exam. While they may well have diverse backgrounds, they would have to sit an exam on their commitment to the profession and their knowledge of certain aspects of the law. We did all of this to encourage debate, and debate was certainly what we got. Everything was rejected within two hours.
[English]
Senator Phalen: I have asked other presenters this question but I read your presentation and would now like to know your answer to it.
At the Who Controls Canada's Media? conference Mr. Russell Mills said, ``...the primary allegiance of good media companies must be to the citizens of their communities and not to the shareholders, advertisers or employees.'' In his testimony before this committee on the subject of newspapers maximizing their profits, Mr. Tom Kent said, ``...we need the Bank Act to ensure that in some respects banks do not maximize their profits. Newspapers, because of their role in information that is vital to democracy, are not only businesses.''
What other mechanisms would you see being effective in ensuring that newspapers do not waiver from their duty to the community in favour of corporate profit?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Personally, I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of encouraging legislative measures to limit the commercial or entrepreneurial nature of newspapers. I have the declaration to which you are referring. I do not think that it is in line with the North American tradition. Wanting to restrict management of the commercial aspects would raise a lot of problems. I was thinking more in terms of self-regulation, but not an arbitrary or fuzzy self-regulation. Public institutions and governments should be involved in overseeing the self-regulation of the media, rather than allowing the laisser-faire situation that we have had for some time to continue. I do not agree with such intervention.
It would be going too far. It is not practical. I think that it is illegal and perhaps even unconstitutional.
[English]
Senator Phalen: Is there anything that you might suggest in that area to allow for that, other than something like the Bank Act? How do you control it?
I have seen the comment by Russell Mills and I read your testimony here today. All of you allude to this, but none of you seem to want to say that we should put a law in there, or a rule in there to cover it. What is the answer?
Mr. Bernier: I do not think I tried to allude to it. My point is that I am on the side of self-regulation of the media, because it is more compatible with the North American tradition. I cannot be clearer than that.
I do not see how a bank law, or something like this, would be comfortable for me. As a former journalist, I would find that upsetting. I find it would be more positive, more fruitful to monitor the media by giving to the people, the citizens, some institution, some place to lodge their complaints.
[Translation]
We also need media businesses to be accountable. It is social accountability, as opposed to accountability based primarily on committees or legislation, that is really wanting.
The best that we could do would be to insist on legislation governing self-regulation. That would be the best way to respect the liberal spirit of Canadian journalism which is rooted in the North American context. I read in your transcripts that Quebec journalism is still strongly associated with the European tradition.
For the past 15 to 20 years, Quebec journalism has been moving closer to the North American tradition and further away from the European tradition. We should look at the figures. Fifty or sixty years ago many journalists went to Paris to learn their trade; today, however, the majority go to New York, Columbia, or elsewhere to get experience.
[English]
Senator Phalen: Would you favour some kind of ombudsman or commissioner to monitor that type of thing?
Mr. Bernier: Yes, some type of authority that could organize or supervise the research and the public debate about media. However, it would not have the power to be a second manager of the media.
Senator Gustafson: I have two questions; one is on the topic of balance. I appreciate your presentation this morning. It was very frank. Some of the things you mentioned are typical in Western Canada.
In Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. there is a strong feeling that the media is controlled by the left wing, or whatever you want to call that. I see the senator across the way from Saskatchewan nodding her head.
There are also some serious blind spots, especially in rural Canada. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Vancouver. Vancouver has an isolated media, which seems to just surround the local area. I told my son-in-law, ``You seem to be not in touch at all with the world situation here in Vancouver.'' There are blind spots in rural Canada.
One more thing, before you try to answer maybe a non-answerable question. I will use an example of the various media interests. Yesterday, in the centre block, there was a choir of 60 voices. They were trying to move a piano in there so they could sing. At the same time, there was about 25 or 30 media representatives trying to get an interview with a minister. Do you think they would move to put that piano in? No sir. They held that choir up for a half hour.
That leads me to my point. There seems to be no place for good news and a lot of attention on bad news. In other words, good news does not sell so do not worry about it. Here were 60 young people — the future of Canada — and one camera turned around after the media cleared out and they were able to move the piano and take a picture. I think the attention was more or less in sympathy to the situation. I await your comments.
Mr. Bernier: I do not know how to comment on that. I see in that a real example of pack journalism in the instance of the minister. That is why the number of media on the Hill is not necessarily an indicator of the diversity of the media. The mainstream media want to sell the same news on the evening broadcasts or in the paper the following morning. It is not only the number of media outlets that give diversity.
With regard to blind spots, I do not know if I can be in accord with you, because the surveys I recently read indicate the opposite. They were talking about blind spots such as environmental issues, social issues, religious and feminist issues. They were not the blind spots that are typical of the left-wing media. In the survey of their colleagues of the University of Calgary, it was more blind spots of the right wing press. That is what they were told in their survey.
The Chairman: Bias is in the eye of the beholder.
Mr. Bernier: When we look at surveys and whether people appreciate — or not — the bias of the media, we also get a lot of information about the respondent who is answering the question — perhaps more so than the newspaper or broadcast upon which they are commenting.
Senator Merchant: I think I will pick up on Senator Gustafson's comment about bias in the media, and the perception we have out west about this bias. I do not think this is something new. I think people always knew the newspapers that were right wing and the newspapers that were left wing. I do not see a problem with that.
However, I think we do have a problem with the public broadcaster. We all put a lot of money into the CBC. There is certainly the perception and the strongly held view that the CBC is oriented to the left as a broadcaster. I believe that view is generally held out west.
I am not so much bothered about the newspapers or people who are self-financed because I think that free enterprise will either make them or break them. I do not have a problem with that at all; we do not need a lot of government controls. We should let the consumer choose.
We started to regulate as a result of a monopoly.
When I was growing up, the only two broadcasters were the CBC and CKCK. The free market is a good regulator, because the consumer has many choices. Although we can perhaps control CBC or CTV or Global, we cannot control CNN or ABC or Fox or anything else. People have a wide selection out there and they are making their choices. I do not see the need for an ombudsman or any more government control.
Why do we need government controls?
Mr. Bernier: The free market is not a good way to provide information — perhaps it is best for business. However, information does not do well with the free market. We have regulations governing the health system and doctors because we know that if we leave them to the rules of the market, the quality of their work will suffer. That is basic.
The same thing occurs with information. A free market gives us poor quality and poor diversity of information, because they are all looking for the same market of people — the same niche, the same segment, those who have money to buy the goods that they are advertising. I do not have a problem with that.
My problem is that we have both the need and the right to good information as well. Market forces drive down the quality of information. I worked in the newspaper business for 20 years; I know that game. It is not as bad as some people imagine, but there are some problems. I am more knowledgeable about the situation in Quebec, not in the west. I have read about it, but I am not competent to comment on it.
In Quebec, we have TQS, which is driven by the market. We do not have a lot of information there, but we certainly have a lot of advertising. We have a lot of miscellaneous news. We have a lot of struggles — not debate — between people, but the quality of the information is not very high. The real diversity is not there.
The other French private network is TVL, which is about the same. Some evenings, the information is better on TQS than TVL because the news broadcast is an hour long at TQS. Jean Lapierre has an open forum at the end of the broadcast, which provides people with an opportunity to discuss or debate issues in the news. We do not always have weather reports or advertisements in the broadcast.
I am very familiar with the debate about the CBC being left wing. In Quebec, the debate is not whether the CBC is left or right wing, but whether it is federalist or sovereignist.
However, we do not have a lot of data that supports the fact that the CBC is more left wing than a public broadcaster must be. The BBC is very critical of their government and their business people. They do not need business people to survive; they do not need advertising. They might need a little, but not as much as the private networks do. That reflects in the quality of information, with which I am not always very satisfied.
Senator Merchant: I have no problem with good information. What is wrong with the consumer deciding? When there is a lot of advertising on the stations, and the consumers do not want to have that kind of information, they will go to the station that has the news information. I do not see where the contradiction is. People are not listening to news. Young people are not turning on their radios. They have tapes. They are not listening to radio; they are not reading the paper. You could have the best information, but no one is reading it or listening to it.
Mr. Bernier: It comes down to the question of the consumer versus the citizen. I am mainly on the side of the citizen. Information is a matter of democratic life. I understand that private broadcasters have perhaps 23 hours a day to air something other than news. My point is that when they broadcast news, I hope they do it well. For the rest, I do not have any problem with that.
Senator Spivak: I am a little cynical. I do not think you can expect strong-willed individuals such as Conrad Black or Izzy Asper to get into business to lose money because they are in business to make money. Furthermore, they are also possessed of a great sense of their own rectitude. They think they are serving the public interest — whether or not they are.
There is no doubt that public subsidies are part of the free enterprise system. We would not have the music industry that we have had we not subsidized radio. It was a Conservative government that instituted the CBC. We have to lay to rest the argument that free enterprise is free. It is not free.
My point is that you are not going to control the privately owned newspapers. You can try all you want, but you will not control them. They have many different ways to get around you.
How about a public newspaper based on the same kind of idea as the CBC? That has been one of the suggestions. What do you think of that?
In the most free enterprise nation in the world — the United States — we have National Public Radio and we have a thriving PBS, which is also supported partially by government. What is your idea about a public newspaper?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I saw that suggestion in the transcript. Although the idea of a public newspaper surfaced a few years ago, I studied it as if it were a new idea. Firstly, here is the problem. Limited electromagnetic infrastructure by and large justified the need to manage the airwaves, thus lending legitimacy to the approach favoured by the CBC and the SRC. At the time, the model was a British one. So, historical context came into play. If broadcasting were to have been invented today, the CBC would, in all likelihood, not exist, nor would public Internet. Times have changed. It is a sign of the times.
A public newspaper would have to be published in both official languages. Furthermore, distribution costs would be astronomical unless it were only published on the Internet. Indeed, I get my newspaper online every day because there is no delivery boy in the area where I live.
I think that it would be a better idea to give Radio-Canada/CBC more resources and take away some of the commercial pressure that underlies the news bulletins. Getting rid of this pressure would be a much better investment than spending public funds on a public newspaper.
Furthermore, the issue of distance between the government and those responsible for the paper would cause me the same concerns that I have regarding the distance between the CBC/Radio-Canada and the government. In my opinion, the fact that the Prime Minister appoints officials poses a significant problem and undermines the notion of an arm's length relationship. Following that logic, it would have to be for Parliament, rather than the Prime Minister, to decide who would be at the head of Radio-Canada and who would be on the board of directors. Such reform would, in my opinion, constitute an important step and would certainly improve Radio-Canada's image.
Senator Day: You have made several suggestions and we are going to need a few days to study them. I would like to have some clarifications. You said that, by requiring media businesses to have a code of ethics, it would be possible to have greater accountability without direct government intervention. I was under the impression that each province already had press councils doing just that and that the members of these councils had to adopt the code of ethics. Is that the case?
Mr. Bernier: There is one Canadian province which does not have a press council and, if I am not mistaken, it is Saskatchewan.
Senator Day: That is a problem.
Mr. Bernier: I would have to check. Press councils do not all operate in the same way. For example, in Quebec, if you lodge a complaint with the press council, let us say a complaint about me, three people would deal with the complaint, two of them would be representatives from the media, and one would be a member of the general public. There is an imbalance.
In Ontario, there is an equal weighting and, sometimes, there are public hearings. In Quebec, the process is carried out in camera and nobody knows what goes on. There are no standards and there is no code of ethics. They rely on a system of jurisprudence, that is to say that, over the years, they have said to themselves that by force of the same things being said time and time again, they will end up with a code of ethics.
These people are acting in good faith, but they are volunteers. You do not get the discipline of a legal system. You do not get the continuity of a tribunal, with archives, training. This means that such a system cannot work and that is a problem.
Media enterprises are not under any obligation to be members of the council. Quebecor just became a member of the Quebec Press Council, and that was because it came under enormous pressure when it bought TVA and became the primary player in the Quebec duopoly.
Senator Day: Do you think that it would be possible to change these councils and solve the problems?
Mr. Bernier: I think that it would be possible to make the councils more transparent and give them the power to recommend sanctions.
I follow the world of media closely, it fascinates me. In the United States, there are no press councils. Well, there are two or three, one of which is struggling. The American media sanctions its journalists and fires them for violations of the code of ethics. The last time that I saw a similar case in Canada was when a journalist was not behaving as his boss wished and ended up getting fired.
But when a journalist behaved in a way which was ethically unacceptable, things got sorted out, be it through a press council, Canadian broadcasting standards, or broadcasters' associations, by applying a code of ethics. There is no real system of sanctions and, in the majority of cases, not too much heed is paid to what is said by the press councils.
The Chairman: The unions are going to be onto us.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: I wish to return to the question of the free market. The CBC has 7 per cent of the market. People have decided that they will watch CNN, and that is what is happening. I do not know what the number is, but it is high. I came out of the hotel this morning and CNN was on. Wherever you go, CNN is on. That tells me that people are deciding from which source they will listen to the news. If you do not have a free market, then you have a state- controlled industry and the state tells you what to do.
I will carry that one step further. This becomes political, but you cannot avoid it. In the Conservative Party, we have a leadership convention. Has anyone heard about it? I have not read one thing about it in western Canadian papers. Perhaps we are doing a poor job; I do not know. It seems that we are moving to a one-party system in Canada that is state controlled; could you comment in that regard?
Mr. Bernier: There is a debate about private vs. public broadcasting. The solution is to have a mix of the two. It is not true that CNN has such a great audience. Only a few of the millions of people in the United States tune into CNN. However, they have a great broadcasting presence in our minds.
If Canadians can be less critical of the CBC compared with CNN, perhaps that will be better for the CBC. The CBC usually has good information. Fox had a lot of reporters in Iraq. If we look at their coverage of the war, can we be certain the information was right? I cannot say that. However, there were many people watching Fox for many other reasons other than the quality of the information.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Gaëtan Tremblay, from the Department of Communications at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
[English]
Mr. Tremblay is also the co-director of the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Communication, Information and Society at UQAM.
As Mr. Tremblay takes his place, I will remind everyone that our normal practice is to have about a 10-minute introductory statement, followed by a period of questions and answers.
[Translation]
Thank you for having accepted our invitation. I believe that you have some opening remarks to make and then we will move on to a question and answer period.
Mr. Gaëtan Tremblay, Professor, Department of Communications, Université du Québec à Montréal, and Co-Director of the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Communication, Information and Society: Thank you for having invited me to participate in your discussion. The issue with which you are dealing, that is to say the quality of information in the country, is both extremely broad and complex. Obviously, I will not be able to cover all of the issues in 10 minutes.
Instead, I have chosen to deal with one fairly specific issue which I have had the opportunity to study over the past year, that is to say, the rules governing foreign ownership of Canadian media. As you know, this is closely related to information quality since some argue that reviewing or abandoning foreign ownership regulations would be one way of dealing with the issue of considerable concentration in the field...
The Chairman: Allow me to interrupt you for a moment.
[English]
Honourable senators, for the time being, we only have a French version of Professor Tremblay's notes, because we only received them this morning. We will have them translated. In the meantime, if those who have difficulty following the French can listen to the translation and we will get the English paper to you when we can.
[Translation]
The Chairman: You have the right to address the Parliament in the language of your choice.
Mr. Tremblay: I will focus on the question of foreign ownership regulations because it is linked to information quality and, above all, diversity. Some people argue that it would be a way of offsetting concentration of Canadian media in the hands of a few large companies. After my brief presentation, I hope that we will have the opportunity to revisit some of the fascinating questions, such as the role of the market, the issue of a newspaper, and the role of the public service provided by Radio-Canada, that you raised earlier with my colleague Mr. Bernier. I hope that we will come back to these questions in the course of our dialogue.
Allow me first to introduce the issue of foreign ownership. The limits regarding capital in Canadian companies were reiterated in the 1991 Broadcasting Act and the 1993 Telecommunications Act. These rules aimed to ensure that control of businesses in strategically important areas in terms of the country's culture, information, sovereignty, security and economic well-being remained in Canadian hands. Therefore, for several decades now, these have constituted one of the pillars of Canadian communication policy. However, the policy of ``Canadianization'' has been the subject of recurrent debate as it has not necessarily managed to substantially change the way in which cultural and information-based products are produced and distributed. Economic protectionism has not necessarily prevented a considerable influx of foreign goods and services. In 1996, through their policy on liberalization and convergence of markets, federal authorities relaxed rules governing the broadcasting sector. They adopted more flexible regulations for the telecommunications sector.
However, today's world is characterized by economic and financial globalization, convergence — at least partially — between the audiovisual, informatics and telecommunications sectors, a certain concentration of capital in media companies and the development of the Internet. For all of these reasons, the rules governing ownership ought to be re- evaluated. This was discussed, in terms of the telecommunications sector, during a series of meetings organized by Industry Canada over the past few months. Furthermore, the government envisages working on a new Broadcasting Act within the next two or three years. In light of the problems set out above, we decided to meet with some social stakeholders in Montreal in order to hear their opinions on this question. We met with seven heads of companies and read briefs and other reports from four companies. Furthermore, we got the position of nine professional associations and spoke with five experts. My colleague Fred Fletcher and his team carried out a comparable analysis in Toronto. We also requested comments from four international experts.
It is difficult to draw precise conclusions from our study. Opinions are strongly divided, and consensus is rare. To simplify matters, we could speak of two camps, those in favour of more flexibility, or even abolishing rules of foreign ownership and those who oppose such action. The ground between the two extremes is heavily nuanced, but everybody ended up coming down on one side or the other. Everybody put forward credible arguments, sometimes supported by concrete examples, but often neither proven nor corroborated by serious studies. Attitudes to these arguments depended on whether people were in favour of the free market, competition and globalization or a legislative and regulatory framework and active intervention on the part of public powers.
The first group wants to see regulations which facilitate access to capital given that they do not believe that sufficient capital is available in the Canadian market alone to ensure growth and innovation. They also expect that relaxing Canadian rules will, in return, grant them access to foreign markets. In their view, ownership can be dissociated from the creation and the production of content. The first could be liberalized, while regulating the second. With appropriate CRTC supervision, they do not believe that there will be any negative impact on employment and Canadian content.
Those who are against such measures, on the other hand, do not believe that there is a shortage of capital in the Canadian market and do not believe in the separation of ownership from content production. They believe that Canadian cultural policy constitutes a system, and even if a single element, national ownership, were to be changed, then the whole system would be endangered. Seen in this light, foreign ownership will result, inevitably, in job loss, a downturn in Canadian programs, and a lost of cultural expertise.
Given that there are such divergent opinions, what suggestions can we make for the future? Firstly, we cannot rush. The sense of urgency which seemed to stem from the mega-merger fever at the beginning of the 21st century have dropped off to the point that we can even ask ourselves, given the difficulties faced by AOL-Time Warner, Vivendi- Seagram, Quebecor Media, BCE and other champions of convergence, if the tide is not in fact turning. There should be no rushed decision because there is no urgency, there is no consensus, and there is no compelling data on the absence of negative impact on content. Furthermore, the Canadian cultural policy which has been in force for several decades — and this is something on which all interviewed stakeholders agreed — is providing fairly good results.
Two important questions must be answered before undertaking a review of the rules governing foreign ownership of telecommunications and media.
Firstly, there is the issue of the difference between network operators and content providers; and secondly, links between ownership and content production. As regards the existence and nature of a possible interdependence between ownership and content production, there are still too many unknowns to make an informed decision. We must be cautious and weigh up what we risk losing against what we hope to gain by changing the rules. On the one hand, we have, hypothetically, increased access to capital and increased share value for some companies. On the other hand, there is the issue of fostering cultural content produced by Canadian artists and workers. It has by no means been proven that relaxing the rules governing foreign ownership would have disastrous consequences on the production and broadcasting of Canadian content, however, nor has it been shown that there would be a negative or minimal impact. The relationship between ownership and content production is poorly understood. Nevertheless, it is at the very heart of the debate and must be studied in greater depth. The foreign experts with whom we consulted have also been unable to provide reliable conclusive data on the issue in Australia, Great Britain, Mexico and France. We propose, therefore, that longitudinal studies should be undertaken and analyzed over a sufficiently long period of time. These studies should take into consideration all the relevant issues in order that we might better understand and document the relationship between ownership and content production.
Furthermore, at a time when Canada, along with other countries, is trying to convince the international community of the special nature of the cultural sector, and of the need to adopt an international legal instrument to preserve and promote cultural diversity and govern trade by specific rules, it would seem somewhat odd if our Parliament were to adopt measures which would undermine its own cultural policy simply in the interest of economic gain. The difference between network operators and content suppliers — even if this is not a view subscribed to by everybody whom we met — seems clear, since it has successfully been applied for a long time by North American regulators.
Technological progress, in particular digitalization, blurred the boundaries between content and carrier and led to the hasty scrapping of the distinction between ``broadcasters and common carriers,'' a distinction which many still believe should be a basic criteria for regulation. So from this angle, foreign ownership rules for content suppliers would remain unchanged, at least until the relationships between ownership and content production have been clarified, but could be relaxed for network operators. Businesses, however, would have to choose. Despite the adoption of codes proclaiming utter independence, we, like others, do not really believe that a group's subsidiaries are truly autonomous. Groups who choose convergence must comply with the strictest of rules, those of the Broadcasting Act. On the other hand, cable, telephone and satellite operators who specialize in simply managing the network could have easier access to foreign capital. Could this openness be extended to 100 per cent of voting shares? Why not, as long as the State takes the necessary measures to ensure the security of the country, as is done by our neighbours to the south.
Lastly, given that issues regarding cross-media ownership and foreign ownership are so closely linked, and that the way in which they are approached stems from a broader policy on convergence, I think it would be useful, given the events of recent months, to evaluate the results of this policy in Canada and to see whether it would be fitting to make certain adjustments.
I would therefore open the floor to dialogue on this questions as well as any others that were raised earlier, in other words the public service, a public newspaper and the relationship between the market and governments in the field of information.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: The first statement I would like to make is that the Free Trade Agreement is reality. We are going to move to a North American common market. Many of our artists are living in the United States. Take Wayne Gretzky for example, he is a Canadian living in Los Angeles. I do not know whether it is our lot, but it is the reality.
I will accept the fact that Quebec is different from the rest of Canada in regard to retaining some of its artists and performers. I would like your comments on that in terms of culture and the reality of what in fact is happening.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I want to clarify that it is not a question of being insular or of closing our borders. Canada currently has one of the most open culture and information markets in the world. In Canada there is great diversity in terms of sources of information which come to us from the United States, but also, thanks to cable and satellite, from all over the world. It is not a question of changing that or suggesting that, from now on, we broadcast only Canadian content programs. I raise the issue of culture because, often, as far as broadcasting is concerned in any case, the same companies offer both cultural content and information content.
It would be fitting to continue with our earlier discussion on the relationship between public authorities and markets in terms of culture and information. Information and culture are commodities. In industrialized societies, they are commodities which are produced industrially and consumed on the market. There is an information market and a culture market. But culture and information are not simply commodities. They are also part of the democratic process, the democratic game. The rules of the democratic game are not fixed by the market but by an elected Parliament. Democracy comprises a certain number of requirements which are not governed by the market.
Let us look at some examples. In a democracy, a person who has reached the age of 18 has the right to vote. This does not apply to the rules governing the market. In the market, one can have several voting rights depending on the size of one's investment in the company. This is a major difference.
Furthermore, democracy requires informed citizens with access to pluralistic and diverse information. Diversity is a basic tenet of the democratic game. Democracy, however, is not the inevitable result of marketplace rules.
We must, therefore, balance a difficult choice between the market and public authority. Nothing is worse for democracy than the press or the media being controlled by the governing power, whatever form that body may take. Information has to be free.
The market must be allowed to continue to act. This market must not be without rules. It must be regulated by the democratic powers of the democratic game, that is to say, by Parliament. There must be safeguards in a society to ensure that we have access to diverse sources of information, not only foreign sources but also Canadian-produced sources.
Were we to disregard the market, in terms of international information, we would quickly find ourselves with little choice. For example, during a conflict in the Middle East, we may well only have CNN and Al-Jazeera. Should citizens be limited to these choices? Of course not.
During the war in Irak, we, in Canada, had access to highly diversified information compared to other countries in the world. We have access to Canadian media. We have reporters abroad, particularly those from the public network, who provided us with a different viewpoint from the American or Arab channels. This diversity is critical for national sovereignty and democratic debate within Canada.
Free trade, of course, is open, to come back to your question on Gretzky and our artists such as Céline Dion or the Cirque du Soleil. On the other hand, we also consume many American products and films. We give considerable support to that industry, we read American books, and I think that that should continue. However, we must ensure that we have a system in our country which allows our artists to make a living from their art or their products on the domestic market so that they do not have to go and live elsewhere.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: I have just one comment on your remarks. In regard to your reference to the Iraq war, as one who has been elected for 14 years and in the Senate for 10, I have walked down the street and heard the statement, ``I am embarrassed to be a Canadian.'' I heard it again and again.
The Chairman: Senator Gustafson. That is way off the mandate of this committee.
Senator Gustafson: The witness touched upon it, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: He was talking about the news.
Senator Gustafson: Certainly.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I was commenting the information that we had access to during the war. I did not comment the position either party took vis-à-vis the war.
[English]
Senator Gustafson: Exactly.
Senator Merchant: We seem to be using culture as the raison d'être for the government having some regulatory function vis-à-vis the media. Coming at it from another perspective, do you think this is the best way for us to support culture? If we want to support our culture, might it not work just as well for us to support culture, not to get the media to be responsible for disseminating culture to us?
We could be supporting the culture groups and our artists ourselves. We could make it possible for recording artists to record their product, set up studios and make it more competitive for them than to go out and sell their records. In this way, Canadians could avail themselves of Canadian culture but not through newspapers and the media.
I do not think we can regulate. We cannot make people watch television, but if they go to the store and a Canadian record is perhaps a dollar less, or three dollars less than an American record, then it is up to the consumer to make these choices. I do not think we can impose this.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Canada already has several programs to help artists and producers. The biggest ones are the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the Canada Council for the Arts and the Conseil des arts du Québec. Canada is already doing a great deal to help creative artists. Canada also has companies and public programs to help distribution. And the same applies to the production of material goods.
In culture and communication, distribution is crucial. Without access to distribution networks, products would not be seen because they would not be shown. In Canada, for instance, Canadian movies take up less than 5 per cent of screen time.
Of course, Canada does not have the same infrastructure and production potential as the United States. We are not Hollywood, we do not have the resources to produce so much. But the screen time for Canadian films is out of proportion with national production.
We have much less control over film distribution than we have over radio and television. Here, our artists can produce their works, and have them heard and seen by consumers who choose to do so.
I said that Canada had many programs to help producers and creative artists, and there is a true freedom of choice. The fact that the Canadian government supports the artists who need support does not mean that the consumers cannot choose to watch something else. Personally, I do not feel constrained to watch Radio-Canada, CBC, CTV or TVA rather than CNN, TV5 or other foreign channels that can be accessed through the cable.
Freedom of choice is only possible in Canada because we have collectively decided that it counts. We are investing in freedom of choice. If we did not do this, we would be much more marginalized on the market. Let me repeat, I am not against the market, but I am in favour of a market that is regulated according to our national and democratic objectives.
Senator Ringuette: Your studies as well as those done by your colleagues never succeeded in laying down a guideline. In Canada, we are fortunate in that we have a choice of information or entertainment available through various media. Do you not think that the public will be even more worried about the extremes of the pendulum, namely all-pervasive globalization on the one hand, and national identity?
I think that in future years, there will be more concern about this balance between national identity and the globalization of markets. What would you have to say about that?
Mr. Tremblay: There is not only a resurgence of identity but also a crisis of identity because identity is no longer what it was. It is being redefined. Amin Malouf, author of a book called Les identités meurtrières, draws a distinction between on the one hand, belonging to something, and identity on the other hand. In his opinion, identity is something unique, but a unique identity can have several affiliations.
He comes from the Middle East, he is Lebanese and lives in France, he was educated in Arabic and he writes in French. So there is a mixture: he has one identity but belongs to several backgrounds. This is one approach to redefining identities.
Culture is important, it allows us to express ourselves and to recognize ourselves. But there is a nuance. The galloping globalization we observed when NASDAQ ran wild in the late 1990s, resulted in a more stable market afterwards, in this regard.
BCE had a comprehensive convergence policy, but it focused on its basic vocation and concluded that this is where it could get its best profits. On the other hand, Quebecor seems to be following a different strategy. There is a place in the market for both strategies; one of them consists in specializing in one's original field, and the other one tries to create synergic convergences. There is no single model, both can succeed.
In the late 90s, a single model held sway, whereby all companies had to have their own newspapers, their satellite broadcasting networks, their television networks, their radio stations, and their record and book publishing companies. The media felt vulnerable if they did not have all these things. But now we no longer believe in this magic formula.
Finally, globalization was blamed for all this, as it was believed that all our companies would be eaten up by giants like Vivendi Universal and AOL-Time Warner, which are beginning to play a role on the international scene. However, this never happened because these companies are going through extreme difficulties at this time.
We must be careful in defining general trends. They do exist, but not in an automatic way. And often, when we have gone too far in one direction, things must be put back into balance. With globalization, we will certainly have more and more products broadcast all over the planet. This is not a new phenomenon. For instance, Dallas, the TV series, also went all the way around the planet.
Canada is beginning to craft products which are also going around the planet. Céline Dion has a few of these, as does the Cirque du Soleil. But with regard to the totality of American cultural production, only a small percentage of programs are really exported to the whole world. The same thing is happening in the United States. If we compare the number of exported programs to the number of program-hours produced by United States television, only a very small fraction of these programs go around the world.
Globalization will go ahead, but the need for belonging to one's closer environment will still be there. You said that Quebec was a special case, but English Canada also has its specific requirements with regard to television. This is one of the few markets in the world that does not mainly consume works produced locally when they are available, but which prefers to watch American programs. This issue involves the closeness of our cultures and language. All the studies have shown that wherever on this planet nationally-produced programs are available on the market, they are preferred by television viewers.
There is no constraint here because this is a more or less natural reflex. In some situations, we should, as educators, show openness and show the public that things are being done elsewhere and not only in their immediate neighbourhood. We tend to look around our immediate environment and to identify with people who are like us and whom we already know. Thus, we also consume locally-produced television programs and books.
An effort is needed to open up to another culture and to its cultural products. We may exclude superficial products that quickly go around the world because they sometimes represent to the lowest common denominator. Fortunately, this is not the case for all cultural products. The masterly works of some Latin American novelists are read the world over.
Cultural globalization did not begin yesterday. In fact, high culture was the first to become commercialized. And classical music is the most universal and globalized culture of all. People have been listening to Beethoven and Mozart for a long time without causing a problem for Canadian creative artists. We read German philosophers as well as American and Russian ones. We are not satisfied with reading only Canadian or Quebec philosophers. I say that we must defend our own culture but at the same time we must be open to the rest of the world.
On Mexican State television, which no longer exists today, there were more foreign programs than on the other stations. BBC and PBS programs were translated because they could not be found on the private networks. This big public network had the duty of bringing these high-quality foreign products to Mexicans, and the public was very happy with that.
We must keep things in balance. At the same time as we defend our own capacity to produce and create, we must also, in the field of culture and information, be open and adopt measures to provide our fellow citizens with access to this diversity.
Senator Spivak: You said that while Canada took the initiative to preserve and promote cultural diversity, and to regulate cultural exchanges through specific international rules, it wanted to adopt measures that might have made this very culture more vulnerable. Is there not a contradiction here? What would you say about that? Did this initiative succeed?
Mr. Tremblay: I made conditional statements in my text. Currently, the government is considering an eventual review of the rules of foreign ownership. It would be strange to see it practising extreme liberalism in this field on the one hand, and promoting cultural diversity on the international level on the other hand. If ownership is completely deregulated, while the government continues to promote a strong cultural policy, contradictions may arise.
Let us not be naive. Even within Canada, there are forces that, for very valid reasons, are moving in the opposite direction. Earlier, Senator Gustafson mentioned the reality of free trade; this is where we are now. The Americans are exercising different kinds of pressures. They are contesting quite a few Canadian practices. They are introducing retaliatory measures that we are challenging. This is hurting Canadian interests.
In this interplay of pressure and negotiation, there are, in Canada, businessmen, people active in other fields, who account for a substantial part of the Canadian economy and of Canadian jobs. All this is important. They say to those who are responsible for culture: ``Perhaps we should try to lighten up our cultural policy somewhat in order to satisfy our partners abroad.'' Such practices are current in international negotiations. We saw this in the case of advertising in Canadian magazines. Canada lost the case before the WTO. Ms. Copps wanted to introduce new legislation, but because of the play of various interests represented within the Canadian government, other commercial and industrial interests had to be taken into account. Perhaps this was what had to be done.
We should not knuckle under as far as culture is concerned, as this is important for our identity and our sovereignty, whereas for Americans it is first and foremost a market. The whole world is a market for the Americans. Culture is one of the most substantial exports of the American economy.
According to the most recent statistics I saw, cultural exports ranked in second place after the exports of the aeronautics industry. For the past two years, with all the problems arising with air transportation, the cultural industry has now moved up to the first place. There is a lot of money at stake for Americans. However, sovereignty and culture are also major issues for us.
The Chairman: Let me raise the question of a public national newspaper, since you opened the door to this question.
Mr. Tremblay: I do not think that this would be a good idea. It is legitimate when broadcasting on the air, because the airwaves are public property. The airwaves do not belong to anyone. When somebody uses the airwaves, it is through a privilege he has obtained. He must follow the requirements, and in this matter, State intervention is justified. I do not see how we could safeguard such an entity. There is a temptation. Whenever we fund something, we are inclined to intervene. This applies to politicians as well as to businessmen. I do not believe that a newspaper funded by public funds can really be independent. I know something about Canadians and Quebeckers, and I think that this kind of newspaper would not have much public credibility.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, that was quite interesting. I am really sorry what we have so little time. You have given us a lot of food for thought. We may invite you to appear again at some point.
Mr. Tremblay: I thank you for this opportunity to exchange views with Canadian elected representatives.
The meeting is adjourned.