Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 9 - Evidence - May 15, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 15, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 10:48 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: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome everyone, our witness, senators, members of the public and viewers across Canada to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which is examining the state of the Canadian news media.
The committee is examining the appropriate role of public policy in ensuring 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.
[Translation]
Our witness today is Mr. Roger D. Landry. In addition to having been Publisher of La Presse for many years, Mr. Landry has been involved with a number of industry associations, including the Canadian Press, the Canadian Newspaper Association, les Quotidiens du Québec, and the Canadian Journalism Foundation. He has been decorated by the Governments of Canada and Quebec, among others. We are very pleased to welcome him to the Senate today.
Mr. Roger D. Landry, former Publisher of La Presse, as an individual: I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to appear before your Senate Committee. My understanding from your presentation, Madam Chair, is that the fundamental questions put to the witnesses were the following: are Canadians still getting the quality and diversity of news and information that they need? How can we be sure that Canadians will have access to news and information from this country's perspective, seen through Canadian eyes? Is it possible to have a means for controlling, regulating or even overseeing the media that would in no way infringe on the freedom of the press? Of course, my answers to these questions will concern mainly the francophone press, given that I spent 20 years as President and Editor of La Presse.
My answer to this first question is yes — Canadians have the resources to be well informed. To the second question, I would say that Canadians are becoming better and better informed by Canadian journalists, who are increasingly reporting from abroad. My answer to the third question, however, is no. I believe that freedom of the press must remain an alienable constitutional right.
In this new world of convergence, it is important to point out that those wanting to maintain and develop a quality press must be in good financial health and have ready access to capital. In that regard, Mr. Guy Crevier, the current President and Editor of La Presse, filed an important brief during the Culture Committee proceedings in Quebec City in February 2001, describing one of the most intensive studies to be carried out on that subject. It was conducted in the United States over a 12-year period by Professor David Demers, Executive Director of the Center for Global Medias Studies, at Washington State University.
The study showed that large scale media organizations: attach greater importance to product and information quality; have complex decision-making structures and mechanisms where managers and information professional assume responsibility; are less influenced because their financial strength by various lobby groups; and, have better means to be innovative and provide a diversity of quality content.
No law, regulation or policy could guarantee information quality better than the desire and financial ability of a media organization to promote a quality strategy. In my view, these are the best guarantees of a free and diversified press.
The Chairman: Now that was a very clear and succinct opening statement!
[English]
Senator Phalen: Mr. Landry, in his testimony before this committee, Christopher Dornan of Carleton University brought to our attention his concerns regarding the migration of classified advertising from newspapers to the Internet. He testified that classified advertising was the largest single source of revenue for newspapers and that, since the Internet was better suited to providing classified advertising services, decreases in this essential revenue should be of significant concern.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Landry: Honourable senators must understand that during the years I spent as the head of La Presse, at the Journaux Trans-Canada and in other areas of the industry, this Internet business had not come about. Therefore, I will comment from what I have read and not from personal experience.
I believe that, eventually, this concern could be legitimate. I believe that presently, limited sources of revenue are taken from the print medium by Internet advertising. I had regular contacts at the time with the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post. They all invested millions of dollars in bringing the Internet about, and so far, there has not been a very positive conclusion.
The Chairman: Do you mean that they are not making money at it?
Mr. Landry: That is correct.
I met with the head of the New York Times at that time. I felt we had some advantages because, being in a French market, it was possible for me, as a very small market in North America, to ask whether we could benefit from his experiences and knowledge. I learned that indeed they invested much money and I doubt they will ever be able to recoup the millions of dollars they spent.
[Translation]
Senator LaPierre: In the opening statement that you just read, you say that Canadians have the resources to be well informed. That is your answer to the question about whether Canadians are getting the quality and diversity of news and information that they need. And I have no doubt that one of the tools for ensuring that can happen is the quality of the training that journalists receive.
However, I am wondering whether ownership concentration in the print media, as well as in the radio and television media, might not have the effect of constricting their freedom? And that freedom is a very important tool.
Mr. Landry: Your question touches on two points. The first has to do with large organizations that, as I have said, must be in good financial health in order to avoid directly influencing the actual operation of the newspaper, in what I would define as a commercial context.
I believe that the quality of news and information now, although it is no better now than it was before, is enhanced by the fact that there are a greater number of high quality resources available. Journalists nowadays — and we have had some exceptional ones, including Madam Chair sitting in front of me — are increasingly qualified. They are journalists who very much believe in freedom of thought and action. I very much doubt, as certain actions taken by certain newspapers recently would suggest, that a number of excellent journalists decided to go and work elsewhere — because never, in the 20 years that I was in charge of La Presse did I ever see an owner of my newspaper interfere, nor did I ever interfere with the way reporters did their job. I believe that as Canadians, we should be very proud of the quality of our journalists. Perhaps we should be saying that more often.
Senator LaPierre: Mr. Landry, we enjoy freedom of the press. But by whom is freedom of the press actually exercised? Is freedom of the press something that is exercised by professional journalists or, as the President of the Asper firm pointed out —
[English]
— that it resides, and has always resided, in the owner of the business.
Mr. Landry: I do not want to start a dilemma for the Asper family. They can handle that themselves. I would just like to say that I personally think that the liberty of the press resides in the professionalism of the journalists. If they feel that something is touching on their liberty, they will react accordingly, because —
[Translation]
The integrity I have always seen in the past is very much a cornerstone of the journalistic profession. I believe their desire to keep people well informed is greater than their desire to satisfy the people they're working for.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: However, there are fewer and fewer jobs.
[Translation]
Itis not only the concentration that is occurring in the print media that is the problem; the radio and television media are also affected, where we see this need to be a television star or star writer for a newspaper. With the current concentration, we are seeing that editorial content and editorial direction are becoming increasingly centralized within certain companies. The result is that the extent of that freedom — and this may be less the case in Quebec than in English Canada, but it seems clear that a day will come when that freedom will be very much affected by the fact that reporters will not have much work with which to make a living.
Mr. Landry: I would say that what you are referring to is more of an exception than a generality. There are large firms in every industry. You refer in your question to certain mergers that have occurred and that have caused some concern. However, I do not think we should be establishing a general rule just for one exception. Personally, I still believe that reporters enjoy freedom of expression.
Since I left La Presse, there now are more journalists on staff. I have to commend my successor for being able to achieve that. They demonstrated a great deal of confidence by opening up very costly bureaus abroad. During the war in Iraq, we had journalists on the ground who were reporting the news through Canadian eyes. They did exceptional work. I understand that you are wondering whether we are addressing a specific situation. But I do not think we should generalize and assume that this is the case across the board. In other large television and print media groups, there is very clear separation between print journalism and television journalism.
Senator Corbin: I talked to Mr. Landry this morning before the meeting began. I am a former journalist, and I told him that journalism was what had led me into politics.
Mr. Landry, you referred to the findings of a study conducted in the United States by the Center for Global Media Studies, showing that large-scale media organizations are less influenced by various lobby groups because of their financial strength. What kind of lobby groups are we talking about here?
Mr. Landry: I cannot think of any specific groups. What I meant by that — this is in fact what Mr. Demers wrote after studying the issue for 12 years, and I believe it was quite a thorough study — is simply that following a specific event where people decide, because of that event, to take some kind of major action — an example might be the sad events of the terrible massacre at the University of Montreal — groups can form that, in my opinion, make a real contribution, and have a specific point of view which is heard and presented by the print media.
However, there may also be other groups which, for reasons that are not so valid, come together and take community action, but it is the kind of action the newspaper does not want to get involved in because it does not believe it to be a good cause. The freedom of a financially strong organization is such that it can respond to that situation. This is the problem Senator LaPierre referred to in his question. If you are strong financially, the intervention will not come from the boss, but from the people with an axe to grind. And in such a case, both the reporters and the publisher of the newspaper have full and complete freedom, without the risk of any interference from higher up.
I spent 20 years with a group called Power Corporation, which at no time interfered in the reporting of what were sometimes particularly touchy issues. Both the publisher and the reporters had complete freedom to take whatever position they believed appropriate.
Senator Corbin: However, the reverse could also be true. You talk about the fact that financial strength leads to great independence. But large newspapers also have the power to influence public opinion and to get it to move in one direction or the other. I believe you experienced this yourself at La Presse at certain times.
I believe you also had problems in terms of your union management relations that I am not really familiar with. But I would like to talk about something that happened in New Brunswick. It is possible that your situation is ideal in terms of relations with management, the independence of the newsroom, and so on. You also have competitors in Quebec. However, in New Brunswick that is not the case. We are now facing a situation where one company controls the radio stations, the daily newspapers and most of the weeklies as well. That does not lead to financial strength — in any case, they already had that. Did they need newspapers that could potentially bring pressure to bear on public opinion? The fact is that where we used to have many different voices reacting to a variety of situations, we now have a single voice in New Brunswick that is controlled by one very powerful owner, who is equally involved in every facet of economic and industrial life in New Brunswick.
Do you think that is a healthy situation? That is not the case with La Presse, but I would be interested in hearing your comments.
Mr. Landry: I would just like to correct one thing you said in your opening comments. You said we had had strikes.
Senator Corbin: No, I did not refer to strikes per se. I talked about union problems.
Mr. Landry: I would like to respond to that first. Over the 20 years that I was with La Presse, and even since I have left, we have never had union problems.
Senator Corbin: Never?
Mr. Landry: In the last 20 years, there has never been a work stoppage, never a day that La Presse was not published.
Senator Corbin: But is it not true that the unions are the ones that determine newspaper content?
Mr. Landry: No, I would not say that. It is a combination. I want to come back to my basic argument again. I have tremendous respect for journalists. I have worked with them for a very long time. I want you to know that at the newspaper that I was running for those many years, I had an opportunity to recognize their qualities. They are professionals and very honourable people. And if from time to time, as happens in every segment of our society, there are a few bad ones, well, I can tell you they are in the minority. I feel it is very important to state that. Correct me if I am wrong, but you were referring to the Irving conglomerate, right?
Senator Corbin: Yes, of course.
Mr. Landry: You have asked me to comment on that, but I just want to say that I will not do so as Chairman and Publisher of La Presse, but as the President of Canadian Press for the last two years.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my work as Chairman and Publisher of La Presse. It has to do with the participation of the group you have referred to, which has been a good corporate citizen, as far as the Canadian Press is concerned.
They have always taken an active part in our activities; they have very good people working for them that enjoyed some form of freedom. I have never worked in New Brunswick. But I am familiar with these newspapers, because I was President of the Canadian Press and I would read them.
Senator Corbin: My question had more to do with control.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, we cannot ask Mr. Landry to speak for the Irving Company.
Senator Corbin: No, I am talking about a question of principle, and that's why I did not mention the name Irving.
Mr. Landry: I would have been a very poorly informed person indeed not to have realized whom you were referring to.
Senator Corbin: But my point had to do with the principle associated with the significant control exercised by large scale organizations.
Senator Day: And of a large family.
Mr. Landry: If there is one thing I have never done, it is duck a question.
The newspapers that played a role in the Canadian Press, and even others, were always active participants who were committed to our goals. And those goals have always been — either at the Canadian Press, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association or the Journalism Foundation — to ensure high quality journalism in both English and French Canada. I do notknow whether that is an adequate answer, but that's what I believe.
The Chairman: It is your choice as to the answer you give.
Senator Day: Could you elaborate on developments that occurred over your 20 years with La Presse? What is the difference between the English-language and French-language press in Canada?
Mr. Landry: Over the years that I was in charge of La Presse, there was ongoing progress in Quebec in terms of the quality of news products and information, as a network of information communication was established — something we managed to do over time. There was also a very strong partnership between professional unions representing the information industry and media management. It was agreed that in order to meet everyone's needs, that kind of participation and cooperation was important. As for the product itself, well, so many changes occurred. When it comes to a daily newspaper, the shape it takes, the way it operates and everything about it flows from the people engaged in publishing that newspaper.
I had the honour of serving with some exceptional assistant publishers. It was a tremendous pleasure to have worked with Jean Sisto, Claude Masson, Michel Roy and Marcel Desjardins. All are news professionals who brought their own vision to the newspaper. The changes that occurred were striking and profound. Since I have left, there have been other innovations as well. The current Chairman of La Presse has a very journalistic vision, because he himself was a journalist. His main associates, including Phillipe Cantin, who was brought in to work with all the other people I mentioned previously, are bringing a new vision to the newspaper and a new way of doing things. So, that is a general answer to that part of your question.
As for the differences between English and French Canada in terms of their dailies or newspapers, I myself see very few. It always comes down to the people doing the reporting. For me, the job of being a reporter involves communicating what one sees and perceives as effectively as possible and reporting the facts as accurately as possible. There is no doubt that when a monopoly develops — and this is what Senator Corbin was referring to earlier — there is a good chance that the general orientation of a media organization will revolve around a specific way of thinking. To be perfectly frank, however, in my 20 years of working in the industry, I never saw cases where this kind of significant influence was evident, to the point where reporters no longer wrote what they wanted to write and radio commentators were not saying what they wanted to say, because only one pattern of thinking was allowed. I have tremendous respect for such newspapers as the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the National Post, which has been a real revelation since its arrival. It has given us a different take on journalistic freedom. Times change. And, as the saying goes, customs change with the times. But the fact is the arrival of The National Post was a significant wake-up call to the Canadian news industry.
Senator Day: What has contributed to training, and especially, increased training for journalists? What has changed there?
Mr. Landry: Senator Fraser could probably answer that question, because she was a member of the profession for a long time and was extremely successful at it. People now have more extensive training. There is a young journalist currently with La Presse who has legal training and who has become one of the most respected reporters in Quebec in a very short span of time. And that has happened because of his training, the quality of his writing and his knowledge.
Every summer, we hire young people. We received as many as 1,000 applications for an eight-week internship with La Presse. All of the applicants had all kinds of diplomas and were very keen. I am not taking all the credit for this. But what better recruitment source for a publisher than these many qualified applicants and the opportunity to choose three! That was quite a pool of talent. I am happy that some of them went to other dailies.
So, you are asking me why they are better. Well, because they have been exposed to the very best. If we all sat down here together and looked at the entire profession from one end of the country to the other, we could come up with a whole list of names of people who have been tremendous role models for all the young journalists starting out in the profession.
[English]
Senator Merchant: A well-respected journalist appeared before us, Mr. Patrick Watson, to suggest a national public newspaper. I suppose the notion would be that this kind of newspaper would be unbiased and not influenced by advertisers or, for that matter, by politicians.
Other than certain countries in the world such as Korea, Libya and the former Soviet Union, could you name a country that has such a newspaper? Would this be an expensive undertaking for Canadians? How do you think it would be received, knowing how people feel sometimes about the public broadcaster?
Mr. Landry: First, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Patrick Watson, who is a good friend. We have had the opportunity to agree on many things, but I have to disagree on his recommendation on this point.
I do not think there is any possibility that a publicly owned newspaper would not present more interventions than an independent newspaper. Senator Corbin's earlier question causes me to react against that. We need the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide Canadian content. I read through the discussion and you may well lead the horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink. I beg to disagree with my dear friend, Patrick Watson.
Senator Merchant: Are you aware of a country that is similar to Canada?
Mr. Landry: I am sure that China and the former U.S.S.R. do that, but Canada is a free country, and thank God for that. Canada is vast and strong and smart enough not to go that way.
The Chairman: In fairness to Mr. Watson, I do not think he was envisaging a government mouthpiece, but rather an independent publication.
How much would it cost to publish a daily national newspaper in, presumably, two languages?
Mr. Landry: I would need about one week's worth of calculations to come up with a ballpark figure. First, you would need three basic elements: the paper, the newsprint and the distribution. Second, you would need a journalistic force of such quality that it would be able to communicate what needs to be done. Third, you would need advertisers. Some would say that would be advertising with the government; well, that seems an illogical approach. We elect a government and we hope that it will have great accomplishments, but I do not know that I would advertise with government.
In response to your question, I would say that it would cost at least 25 per cent of the cost of the CBC and Radio- Canada.
The Chairman: That would be about $200 million.
[Translation]
The Chairman: You mentioned earlier — twice, I believe — that in all your years with La Presse and at Gesca, the owners — namely, Power Corporation — had never interfered. I am interested in the dynamic of a newsroom where people know that the person that owns the newspaper, and who is ultimately their employer, also has a lot of other interests.
That is not so much the case now, but 20 or more years ago, Power Corporation had interests in a great many industries that had a direct impact on the life of Montrealers, such as shipping, buses, financial interests, pulp and paper mills — in other words, a tremendous number of industries that had a direct impact on the life of your readers. Was there a code or were specific instructions given to reporters in terms of the way they should approach certain subjects? Is that how it worked?
Mr. Landry: I took charge of La Presse in 1980. The newspaper had gone through some pretty bad times, and we were constantly dealing with work stoppages.
One day, my boss, Mr. Paul Desmarais Sr., said to me that La Presse constituted 1 per cent of his business interests, but 99 per cent of his problems. So he asked me to resolve those problems. He told me he had no intention of interfering, that he hoped I would succeed and that I could count on their support. He gave me the keys and asked me to try and do whatever I could.
I can tell you that 20 years later, I gave him back the keys and thanked him warmly for giving me this fantastic opportunity, because those 20 years were the best years of my life.
So, I enjoyed that freedom and I hope every other publisher in Canada is lucky enough to be able to fulfill his or her responsibilities with the support of a family like the Desmarais family, that just lets you do your job.
The Chairman: I believe you, Mr. Landry, because I worked for the Southam family, and the situation was exactly the same. Never was there the slightest hint of any directive having been given. But I am really talking about the reporters themselves, who were not in the room when Mr. Desmarais asked you to run the newspaper. You know as well as I do that reporters have a natural tendency to be very wary of power. And when that power is represented by their employer, well, how could a reporter working at La Presse be certain that he was free, as free when talking about Power Corporation's interests as those of anybody else?
Mr. Landry: It is important to realize that at that time, unionism in Quebec was an extremely powerful force. As you may recall, that was the time when unions and union power were on the rise and there was no possibility of intervention; it was a time when Mr. Desmarais was burnt in effigy in front of the premises during the 1978 strike. But in 1984, when we celebrated the centenary, people gathered on Saint-Jacques Street, commended him and paid tribute to him.
But that was a natural evolution. If you talk to reporters who worked back then, they will probably tell you the same thing. I could never make that up. When you were with Southam, at the time when Fisher and others were around, those people never interfered.
The Chairman: There was a public statement.
Mr. Landry: There was a philosophy in our shop.
The Chairman: Was it public as well?
Mr. Landry: Yes. A written statement of our philosophy had been in place since 1976, developed by my predecessor, Roger Lemelin. It clearly states that La Presse is there to inform people and that reporters have total freedom, but that it will always be Canadian. That was back in 1976, at the time the sovereignists and the separatist movement were on the rise.
The Chairman: Could you send us a copy of that?
Mr. Landry: I am sure it is available. I'll ask Mr. Crevier to send you a copy.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator LaPierre: If the owners or forces associated with the owners were to interfere in the ability of journalists to exercise their professional freedom, other than the union they belong to or the fury of the newspaper readers, do you not think there would be some responsibility on the part of the government to ensure that Charter rights are protected? That might require government intervention to ensure that the freedom you refer to can be fully exercised.
Mr. Landry: I very much believe in freedom and a society founded on the rule of law. I believe that provides protection. I am absolutely convinced of that. You talked about that group, reporters and readers, but you forget that there are also the publishers and their team. They have a sense of loyalty to their employer. They also have their freedom and a sense of responsibility.
Sometimes an owner looking at what is going on will not be happy about what he sees. But people can disagree and still work together. The newspaper publisher's freedom is just as essential as the freedom of the reporters he works with. That is why I talked about the quality of the owners.
I do not like the idea of putting everyone in the same basket. When there are problems in certain areas or certain regions of a country in terms of newspaper publishing, I think we should target the specific problem, and not treat it as a general problem.
Senator Corbin said earlier that it was good to have competition in a market. I totally agree with that. But is the market big enough to allow for that kind of competition? We have large and small provinces in Canada, and we cannot treat them all the same.
To answer your specific question, I do not think there will be or that there should be government intervention.
Senator LaPierre: Do you think we should increase the percentage of foreign ownership of Canada's media organizations?
Mr. Landry: That an excellent question. Let us look at what happens in France, for example. There no one is allowed to own more than 10 per cent. If there is no need — and I am not making a recommendation here — it seems to me that in both the print, radio and television media, we have sufficiently broad penetration as a result of satellite access. You cannot force people to limit that.
In my first years of working in the television media, I was a great fan of Radio-Canada and CBC because those were the only stations I could watch. It was fantastic. We were given a choice and a different way of doing things when programming options broadened. I do not think it would be in this country's interests to extend foreign ownership, unless it comes down to a matter of survival.
Senator Corbin: I would not want Mr. Landry to think that I was giving him a stab in the back with my questions. We do not share the same concerns. I agree that the government should not interfere in media control in Canada. That is fundamental. It is a constitutional question.
But there is another aspect to all of this. Journalism is a business. It is not a charity. Let's be realistic here. Even the Annals of Good Saint Anne were a business operation. They were not about journalism. It seems to me that consortia or the financial strength of organizations should be restricted in terms of their power to control public opinion. If the people of New Brunswick — because we are talking about New Brunswick — are prepared to tolerate a situation like this, which I see as totally unacceptable from a variety of standpoints, then, that's their business.
I questioned you earlier about an actual situation just to get an idea of your philosophical approach to this kind of issue. If you had worked for interests that controlled most of the New Brunswick media, rather than Power Corporation or Mr. Desmarais, would your attitude as a professional be any different?
Mr. Landry: That is a hypothetical question. I doubt very much that I would have worked in New Brunswick — not because I do not like New Brunswick; quite the contrary.
Senator Corbin: The point of my question was not geography. Would you have worked for interests like that?
Mr. Landry: I was never asked to. If my philosophy of full freedom for the publisher had been accepted when I was offered the job, I certainly would have. If my philosophy had not been accepted, I would have refused. One of the wonderful things about my professional life as publisher of a newspaper is that I always had that freedom, the kind of freedom I have always respected. You know, we all have some responsibility — it is not only journalistic integrity that counts. The life and success of a newspaper depend on the quality of its news.
Let me give you an example: you live in New Brunswick, so you must be familiar with the newspaper L'Évangéline.
Senator Corbin: The now defunct newspaper L'Évangéline. I was a reporter there.
Mr. Landry: It was an excellent newspaper. Except that people did not buy it. You experienced this first hand — it was the problem of costs and other inherent factors.
Senator Corbin: The problem at L'Évangéline was commercial advertising.
Mr. Landry: But we live in a free society. It is true that things can be difficult. But I ask you this: should the government of New Brunswick have subsidized L'Évangéline so that it could continue to be published?
Senator Corbin: We have quite a few people in Quebec to thank for supporting L'Évangéline for a while longer before it eventually closed. Quebec was very generous towards L'Évangéline.
Mr. Landry: I can tell you that Mr. Desmarais' group was one of them.
Senator Day: With respect to L'Évangéline, would it have been possible for the government to subsidize that newspaper?
Mr. Landry: I think that would be just as bad as government interference of a different kind. I believe a newspaper has to be completely independent in terms of its thinking and its philosophy. The fact is, you start to have problems as soon as the population no longer has an interest in getting news from that source.
Ms. Fraser and myself were around when the newspaper called Le Jour was launched. This was a newspaper where the full range of opinion was not expressed. It represented a political party. It did not survive. The fact is the public wants more and better information, and the public is perfectly free. The blessing we enjoy here in Canada is the freedom to think the way we like. And I am sure you will maintain that way of doing things.
Senator Day: My last question is about the Internet. I see the diversity of opinions and information sources as very significant. In a democracy, that kind of diversity is especially important.
Do you think the Internet will provide the needed diversity, or will the Internet only result in mergers between the other media?
Mr. Landry: I am not really in a position to answer that question. Unfortunately, I am not much of an Interneter. I imagine that people who are currently developing that approach have the kind of knowledge that I have not developed.
You know, I recall the President of the Los Angeles Times saying to me one day, at a conference I attended:
[English]
You know, Roger, it is going to take a long time before someone leaves this house to go to the office with a television set under his arm.
[Translation]
So, I am from that generation, and I would prefer if you put that question to people who believe in that vision. I honestly cannot comment, because I know absolutely nothing about that approach.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, we have actually exhausted the available time in a most interesting and stimulating exchange with Mr. Landry.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. It was a very interesting discussion.
Mr. Landry: Thank you very much for inviting me, honourable senators.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will suspend this meeting for about five minutes and then we shall resume in camera for a discussion of future business of the committee.
The committee continued in camera.