Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence for December 15, 2004
MONTREAL, Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 1:15 p.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 David Tkachuk (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to the afternoon session of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. Our first panel of witnesses are representatives of the Quebec Community Newspapers Association.
Please proceed.
Mr. Greg Duncan, Executive Director, Quebec Community Newspapers Association: Thank you for allowing me to present myself on behalf of the Quebec Community Newspapers Association, or l'Association des journaux régionaux du Québec.
I am executive director of an association that represents 32 official language newspapers in Quebec. We were founded in 1980, and, since that time, the QCNA has been the voice and ears for a unique blend of publications that serve a vital component of Quebec society. I will add here that in our working moniker it says “community newspapers” and sometimes here in Quebec “journal communautaire” is referred to as a not-for-profit newspaper, and clearly that is not the case with us. We have three or four papers that are not-for-profit, but we also have corporates and strong independents.
Our circulation is 357,000, with a combined readership of some 700,000. Our newspapers serve rural, suburban, urban and special communities of interest. I can gladly explain what a community of interest is, if that is not clear. We represent a healthy mix of weekly, monthly, bi-weekly, First Nation, ethnic, agricultural and bilingual publications. We are very unique in terms of an association and our representation. The language and method of delivery is primarily English, and we have a mix of subscription-based and free-distribution newspapers.
Our members rely on the association to advocate on their behalf and deliver services that include marketing, communications, education and professional development. Our mission is to improve conditions for our industry by enhancing the vitality of the newspapers and their environment. We have our fingers in a lot of pies, and our ears and our eyes open, and we thank you for having us today.
Like most media associations, we embrace freedom of speech and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of our Constitution. We support an ethical approach to journalism and competition and have established membership criteria that uphold these principles. We are not formally regulatory but encourage responsible business and media practices. Mr. Bakoyannis will confirm that at the national table and particularly with the drive from Quebec we are looking at a lot of areas of self-regulation, and one of those might even be “credentialling”, which sort of deals with market issues.
Our members adopt and adhere to criteria that independently verify and audit their circulation according to accepted industry standards. Readership studies in our markets have been conducted by ComBase and CROP, allowing us to accurately represent our newspapers responsibly to government agencies, clients and readers. We do this voluntarily because we realize that clients need to be responsible to their constituencies.
Our membership was originally founded as a network of independent rural publications some 25 years ago. Today, it is a blend of corporate, independent and small group owned entities; you might call them family owned groups. Our mission has not deviated despite the changing models of ownership or methods of delivery of our newspapers, where we have gone from subscription-based papers to largely controlled papers with free distribution.
It is fair to say that despite the many unique challenges of publishing in a minority environment, and in language sensitive market conditions, we have succeeded while preserving our cultural and historical identity. Demographic realities in Quebec have presented economic challenges for our newspapers. We continue to produce quality publications through continued perseverance.
Our corporate and group owned members have gained efficiencies by combining efforts in many areas of publishing. These publications are well adjusted to the realities of competition, and as such, continue to publish relevant content while respecting reasonable levels of advertising-to-editorial ratios.
The independents have adapted to this increased competition and more aggressive approaches in the face of concentration. Most consider competition to be healthy, with the production of better newspapers as a result. In short, our independents have worked really hard to keep up, and there have been apparent threats.
On occasion there have been indications that concentration of ownership has created potentially unfair market conditions in certain markets. When I say “certain markets,” I do not mean across the board; I am referring to environments where multimedia entities exist under one banner.
To date, I have not witnessed a concentration of ownership that has had a negative impact on editorial content. While it may be true that our group-owned newspapers run very tight advertising-to-editorial ratios I am unaware of any existing negative editorial policy, whether political or otherwise, at the hands of a single owner in our group. Independent publishers continue to dictate editorial policy at their own discretion, and by and large our corporate entities have been allowed to operate under the same premise at each individual newspaper.
Both models of ownership continue to provide important timely and unbiased relevant news. We believe that self- regulation is a useful tool for the industry as a whole, and we are already operating with this premise in mind at the national and provincial levels through our affiliation with the CCNA, the Canadian Community Newspaper Association. Les Hebdos du Québec, a sister organization, and l'Association de la Presse Francophone and others speak in these terms as well.
I invite you to visit our website, www.qcna.org for information on our association and our affiliated partners. You will be able to find a lot of materiel if you use the links found on that website.
This combined self-regulating industry represents 900 community newspapers, and I invite you to consult our colleagues for input on this important discussion. I know you are already doing that, and that is great.
In summary, I wish to highlight the importance of a diligent consultation of our community newspaper industry as a whole. Like any other media, we share your concerns for the well-being of our members, our audience, and the marketplace. We wish to be an important adviser and participant in any discussions regarding potential regulation, legislation and media.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, you represent the English-language newspapers that are distributed within the province of Quebec and sometimes outside that province?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. We also have a few French-language publications, as well as some bilingual ones.
Senator Chaput: I suppose that could be compared to what we do in Manitoba, because there is a minority francophone population there.
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Senator Chaput: It is the same reality. That is what I thought.
Mr. Duncan: It is almost the same.
Senator Chaput: Similar?
Mr. Duncan: Similar, that is right. This has been discussed at length with the APF.
Senator Chaput: What would you like to recommend to the government? What should be done to ensure that we do not try to fix what is not broken, while avoiding the pitfalls that have been experienced elsewhere? What would you like to suggest or recommend to us?
Mr. Duncan: Well, we do have concerns with respect to competition in the marketplace itself.
[English]
In terms of a recommendation, I think it is a matter of further concentration with the national community newspapers as a whole, to discover what those might be. Certainly, self-regulation is a concept that is being discussed at the national table. How, we do not know, and perhaps Mr. Bakoyannis might have something to add.
Mr. George Bakoyannis, Past President of the Quebec Community Newspapers Association, and Publisher of The Chomedey News: Definitely there is room for improvement in our industry, and we need, as an industry, to evolve. One of the things that we are looking at is self-regulation. That is very important to us. Both the federal and provincial governments are aware that advertising is being placed without any regard to circulation verification. There are no criteria right now for the federal government, and it is the same for the provincial government.
We are looking for the definition of a community newspaper; it has proven to be a difficult task, but we are working on it. Once we have completed this task, we will approach the federal government and present the idea of what a community newspaper is, and also ask the federal government to support newspapers that are accredited members of our associations across Canada. I do not mean only QCNA, but also the other francophone associations like Les Hebdos du Québec and the other associations that exist across Canada.
I will give you some examples of the problems associated with the lack of regulations. We see it all the time when we have newspapers that spring up during election time, and they disappear six months or one year later. They are there only for advertising or election dollars. That is wrong. The federal government should not be supporting newspapers that operate in that way. So that is one area where we are very, very interested in regulation.
Senator Merchant: I am trying to understand the relationship that you want to have with the federal government. You are not looking to them to regulate the newspaper industry in any way. Your interest in the government is to get advertising for your newspapers. You want them to tie in a certain percentage of their dollars.
The ethnic newspapers have appeared before us and have suggested that because they are serving X number of people they should have a dollar amount corresponding to the service that they provide. Are you trying to put a similar case to the government, where, as I think they said that they were getting 1 per cent of the advertising dollars before the freeze on government spending? Now they are looking to get 15 per cent under a new deal, because they are serving a large segment of the polyglot population in Ontario.
Is your interest in the government to strike some kind of a formula? Do you have an idea how much are you getting from them, or were getting in terms of sponsorship dollars and what you will get in the future?
Mr. Duncan: Our primary interest is not only in terms of getting dollars from the government. We would like to see some follow-up on the 12 recommendations that were made in terms of the official language media, where we are in a situation now where there is no way that some of those commitments will be met by March 31. We need to have the messages delivered to our communities.
We are saying that the government needs to buy smart. We have discovered that we are as valid as any other media and some cases we have proven that we are even more so. The spending that we see occurring in non-verified media is not responsible to the taxpayer or anyone else.
We are ready to stand up and prove what we have to offer. We have done expensive research, and like most other media, we are ready to play on an equal level.
In terms of the official language minority it is clear that there is some movement in identifying new policies and that may be of some concern. Right now we have bilingual publications that are receiving French only ads, and I have addressed this with Jean-Marie Philippe at Public Works, and there will be letters going out. This was not the case before, and we do not understand how a flow of information that is destined to a bilingual community, officially or otherwise, would be in one language or not. We can make space allowance, and we do not mean double-spending to create two ads of equal size but an ad that is clearly bilingual. We are looking for one good ad that reaches all of our community in the bilingual markets.
We have talked about 5 per cent of the ad dollar being spent for official language newspapers. That is one thing, but overall in the market, we can tell you that a minimum of 9 per cent of the dollars is being spent just for the community newspapers, of which there are 1,450. Eight hundred and fifty of those papers are verified for circulation, audited externally, and nationally recognized. We have to question why the money is being spent on non-verified publications when we have worked very hard to shore up the industry and to give all our clients a bang for their buck. We stand behind our numbers.
The Deputy Chairman: What is a non-verified publication?
Mr. Duncan: A non-verified publication is a publication that says that it has 350,000 circulated copies but does not have any externally audited proof. There is not any recognized proof. They may have a printing bill, but they might own a printing shop. It is very frustrating for our members and for the dailies as well. The dailies become frustrated when they see publications or media going out and spouting numbers and getting on contract lists with the agency of record, while they work really hard to be an honest, ethical media.
That was not our primary message, and I am sorry if I have missed anything in your questions.
Senator Merchant: What kind of a relationship are you trying to strike with the government? Please tell us where you want the government to be supportive and where you want it to stay out of your business.
Mr. Bakoyannis: May I add something? I think it is very difficult to define a figure, and say that we need 2 per cent, or 3 per cent, or 5 per cent. I do not think this is realistic.
I think QCNA could possibly ask to be at par with a francophone association which is outside of Quebec. There is APF, which is the Association Presse Francophone, which represents roughly the same amount of papers in Quebec. The amount of federal advertising dollars that flows to them is something like seven times, eight times, ten times — I am not sure — more than QCNA receives. This is not in just one year. This goes back many, many years.
I would be extremely happy to see equality in that situation. It would be great to be on the same footing. It is not easy to publish and distribute an English paper to an area where 50 per cent of the households are French. I know that I am printing 29,500 copies, and I know that half of that circulation is not going to be read.
We have the same challenges as francophone papers outside of Quebec. Many of our members would like to see a fair equality when it comes to federal government advertising. We do not want to ask the federal government not to advertise elsewhere and to give us the dollars; that would not be fair. We want our fair share.
Senator Merchant: Did you say you represent 900 members?
Mr. Duncan: I am sorry, that is the national figure. QCNA is one regional member of the national association. We have 32 minority papers within this province.
Senator Merchant: Mr. Bakoyannis how many employees do you have? How often do you publish? How many pages is your newspaper, and do you get a lot of advertising from local advertisers? How are you making a go of it, and how long have you been in business?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We started two papers in 1993, one of them in Chomedey, Laval, which is just on the outskirts of Montreal, and another one in Montreal, in the area of Park Extension. One of them has a circulation of 9,000 copies; the other one has a circulation of 29,500 copies. We have roughly 24-40 pages, depending on the week, and depending on what we have to report. We have five to seven people that work full-time, and quite a few people that work on a part-time basis. We often need more than one writer and that need is filled with a part-time writer.
We publish every second week, and for that reason we are successful. During our first five years we were a weekly paper, and I can tell you we accumulated a lot of debt. It was not an easy time. It was not easy competing with big corporations that had locked up the area. We had to make a lot of really difficult choices, and that is what we did. We decided to go English only, and decided to publish every second week. That is where we are today and is where we will be in the foreseeable future.
Senator Eyton: I am fascinated by your reference to what we call “election time launches”, and I presume with it a quick death. Can you tell me more about that? I may be naïve. I am a good old Ontario boy, so I do not know much about it. Can you tell me more about it?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Gladly, and if you would like, I could even send you some examples of when it happened. This situation continues to occur when municipal elections coincide with federal or provincial elections. This situation creates an environment where it is quite profitable for a newspaper to start up and go out and get advertising dollars from politicians. This has happened in the past and I suspect it will happen in the future.
These people usually have crazy numbers, they say they have a circulation of 20,000, but in reality they might have 5,000 or 7,000. Their circulation is not verified, and they are there one day and gone the next.
Senator Eyton: So we could look at that as a kind of phenomena?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Yes.
Senator Eyton: These new launches, would they also be part of a non-verified publication that you mentioned?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Yes, some of them.
Senator Eyton: Some of them?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We have papers that try to become members of our association. They fail to become members because they say that they want to do the verified circulation program but fail to do so.
Senator Eyton: They are probably not around long enough for it to happen.
Mr. Bakoyannis: Well, some of them have been around long enough. They have been skirting around the issue for many years. We have been patient, but we are coming to a point right now where we are taking away memberships from members that are not willing to comply.
Senator Eyton: I think there is considerable sympathy for a media that services small communities and provides local news and local coverage. I think that there is some sympathy for finding some means by which they can flourish, whether it is in radio, or community newspapers, and the like.
The election time launches seem to me to take revenue and starve the other sector. That does not seem legitimate.
One must be concerned that the right people get the right support, and the wrong people are deprived of support. So examples from you would be much appreciated.
Mr. Bakoyannis: I will definitely send examples to the committee.
Senator Eyton: Can you talk a little bit about your membership? You say you represent 32 papers, and your remarks indicated that you started off with real publications, but you have gone beyond that. You sound like a slice of the nation where you have corporate, independent, and small group owned papers.
How do you qualify to be a member? Is there any limit? Could The Globe and Mail join your Quebec Community Newspaper Association, and would you accept it?
Mr. Duncan: We have an affiliate category that is for support of the media. To become a full member there are specific criteria. We actually have a daily newspaper, the Sherbrooke Record that came in 1980. That particular newspaper came in on a sort of grandmother/grandfather clause. We do not have any other dailies.
Can anyone be a member? No, absolutely not. We invite applications and then the review committee applies a standardized situation to see if they fit. We have based our membership on a community spirit of inclusion, and the primary basis is that, regardless of the community served, the paper publishes in English. That has been our hinge.
Senator Eyton: Commonality.
Mr. Duncan: It is one element, and it cannot be regulated. It has caused some problems for us from the board level and as an association. In some ways it is been great to be inclusive, but it has also cost us in a few areas.
Senator Eyton: When you talk corporate memberships are you not talking about large corporations? Alcan does not belong?
Mr. Duncan: No.
Senator Eyton: Ogilvy's does not belong, and so on?
Mr. Duncan: Ms. Dore works for Transcontinental.
Ms. Debbie Dore, Board Member, Quebec Community Newspapers Association, and Office Manager of The Chronicle and of The Westmount Examiner: Transcontinental owns about 62 weekly newspapers across Canada.
Senator Eyton: Yes.
Ms. Dore: There are only three that are members of QCNA, and it is because they are the three English publications in Quebec.
Senator Eyton: Yes, I was curious about that.
Leaving aside Transcontinental, which is big and doing well, can you sketch an example of a community newspaper here in Quebec, and give me some sense of its budget and what kind of revenue it would generate? What is the make-up of that revenue, where does it come from, and what are your general expenses? I am only talking approximately, but I am trying to get a picture in my mind of what it is like to run a community newspaper in Quebec.
Mr. Bakoyannis: A revenue generating paper like my smaller paper would be about $5,000 per issue. I will not give you the costs in dollars, but I will give you the cost in percentages. Fifty per cent of the cost or close to 50 per cent of the cost is in printing and distribution, and then payroll and other expenses take up most of everything else. If I had only one paper it would be impossible to make a living. I do not know how I would be able to survive and support my family.
One of the reasons why I started two papers is because you need two of them to be able to live. I started the first one, and then seven months afterwards started the other one, because I realized very fast that one would not be sufficient. In order to stay in business, I had to come up with a second one, and maybe a third one later on.
So these are the costs. I do not know if I forgot anything to answer your question completely.
Senator Eyton: How do you get the $5,000 on the revenue side?
Mr. Bakoyannis: It is advertising.
Senator Eyton: It is only advertising?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We are based only in advertising.
Senator Eyton: You have no other support?
Mr. Bakoyannis: No, absolutely not. The revenue comes from advertising, and 75 per cent, or maybe even higher, of it is local advertising, meaning local businesses that advertise in the paper. A very small amount, maybe 10 per cent is federal or provincial, or let us say from the government.
Mr. Duncan: We have some subscription-based papers that would derive, depending on their model, but if they were 100 per cent subscription based, that might represent, maybe 20 per cent of the revenue.
Senator Eyton: Would that be fairly standard?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Mr. Bakoyannis: That is a middle-of-the-road paper. In our association we have papers that are quite small with a circulation of 1,500, 2,000, or 3,000 papers. These small papers face different realities because they are not in urban centres where they have rich sources of potential income.
Mr. Duncan: We are referring to the retail market.
Mr. Bakoyonnis: They cannot rely on the retail market and as a result they rely heavily on federal advertising for their existence.
Mr. Duncan: They budget accordingly. We have a small paper with a circulation of 457 on les Îles de la Madeleine. We have looked at all kinds of models, and the bottom line is that if a community insists on getting a newspaper, we have to question whether that format is feasible.
Senator Eyton: You get Laurent Beaudoin on les Îles de la Madeleine.
Mr. Duncan: Yes. We also have circulation papers that go up to 95,000 copies, but the larger papers tend to be free distribution papers.
Senator Eyton: I just want to finish with an observation that the Sherbrooke Daily Record was the first paper that was acquired by Conrad Black and Peter White.
Mr. Duncan: That is correct.
Senator Eyton: They are still making stories.
Mr. Duncan: Yes. And they still actually have ownership of that paper.
Senator Merchant: Do both of your papers come out on the same day of the week?
Mr. Bakoyannis: They are two days apart.
Senator Merchant: Do you have the same writers working on both papers?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Most of the time, yes.
Senator Merchant: Is this a way to keep your employees with full-time employment?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Merchant: And your papers are free?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We are free distribution papers. We actually pay money to have it delivered to homes.
Senator Merchant: What does it cost you per paper to do this delivery? Do you go just door to door, just like a flyer?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We go door to door. Transcontinental does the distribution for us. Right now my cost is about $50 per 1,000.
Senator Merchant: Do you not have any idea how many papers you need to print? You said that only one-half of the papers that you put out will be read. Does it matter how many you print because once you print the first 1,000, the rest of them are not too expensive.
Mr. Bakoyannis: No, not true. The incremental cost is quite high. We print enough papers to cover certain areas. We basically blanket cover certain areas or postal codes, if you may. In order to do that job properly we know we need a certain amount of papers, and that is how we come up with 29,500. We have determined that our potential readership is found within five postal codes. We have been successful in approaching our readership in this way.
The way to the advertiser is through the reader. If you have readership, then you have advertisers. If you do not have readership, then you will not get advertisers, it is as simple as that. Advertisers are willing to advertise with you only if they get results.
Senator Merchant: Yes. I am wondering how you can maintain enough reporters. Do you cover all areas? Do your papers have flavour?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We are very selective.
Senator Merchant: Very selective?
Mr. Bakoyannis: We try to cover community news. We do not cover the news that you get in the daily papers. We do not cover news that you get on TV or on radio. We cover local news that our readers cannot get anywhere else.
This is the strength of Canadian community newspapers; we can deliver what is happening in the neighbourhood. The Globe and Mail would never pick up these stories.
Senator Merchant: Your statement is correct; you can deliver. Community newspapers have the ability to report today's news and news of lasting interest.
Mr. Bakoyannis: Exactly.
Senator Chaput: I need to understand the difference between a verified newspaper and a non-verified newspaper. You are a verified newspaper, and I assume that you must have to apply for a licence, and certain criteria that you need to meet?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Yes.
Senator Chaput: This must give you certain privileges. What is in it for you? Do non-verified newspapers always come and go? Can I compare non-verified newspapers to flyers that put out by certain companies for a certain product and then disappear?
Ms. Dore: Not necessarily. Some of the non-verified papers may have been around for a very long time and for some reason do not want to prove the size of their circulation.
Senator Chaput: Why do you have to have a licence and they do not?
Ms. Dore: That is what we are trying to establish.
Senator Chaput: I am trying to understand this situation.
Ms. Dore: We are trying to establish a government regulation whereby we only support the papers that are willing to prove their circulation.
Senator Chaput: They receive support from government, and the government buys advertising, is what you meant by “support”? Do you mean advertising dollars, and maybe other support?
Mr. Bakoyannis: There is a listing-in card where every newspaper is listed, and where the circulation is listed and whether the paper is a verified circulation or not.
There are papers that are not verified circulation; basically they do not pay an organization to verify their circulation. In that case ever one, two, or three years, they have to send a sworn declaration, an affidavit, that swears to their circulation numbers. Those papers we call non-verified because they are non-verified, we just take the publisher's word his numbers are correct when in fact no one knows that the figure is true and correct.
It is not a third party verification. We have other papers that are verified. Now, the CCNA, the Canadian Community Newspaper Association, has a program called VCC.
Senator Chaput: Does it involve verification?
Mr. Bakoyannis: Verified circulation, that is right. There are others such as ABC and ODC. There are other verification programs out there that are just as good. We use VCC because it was created by our association, and it does the job well.
It is important to me that I am verified because when I knock on the door of a potential advertiser I like to be able to tell the person that I am a serious business man that stays to his word.
Senator Chaput: I understand.
Mr. Bakoyannis: I do not want to throw this in and complicate matters, but in the ethnic media there is a huge problem when it comes to verified circulation. You have claims, incredible claims, where you have ethnic papers saying that they have 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 circulation. Their numbers are totally unbelievable, yet they continue to get away with it.
The Deputy Chairman: Do the overnight sensations spring up outside of election time when there is maybe a large bit of government advertising to be done?
Mr. Bakoyannis: The federal government does not usually advertise in papers. There has to be, I think, a one year moratorium before you get advertising.
Mr. Duncan: A one year waiting period, that is right.
Mr. Bakoyannis: You can not start a paper and get federal advertising right away, but that rule does not apply to elections.
Mr. Duncan: That is correct.
Mr. Bakoyannis: You can advertise anywhere you like.
The Deputy Chairman: When you refer to advertising for election purposes is it the members of Parliament that advertise or is it the parties themselves that advertise? Is it the smart guys that buy ads on non-verified papers?
Mr. Bakoyannis: It is a combination of the two. We cannot really point the finger at anybody because everybody is doing it.
Mr. Duncan: Everybody does it.
Mr. Bakoyannis: Everybody buys the ads. They have a certain amount of money that they would like to spend, or they think that this is a way to get the message across.
Mr. Duncan: It also happens outside of the election period as well. There are non-verified publications that are long- time existing publications that have been on the receiving end of large volumes of advertising for years. Not only does it destroy our credibility when we are trying to make sure it is there, but it is hard for us to understand why the practice is accepted by government.
Canadian Heritage has been looking at verified circulation as an important part of the Publications Assistance Program. Our view is that it should be applied right across the board.
The Deputy Chairman: Do the advertising agencies buy these ads?
Mr. Duncan: Elections Canada does not have to deal with some of the criteria in the placement of ads because it is not a department.
The Deputy Chairman: What about the government advertising that you say has been going on for 10 years with non-verified publications? Those non-verified publications have been on the receiving end. Is that through government, that is through advertising agencies as well?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, of course.
The Deputy Chairman: Are you saying that they do not pay attention to the audits, and that they are just buying the ads in these papers? Are they being more than friendly to them?
Mr. Duncan: In some cases, yes.
The Deputy Chairman: That is interesting.
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Mr. Bakoyannis: There are papers out there that are not verified circulation, and they have been in existence for 20- 25 years. These papers get federal and provincial and municipal ads. We would like to move away from that situation. We would like to see members of the association adhere to certain standards, the first being verified circulation. There are other ones that we are working on.
Mr. Duncan: We are working on a sort of self-imposed regulation.
Mr. Bakoyannis: The printing industry is as important as the media and it is the only industry that is not in any way regulated. At the present time it is very difficult for us to regulate ourselves. We cannot call the CRTC and make suggestions to them. The same problems exist with the CRTC and radio and TV licenses.
We have a wide reaching media that is not regulated. We want to regulate this industry.
Senator Chaput: Did you say that Heritage Canada is following the situation closely and that they might be one of the departments that will try and make sure that this problem does not occur as frequently?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, in terms of the Publications Assistance Program that Canadian Heritage oversees regarding the subsidies and the support through Canada Post and its publications. In other words, you will not get that Publications Assistance Program without verification.
Senator Chaput: You will not get the support for postal delivery if you are not certified?
Mr. Duncan: That is correct.
Senator Chaput: At least this is done.
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Thank you.
The Deputy Chairman: I apologize on behalf of Senator Fraser who will miss our afternoon session. Senator Fraser is the chair and is sorry to have missed this meeting.
Our next witnesses are representatives of the Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves St-Amand, General Manager, Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies: We would like to thank the members of your committee for allowing us to appear at the last minute. We are here to deliver two messages.
First, we are not against what is understood as the concept of media convergence, as long as it is applied correctly, and done properly. Second, we want to make you aware of the collateral damage that has been caused by media convergence in Canada in recent years and the financial impacts, particularly as they have been experienced in the corporate world.
We have with us today representatives from two associations; to my right is Gregor Angus, President of the Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies, and to my left, Francois Vary, President of the Conseil des directeurs médias du Québec.
We have an opinion to put forward. This opinion was drafted after recently canvassing the agencies and individuals who are members of the Conseil des directeurs médias as well as of our association, and after observing the situation as it has evolved over these past few years.
First, let me say a few words about our organization. The AAPQ has 29 members working in advertising marketing in Quebec, Canada and abroad. These agencies represent about 75 per cent of the total advertising agency business in Quebec.
Our association is more than 16 years old. Its main objectives are to defend the industry by taking an active part in activities related to the field, for example, negotiating the collective agreement with Quebec's Union des artistes; by participating in the work of various groups or associations such as the Advertising Standards Council, Advertising Standards Canada, the issue table on the quality of the French language in the media, and so on.
We are also active participants in national and Quebec competitions such as the CASSIES and the Coq d'or. We are very much involved within the university community with the creation of a curriculum for the first and second years, at the HEC Montreal, the University of Quebec in Montreal, the University of Montreal and others.
As to the Conseil des directeurs médias du Québec, it represents about 20 professionals whose daily occupation involves creating and preparing complete, efficient, cost-effective media placement proposals for advertisers as well as for the agencies and the media themselves.
I would like to emphasize that these people must adapt to new concepts, particularly the wave of product placements from the United States. It goes without saying that they are extremely up-to-date in their field.
I will now deal with the context. For as long as one can remember, the media has been the business partner of the advertising trade. On the one hand, we bring into focus its strengths and the many benefits afforded our advertising clients.
On the other hand, this relationship benefits us financially since we act, so to speak, as a retailer of advertising space or air time. We are being paid either on a fee or percentage basis, both terms of payment being negotiated beforehand with the media and our client.
This payment was traditionally a set percentage. However, we can state that today, on the one hand, there is a definite move towards a fee-based system; on the other hand, if a percentage is applied, it varies systematically from one client to the next.
When media convergence appeared, we were convinced that this debate would affect mainly lawful competition issues between the media, press concentration, freedom of the press and free expression of views.
Our traditional relationship with our main partner was not to be affected by it. We were, however, afraid that costs could increase because of the position of strength this would give to various media groups.
Unfortunately, our recent observations are even more frightening than our worst fears. The Conseil des directeurs médias du Québec approached us in 2003 to tell us that their members were concerned about some of their clients being directly approached by the media.
We were rather skeptical at first. We found it hard to believe that our main partner, for whom we sell air time on a daily basis, could, at the same time, be competing with us.
We conducted an audit with both associations' members in order to verify claims that the situation was evolving rapidly and that its effects were dramatic. The conclusion we came to is quite simple: the situation is not dramatic, it is much worse.
What was described in the survey is of major concern to us. First, all agencies are affected by the convergence of media at different levels. Most of them have seen some of their clients being directly approached by the media.
The media takes advantage of the misconception of certain advertisers to sell them services respondents feel are inadequate for their brands' needs and the marketing direction their organization wishes to take.
There is a consensus as to the phenomenon of media convergence and its manifestations within the industry. This trend is considered to be strong and growing.
When the audit was conducted, nine out of ten respondents noted an upswing in the trend in recent years, and stated that it was becoming more and more prevalent on a daily basis.
Eight out of ten confirmed that in certain cases, the media groups approached their clients directly. And almost as many, seven out of ten, stated that the media had approached one of their clients with a turn-key package in hand, that is, an offer that went beyond simple media placement and included either creation, production, sponsorship, promotion or public relations.
Have the media groups become so wily that they are offering services for which they have no expertise in order to attract clients at whose expense they will develop an expertise as they go along?
Media's tactics are quite simple: to directly approach an advertising client and give him a false sense of savings.
In fact, by dealing directly with the media, the client feels he benefits from a high quality media placement that ensures visibility to his advertisement in many media support areas, a good deal on the overall cost of his media placement, and savings on the commission and the fees that he would otherwise pay to the advertising agency.
Half of our respondents acknowledged that a media representative had already told some of their clients that in dealing directly with them they would save 50 p. 100.
In addition to the lack of objectivity and professionalism on the part of media groups, there is a series of perverse, even unethical behaviors towards advertisers and agencies.
Respondents have mentioned the use of aggressive methods by the media to obtain contracts, such as directly contacting the agency's president.
In some cases, the media directly contacted the advertiser, even after the agency had refused its offer on behalf of the advertiser; two respondents out of five confirmed they were going through this on a monthly basis.
The plagiarism of media placement plans by media groups should be added to the list of unfortunate behaviors.
Finally, 81% of respondents stated having experienced cases where one or a number of media abused their dominant market position and imposed an unfair rate scale or the purchase of a number of unnecessary services from a single group.
This situation is of particular concern because it influences the media placement made by the agencies on behalf of their clients and prevents them from adequately serving their needs, which will eventually undermine the agency-client relationship.
One can easily imagine the impact of such a situation on a daily basis. First, there is the pressure felt by the agency's media directors when they have to deal with media representatives who directly approached their clients.
A very conservative estimated loss of income is $3 to $6 million per year, for Quebec alone. Our most pessimistic estimates value the loss in 2003 at $13 million.
There is a breach in the traditional trust between the agency and the advertiser, and the agency and the media. But it would seem that there is even more.
All of the transactions carried out in recent years have allowed the large groups to extend their activities to new media, to cement their presence in the marketplace and to position themselves as media merchants.
As a result, their range of media is so complete, diversified and broad that they can offer media planning and even creation services.
Take Astral Média, for example; in 2003, they developed the Astral Media Mix Division with the mission to, and I quote their own document:
To create, elaborate, and carry out advertising projects by capitalizing on the synergy that exists between various Astral Média properties and to generate new revenue thanks to the creative and unique concept-solution approach.
Its president, Ian Greenberg, also stated that:
The services provided by Astral Media Mix have attracted new advertisers, particularly from the automobile industry.
In total, for fiscal year 2003, Astral Media Mix completed 24 projects that went beyond their stated objectives.
The Quebecor empire has adopted the same strategy. The Media Infopresse Guide stated that:
From its conception, under the direction of Mr. Pierre-Karl Péladeau, Quebecor Media was determined to use convergence to attract advertisers by offering them advertising strategies that included placement in a number of the group's media.
Mr. Péladeau reaffirmed this commitment when buying a Toronto television station a few weeks ago.
CORUS has also entered the fray by creating, in 2002, the DeepSky Division, which claims to provide advertisers with a new, more effective way to reach consumers through their national radio network.
The advertisers have also felt the impact. The agencies are not the only ones that are affected; even if media dangles large-scale savings in front of advertisers, they miss the most important element: objectivity.
When the client receives a cross-selling offer that involves TV, print media, magazines, a web site, and so on, this offer involves only one media group and none of the other media that would normally be found in the offer prepared by the agency's experts.
Furthermore, advertisers do not have experts in house who could properly assess the offer being made and its validity in terms of scope and yield in comparison with the money invested.
Therefore, objectivity is lost, and there is a lack of the expertise that is necessary to properly analyze the offer that has been made and a systematic elimination of the media opportunities provided by competitors.
What is strange, as mentioned by a number of respondents, is that the advertisers do not seem to realize that the media group representative is first and foremost a salesman whose main objective remains to sell placements in his media, and no one else's.
There is no objective concern for the client. He can handle the client's main competitor's file at the same time, something that is considered unacceptable within the agencies. How is it that this can be tolerated in the media?
The same media planning can be proposed to a number of advertisers as well as to direct competitors. And, more particularly, the media group representatives often have no expertise in media placement.
This is evidenced by the fact that some respondents cited cases where clients had returned to the agency after noticing that they had been mistaken in dealing directly with the media. Their campaign was not properly targeted and they did not meet their objectives.
In closing, we are concerned and we are mad. We are concerned because the trend is continuing, and mad because we feel that these business practices are unacceptable.
We recognize the legitimate right of media groups to do business and to sell their space and time, either directly or through a partner, the partner being either an advertising agency or a marketing communication firm.
What we will not accept is that this way of doing things interferes with a business relationship that traditionally proved profitable for all: the media, the agencies and the advertisers; we find it equally unacceptable that it interferes with the ultimate interest of the client and his brand positioning.
We believe that Canadian authorities must become aware of this critical issue and make sure that sound competition rules are applied throughout the country.
Neither will we accept that the only consideration is media placement. Media groups today are structured to provide creation, production, advertising, promotion and even public relations.
Media convergence therefore has impacts that go beyond the threat to freedom of the press, freedom of expression or access to local, national and international news. It has a tendency to greatly alter the rules of the game, to the detriment of a sound business relationship between traditional partners, while providing a less than complete service to advertisers who have legitimate effectiveness and performance expectations.
For our part, we will approach the media groups involved to try to find new ways of operating that will allow our clients to regain the objectivity and performance that they seek.
Although we deplore the situation, we believe media convergence is probably inescapable within the global economy. However, one cannot ignore all of the business conventions and concentrate solely on profitability.
Senator Chaput: I had a quick look at the document that you submitted because I wanted to see if you had eligibility criteria for your members. Everything is in order, and well developed; your membership is well represented by your association.
I assume that your financial support comes from your members. Do they pay you a per diem for selling advertising on their behalf?
Mr. St-Amand: No. It is a little different. Our revenues are based on two sources: 20 per cent of our revenue comes from the membership dues, and, 80 per cent from the fees for producing television and radio advertising. The service fees are collected by the Union des artistes, which is then responsible for their distribution to associations that are members of the Association des producteurs conjoints, the Association of Canadian Advertisers, and the Institute of Communications and Advertising, in Toronto.
Senator Chaput: Do you have a board of directors?
Mr. St-Amand: Yes, we have a board of directors with ten people who are all agency presidents or agency owners in Quebec.
Senator Chaput: Your objectives include improving the quality of advertising and defining a code of ethics. In view of what has occurred and what is still occurring, I understand your concerns. Convergence has resulted in deplorable, unethical behaviour that shows a lack of respect for you.
In hindsight, now that you we have seen what is happening, what do you think should be done?
Mr. St-Amand: If the government has a role to play in this, then the first step would be to exercise more vigilance when licences are renewed, for the electronic media, for example.
The media make a number of promises of performance — something that I respect — as well as a number of promises relating to behaviour as I call it. And we should not take for granted certain comments to the effect that there will be no lateral impacts from media convergence. There are lateral impacts.
We did not see them coming. We realize today that the large media groups that are taking advantage of the structure think that anything goes. And that is where we draw the line. We want them to know that there is a traditional relationship. As I stated twice in the text, we have nothing against the media selling their space. It is perfectly commendable and legitimate. However, there is a way of going about it. And we believe that from an ethical point of view, everyone is the loser. If the client that is approached has the necessary means to evaluate the offer, then there is no problem. If the client can properly assess what is being offered, then that is fine.
But when the media approach the clients that do not have this expertise and dangle something other than performance to sell their brand — because if you want to promote a brand, you advertise a product, you advertise an idea — that is where we refuse to go along.
To say there is no budget, well, if you are in business, then competition is fair. But at the end of the day, what are we defending? We are defending a client, his product, and his brand. That is what should be our main concern, because we will not be in business if these people go under.
[English]
Senator Eyton: I was a lawyer. I have not practised for a while, but fees the world over, particularly in Canada and the U.S., have been under extreme pressure. In fact, the competitive environment is such that travel agents, lawyers, and real estate agents are under pressure. At one time my general understanding was that advertising agencies worked on a basis of generally 15 per cent of the spin, and that was bound to change one way or another.
Would you not have expected there would be extreme pressure to change the business arrangements between advertising agencies and the businesses that are buying their services? Is that not something that the advertising agencies would have anticipated?
Mr. Gregor Angus, President of BBDO Montreal, and President of the Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies: Yes, and it is been ongoing for a while. I have been president for three years, and managing director before that, and every single contract, before any of this effect happened, has been transformed from A to Z.
Our group was part of the biggest pitch ever in the industry worldwide. I refer to the Chrysler consolidation of their business. Chrysler had two principal agencies and many other regional marketing agencies, and they were satisfied with the quality of everyone's work, but it came down to a system of remuneration, and a number, that was awarded to our company. That is one example of what has affected us from the biggest to the smallest advertiser. I do not think we have a commission scenario left in our company.
Senator Eyton: I would have thought that in today's world that would be fairly ordinary.
Mr. Angus: Oh, yes, we are well beyond that, that issue is long gone. It is not only gone because of the client's need to see a more accountable remuneration policy, but also because the mix has completely changed. One-half of our business with a client might be promotional activity, and is much more fee intensive. Forty per cent of the budget might be allocated to our labour, whereas that figure used to be 15 per cent. So, it serves us well, actually it is a much more fair and real way of determining remuneration.
Senator Eyton: We have heard that advertisers are going directly to the media and bypassing the agencies. I would have thought that to be a phenomenon. It is their money and, if they are not getting proper advice, and are unaware of all of the options available to them then they will lose their money. If they blow their money in stupid ways it seems to me that they will only do it for a little while and then come back. Would that not be true?
Mr. Angus: I would think so, yes. There is the competitive issue, where recently I resigned, for the first time in my career, a piece of business because I found another major advertiser in the same area. The different media will take 12 car manufacturers and serve them up the same plan, and I suggest that not one of those manufacturers have their interests being looked after in terms of efficiency, or in terms of strategy.
Senator Eyton: I can see that, but they are spending their own money.
Mr. Angus: Absolutely.
Senator Eyton: I am more impressed and more receptive to the whole question of concentration and convergence.
I want to touch on anti-competitive behaviour and the media's misrepresentation to the advertiser. I want to discuss how the media, perhaps not meaning to, simply overstates what it can do for the client and how the media can exaggerate the value of its service to the client. My understanding of your submission is that the groups are big enough and strong enough that they can dictate the terms of doing business.
Please comment.
Mr. Angus: I am happy to comment. Some of our client organizations do not have the marketing resources to challenge the strategic value of the plans. They can challenge, perhaps, the volume per cost, but they cannot really challenge the strategy of the plans. Some of them are unable to converse at a certain level and understand that they may be getting a certain volume of space, but they might be getting it at three in the afternoon instead of eight in the evening.
Mr. François Vary, Consultant and President of the Quebec Council of Media Directors: Those conglomerates can cut costs at first, if there are bells and whistles to which they have access. By bells and whistles, I mean that sometimes these conglomerates have access to free tickets, say, to a trip in Las Vegas, for example, or to other things. I am not exaggerating; there have been things like that. It puts the agency a bit at a loss, because it is the agency ultimately who's accountable. That is the main thing we are being forced to deliver, because there is a long-term relationship, hopefully, between an advertiser and an agency. In the end, the agency and the media buyer and planner — this is the group I represent — are held accountable.
In the meanwhile, the big media group has come in with an integrated thing, selling, as you say, a lot of spots at two o'clock in the morning, and that sort of questionable media placement.
Mr. Angus: It is hard to unbundle these packages and say, “I want the radio, but not the newspaper.”
Mr. Vary: Yes.
Senator Eyton: Yes, and particularly if it is a large group. A year later, the advertisers will say that that was not so smart.
My last question is — and I am not sure that it is particularly within the meaning of this committee, but I will ask it anyway. I do not mean to embarrass, and I am not being partisan, but I want to raise the issue of the Gomery commission, which is under way in Ottawa. As you know, it involves a number of named Quebec advertising agencies. My question is this: I assume that some of the firms that have been named are members of your association; am I correct?
Mr. St-Amand: Two of them were members prior to the events; however, they are no more members. That is about it.
Senator Eyton: Does that suggest to me that the association took some position relative to some of the allegations that have gone on?
Mr. St-Amand: We did not have to take action at the time, because both firms decided to withdraw from the association by themselves.
Senator Eyton: Are you taking any position at all opposite these events, from a public point of view.
Mr. St-Amand: I have given so many interviews since February, you would not believe it.
Senator Eyton: So my few questions are nothing more than child's play, right?
Mr. St-Amand: Yes. No, we went the very same day that Sheila Fraser gave her report. We decided to answer all the questions coming to us from every journalist across the country. We explained who we are, what we do, our Code of Ethics and what we do and do not recommend. We are still going ahead with that.
Mr. Gomery is going to be in Montreal over the next couple of months, and we are all prepared to answer questions. Our position on this is very clear. It is not a problem of the industry. It becomes a problem of perception towards the industry, but it is not a problem of the industry because our industry acted well. What Sheila Fraser was saying, essentially, is that some individuals went around a system that worked well, so far.
Last week, we had a meeting with Scott Brison — the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. We met with him to try to find ways of improving the actual system, because there are still things to be improved in this system. We hope to be able to work well with the government to improve everything we can.
Senator Eyton: I applaud you for doing what you are doing. You will appreciate that it did fit within the context of our discussion here because you were talking about professional services and value added. There are some very strong allegations that there were many transactions where in fact that was not there. So, thank you, and I think you are doing the right thing.
Senator Merchant: What about the buyer-beware notion? If people are not getting good value for their money, is there anything we can do to make them smarter buyers. I do have sympathy for you, but I do not really know what the solution is. If people want to spend their money foolishly, perhaps they will have to learn the hard way.
Mr. St-Amand: I appreciate your point. As I mentioned in the beginning, we are not here to ask you to do anything directly; we are not asking you to penalize the media. We simply wanted to inform you about the situation, because we thought it was the right committee to hear about it. Other groups will talk to you about the impact on the press, and journalists, but we wanted to make sure you heard about the parallel situation, which is, in our mind, very important.
We know that you cannot interfere, that you cannot call Mr. Péladeau and say “Stop doing that.” I do not know who can do that anyway. However, we are going to have to meet with those people — we are ready to start talking with them — and find other ways. Although things are changing, our concern is that we are talking about media convergence from only one point of view. We wanted to make sure you are aware of other points of view around media convergence.
Senator Merchant: Well, thank you, I am pleased that you are here. I just do not know how we can help you, directly.
The Deputy Chairman: At one time, advertising agencies charged a national rate of 17.5 or 15 per cent, and then there was a local rate. A lot of people paid the national rate if they wanted to use an ad agency, because they had expertise in the buy. As you said, most people do not understand GRPs vis-à-vis radio and television well enough to make a smart purchase. Does that kind of structure still exist?
Mr. Vary: Well, it does not exist on a large scale. There is still some of it, but a lot of the practice has been transferred into honorariums, fees, a mix of both, or partial — a part of the 15 per cent. If you only do media placement, because we do have “conseils,” the media counsel companies that are only in media placement go for 3 per cent or 4 per cent percent. It is no longer the 15 per cent or 17 per cent; it is a mix of everything. General speaking, the 15 per cent to 17 per cent has been counterbalanced by a mix of fixed fees or hourly fees. There are some rate cards that still post the 15 per cent rate, it because some buyers, planners and estimators like to see it, but most of the advertising transactions today are not based on that; the 15 per cent is just there as a symbol.
The Deputy Chairman: When the big companies come — we will not use names — to their clients and say, “We will do the buy, do the production, write the copy and plan your marketing,” are they quoting what would normally be considered the national rate or are they quoting the local rate?
Mr. Vary: I suspect they will build an integrated package. Depending on the conglomerate, they will say, “We will sell you the air time and the space time. We will produce your TV spots, or your ads, or your Internet site.” I suspect they will say, “This is the fixed cost; there is no commission. That is the best deal you can get.”
Those companies can, to a certain extent, undercut what would be even the net cost to the agency, because they are forcing into it elements that are not strategic for the advertiser.
The Deputy Chairman: If a person is misrepresenting what they are doing, or they are cross-selling what they are doing, and forcing that person to buy into a cross-selling package, and making him think he is getting something that he is not, then it is an issue for us. So if that is going on, then we would like to know about that.
Mr. Angus: I would suggest that there definitely is cross-selling.
The Deputy Chairman: There is cross-selling?
Mr. Angus: There are bundle deals, and it is positioned like this: “Why don't you just take the radio? You have the TV and the newspaper. The radio is essentially free.” If you look at it, and it is the right mix for your target group — and they do not even know what the target group is often.
We use film production houses, not television, because of the quality of director and film. Again, the value is very hard to understand, because it is just production, and space, and it is all bundled. It is very hard to unbundle, because the whole thing falls apart and the offer is gone. What they would then say is plus 15 per cent on top of that, and that is what you are really saving. “Here is what it costs — now add 15 per cent.” If you get all this with an agency, it is that much more.
But how do you unwind — and they do not have access to our costs. We are one of the biggest media buyers in Canada, and there are certain deals that our clients get because of our volume purchase of television. These groups were formed precisely so we could say to a big media company, “Hang on, we are big, too. We have got 12 of the biggest advertisers in Canada; it is time to negotiate our rates with TV.”
We are doing it with Radio-Canada at the same time, and we are doing it over here at the same time. That is all gone. Our rates might already be superior to the 15 per cent saving the media would claim they are going to get for not dealing with an agency. Maybe our rates of rate card TV buy are already better than 15 per cent, in other words.
Mr. St-Amand: The other impact is that if, for example, his company is losing the capability of buying media for a low cost, of course they cannot have their other clients profit from it. So there is a secondary side effect, if I can say.
The Deputy Chairman: None of that would bother me very much if a client had options. If what I heard earlier is correct, if certain groups own 50 per cent, and the other group is told, “Hey, you do not buy that radio ad, you cannot get that TV ad,” that would be troublesome.
Mr. Angus: Yes. As well, the radio station that is set in the home may target a completely different demographic than the main buy, which is TV here, where they should be buying their radio from Astral and their TV with Quebecor.
The Deputy Chairman: We heard from the Ontario council, and they did not raise this issue. Do you know if this is going on in other markets, besides Quebec?
Mr. Angus: It is not as acute as it is here.
The Deputy Chairman: You say it is not as acute. However, I am asking whether or not it is going on.
Mr. Angus: I think it is going on. It certainly would be going on with Astral, which is present elsewhere.
Mr. St-Amand: I was at lunch with the people from the Association of Canadian Advertisers, and they told me of other situations in British Columbia. Let me tell you that with the buying of this TV1 — I do not know the name exactly — in Toronto by Quebecor, you are in for a ride.
Senator Merchant: There used to be a federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Hence, as a consumer, if I had a complaint, I could go to them and they would investigate. If they do not buy from you, do buyers have anywhere to go, if they feel that somebody has taken them in, to complaint? Can they go somewhere to resolve their complaint?
Mr. Vary: There is nothing formal that I know, except word of mouth, and the person would not brag.
Senator Merchant: So the only way for the buyer to get satisfaction is not to buy from a particular person?
Mr. Vary: That is it. The practice we would encourage, if the advertiser does not want to use specialists and agencies, is to refer these deals for analysis to the agency, which is done sometimes. It is not every advertiser that is at fault here, but this systematically would at least prevent some bad situations. That is why we are hired. There is no Better Business Bureau or anything like that for these people.
The Deputy Chairman: There was a previous group before us, the Quebec Community Newspapers Association, and they talked about audited and non-audited papers, that there are some non-audited papers that were getting quite a bit of government advertising and that during election campaigns some would just sprout up.
Senator Merchant: Non-verified.
The Deputy Chairman: Or non-verified — but that would mean “audited” right?
Is that prevalent, or were they telling us something that maybe we did not quite understand?
Mr. Vary: That is a very good subject. That practice is prevalent. Community newspapers, in a large sense — and there are 1,400 of them in Canada — come under a rainbow of organizations and setups.
In terms of having circulation verified by a formal body — and there are some in the industry, and they were named, like ABC, CCAB, ODC — I think it is a good practice they are advocating. In the case of a federal campaign, or even a provincial campaign, we are dealing with hundreds of newspapers who claim to be the best.
The verified status is something the media buyers would advocate using. I remember times when newspapers would sprout in every cultural community in all regions. We would recognize some of them as being very established community newspapers — the Saskatchewan Community Press comes to mind. We have one in Quebec. It was a flip of the coin in other provinces. I do not want to single out rural Ontario, but there were a lot of cases there — in another life, I did a lot of placement.
The issue of verification is one step where things could be improved, leading to good sound investment. This is one item that we would look at in our placement.
The Deputy Chairman: I have one question left on the convergence issue. In Toronto, we were told by the Association of Canadian Advertisers that there was a lack of TV space, that they could use more local stations — not national but local stations. Is that true in this market, as well?
Mr. Vary: Would it be desirable to have more television stations — at least not less, because we like competition, as well. Several years back, there were rumours of CBC or Radio-Canada cutting advertising, or limiting it, and there was opposition to that idea.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, that is what they said, too.
Mr. Vary: We like competition.
Obviously, by creating mega competitors, these people are trying to integrate.
We hear that French Radio-Canada was going into this thing about visiting clients — they do not have too many properties, but they do have some, and they have specialty networks, and so on, so even they are tempted. However, by cutting this offer, or any other offer, that would limit our leverage for negotiating.
So, yes, we could use more, not too much more, because we do not want to fragment the audience, but we would like to have a fairly good size number of solid players, so we can play ball, negotiate, and have the laws of the market work as they used to be working.
Mr. St-Amand: You probably are aware that Télé-Québec is revising its current situation. We recommended some months ago that instead of only eight minutes an hour for advertising they go to 12 minutes an hour, to improve the numbers of possibilities for us. Of course, we told them that this was not necessary in every kind of program, that it could be adapted to individual situations. Hence, we are going in accordance with the CDMQ.
The Deputy Chairman: I want to thank you very much for your presentation.
We will now offer an opportunity for members of the public to come forward to present their views on our mandate.
Please feel free to use either official language — our interpreters are excellent. Even though I am unilingual, I find that it works well. I appreciate your patience with me.
We will start with Deepak Awasti from the Greater Quebec Movement. Perhaps you could start by telling us a little bit about the Greater Quebec Movement.
Mr. Deepak Awasti, Greater Quebec Movement, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and present before this group.
The Greater Quebec Movement is a Montreal-area think tank. We are a group of anglophones aged 18 to 40 who are concerned with issues related to the anglophone community, or matters of public policy and corporate governance. We have dealt with matters related, for example, to the constitutional amendment in 1998 related to school boards in Quebec, and we have also presented before provincial commissions on related issues.
Today, as I listened to everyone address the subject of convergence, and matters of ownership, and the role of the media, or at least the interest of the media, I felt the issue was: What is the role of the media; what is Canadian content; and how is the role of the media played out in the formation of public policy and public culture? In a sense, what is Canadian culture, and how does the media form it, how does it develop it, how does it preserve it, how does it promote it?
In terms of television programs in Canada, there is The Simpsons, The Osbournes, and other such programs that are mainly American or Western in profile. If we look for Canadian programming, nothing distinct jumps out at us, except maybe on the CBC, and we might see a few things on CTV, but that is mainly local.
With respect to diversity, it is it necessarily the case of many people, be they of different cultures, different ethnicities, different language groups, different sexual orientations, or political opinions? Is that what diversity is? Or is diversity reflected in other ways?
These are essentially the issues I would like to discuss here today, but let me begin with the issue of Canadian culture. Let us distinguish between what is Canadian culture historically, and as recognized by the Canadian government, and what is the evolution of Canadian culture. Official Languages and Heritage Canada fund things that are distinctly Canadian — which falls into two camps, either English or French. However, if something is more amorphous, it falls under multiculturalism. The Quebec Community Groups Network is trying to develop the definition of what is an English speaker in Quebec, and essentially we asked the question: “Is official languages culture multicultural in essence, or is it separate from multiculturalism?”
In that sense, is the diversity of opinions, the diversity of our Canadian culture, actually reflected in media content? Our answer is that it is not. In Montreal, at least, because of the long-standing debate between the anglophone and francophone communities in Quebec, the multicultural component of Canada has been set aside — and the media reflects that.
If you view the content of Montreal's The Gazette, and if you even view the content of La Presse, you will see that the multicultural issue is not played out very significantly. If it is played out in The Gazette, it is played out in the context of how minorities are being oppressed, and it is in that sort of vein that the debate continues.
If you look at The Toronto Star, and I have viewed other newspapers across Canada, and I have found — outside of perhaps the CanWest Global chain of newspapers — that outside Quebec the view is a little more different. Given that the multicultural issue is far more pervasive and that the linguistic debate does not exist as obviously as it exists here in Quebec, the media culture outside of Quebec is very different.
We have to ask where we are going with Official Languages culture. Where are we going with Canadian culture? Are we moving towards a more monolithic North American culture that is predominantly American in origin, or are we diverting and moving towards a culture that is distinctly Canadian and distinctly multicultural in essence? How does that play out in public policy formation? How does that play out in our public culture?
I would have to say that until we can address what Canadian culture is, until we can say that Canadian culture and Official Languages culture is now essentially multicultural, then we can talk about a lot of other things. We can talk about the proper inclusion of all these minority groups that came before you, and we can properly integrate them into Canadian society. Until that happens, until we stop differentiating between official languages culture and multiculturalism, we will continue to have this debate.
Finally, with respect to the issue of the diverse voices that we have often talked about — for example, Al-Jazeera. There was much debate as to whether Al-Jazeera was promoting a perspective that was offensive to a particular community. In the context of Canadian content rules, or in the context of the development of Canadian culture, are we necessarily protecting the interests of the media industry that exists, or are we trying to promote something different? In the promotion of different voices we are, in fact, promoting Canadian culture.
I was born in India and have been in Canada for 35 years. I was living in Japan for two years, teaching English as a second language. In Tokyo, I was regarded as far better than the Americans, because I was a Canadian. I was not necessarily better than the Europeans because, of course, they are the best through the eyes of the Japanese. However, in a sense, because we are Canadian, because we are not American, we are seen as different. What was most popular in Japan? Anne of Green Gables — and that is a part of our culture.
When someone asks me where I am from and I tell them I am from Canada, they often do not believe me because they do not see me as being Canadian. I do not look Canadian, as one person put it to me.
Effectively, it means that we are not promoting the reality of Canada today, what the reality of Canadian culture is today.
The Deputy Chairman: I must ask you to wrap it up.
Mr. Awasti: Finally, with respect to allowing other voices into Canada, allowing the other media into Canada, it is my understanding that the Canadian Broadcasting Act limits other media from entering our airspace by requiring a Canadian broadcaster to sponsor other media outlets. That effectively limits — it maintains control, but it limits competition. In my mind, it is counterproductive for us to limit competition to the extent that we wish to. By guaranteeing Canadian content, or by guaranteeing Canadian ownership, we are not necessarily guaranteeing Canadian culture.
Senator Merchant: As an immigrant, I have some understanding of struggling to be a Canadian and being accepted as a Canadian. We chose to live here, so we want to be Canadians.
I think you mixed a lot of things here. First, you started to talk about the linguistic duality. Now, as far as I am concerned, that is a historic fact of this country. Anyone who comes into this country — I do not care how many numbers there are, because in Saskatchewan we have a lot of Ukrainians and Germans — is allowed to continue to speak their language if they choose. I am very happy that in this country I am allowed to do that; in that way, we can have our community.
I do not mix that in with the linguistic duality of this country, because that is a historical fact, and it is something that — that is what this country is about. So I do not want that mixed in here.
Now, culture is a different thing. In Canada, we have allowed cultures to flourish, unlike the Americans, who have a melting pot. In the United States, everyone is required to be American, to wear their Americanism on their sleeve. We have not made that a requirement here, and I think we are better for it. We have a much more multicultural, multifaceted culture here.
Hence, to reflect that in the press, we have to have champions and role models — and I am not just talking about Ian Hanomansing reading the news and therefore we have overcome all our difficulties. What we have heard throughout these hearings in Toronto and here in Montreal is that we need to employ people of all different cultures in the media, make it possible for them to be part of the production and not just the delivery. That is where we have to work, to be sure that we are giving everybody an equal opportunity.
What do you think? Are you and I on the same playing field with our opinions?
Mr. Awasti: Generally speaking, yes. Although, let us begin with the issue of linguistic duality. Again, you are not from Quebec.
Senator Merchant: I am from Saskatchewan, but I was born in Greece.
Mr. Awasti: Saskatchewan, of course, is very different from Quebec — and given the history of Quebec, the linguistic issue plays a far greater role here than anywhere else. In a sense, in Quebec — and it is been noted that certainly the ethnic minorities, and I would include the anglophone community in this — the ethnic minorities tend to hold on to our culture and language far more strongly than those minorities in Ontario, simply because, in a way, we are regarded as fighting the francophone community. It is not necessarily in that context, but we have much more of a protective mentality as opposed to others in the rest of the country. So in that sense our view of the linguistic duality is different.
As to the multiculturalism question — and I raise this in the context of official languages because, as I said before. The Quebec Community Groups Network, which is the main funding organization in Quebec, receives about $3,500,000 from Heritage Canada and redistributes it to minority organizations in Quebec. They are redefining who an English speaker is. Official Languages or Canadian Heritage has said very clearly that, while QCGN is defining itself as anyone who speaks the English language or has an affinity for the English language, we are not going to stop funding English-language community organizations and multiculturalism separately. We will not mix the two. Yet the anglophone community is trying to bring these others into its own grouping.
In that context, multiculturalism is now becoming a part of the warfare between the anglophone and the francophone communities. In that sense, there is “intercommunal” warfare regarding the role of minorities in the formation of the English-speaking community and its culture, because, as I said before, if we are not going to be funded under Official Languages, why are we being included under Official Languages? This is where the battle lies. That is why it is imperative, in a sense, to as ask whether multiculturalism is a part of Official Languages or wither it is separate.
For example, a Haitian group in Ottawa that was trying to get funding from Official Languages was told that because they were not a francophone group that would be recognized, even though they spoke French, their funding fell under multiculturalism. To look at it another way, I am an English speaker but cannot get funded by Official Languages because they would see my cultural attributes as multicultural. That sort of mentality does not help integrate people into Canadian society.
The Deputy Chairman: We are a long way from cross-ownership here and the role of the media. Perhaps Senator Chaput can help put us back on track.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I support what Senator Merchant has just said. But I would like a little more information to understand your dilemma.
We have linguistic duality in Canada. Of that there is no doubt.
Mr. Awasti: Yes, Senator.
Senator Chaput: We have two official languages. Canada's culture has always been diverse. The Aboriginal people were here first, followed by the French and the English. Even then, there were three different cultures within the same country.
So we should not mix language and culture for the time being. Canada's culture, in my opinion, is multicultural; my daughters do not define their culture as I myself defined it when I was 20, for the simple reason that their culture includes an appreciation of artists other than those who are French and English, from other countries, and so on.
Therefore, we have a culture and we have official languages. Canada's official languages commissioner clearly stated: “Canada's cultural diversity is expressed through our two official languages.” I thought that was well said.
Now, the problem is that even if you speak French, for example, you do not have access to the official languages funds for francophones because you are told that you are multicultural.
Mr. Awasti: That is correct, senator.
Senator Chaput: That is how the programs were developed. There are official languages, and there are the other cultures. If you are part of an English-speaking group in Quebec, because you are in the anglophone minority in Quebec, and if belonging to this group gives you access to funding for your activities, are you not included?
It will not be going to you, but to the anglophones in Quebec, is that not correct?
Mr. Awasti: Yes, senator, but the problem is that the group receives the funds — for example, Community Group Network receives the money — and then decides how to spend it.
Senator Chaput: The expenditures?
Mr. Awasti: Where to spend the money. And because the expenditure criteria are very clear, the cultural communities cannot apply for funding from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Unless the office determines that there are significant elements with an official language component.
Senator Chaput: I am sorry, I will have to stop you there.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We are a long way from home here.
Senator Chaput: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: It is like talking about the weather in Saskatchewan.
Our next speaker is Mr. Charles Shannon.
Mr. Charles Shannon, Montreal Newspaper Guild, as an individual: Thank you very much for holding these cross- country hearings. You are not all the way across the country yet, but I am hopeful that you will actually make it out West and farther East.
The Deputy Chairman: We will.
Mr. Shannon: I think these sessions are very important; you are dealing with a very important issue.
At stake is one of the underpinnings of democracy, which is an informed public, and hence why I have a problem with convergence, concentration, if you will — that is, that it hampers the free exchange of information. If you end up, for example, as was once proposed by CanWest — they have since dropped this idea — with one national editorial across the country, you are eliminating the variety of voices that you really need to have an open public debate. It is the same thing if one story runs from St. John's to Victoria on one particular topic — the opinions that are expressed or the facts that are presented will be the same for everybody, and hence there will be no debate.
When we had a multiplicity of news agencies and companies that owned chains, there was an opportunity to pick and choose which story you wanted to present in your paper. There is now increasingly a monopoly, or something that is very close to approaching it.
One of the things about concentration and convergence is the fact that there are cuts to investigative reporting, with the result that we are leaving the field open to corporations, governments, et cetera, who have the resources and the skill to try to manage the news to their advantage — and hence we, the news media, are largely abandoning the news- gathering field to people who want to present the news. This is a fact of media concentration and media convergence.
We still have a vibrant and diverse media in Canada, but I think we should look South to see what has happened there. The problem there is not mainly a result of media concentration as much as it is an eroding of journalistic principles. I understand that 9/11 changed everything, but we have seen things like The New York Times, for example, being forced to apologize to its readers for having accepted without question the government proposals on weapons of mass destruction. The situation has not changed simply because they recognized that they made a mistake that time. The American media is still very much — they have abandoned a lot of the journalistic principles of critically approaching the news that once drove the American free press. I am thinking back to Watergate, when the media in the United States actually “spoke truth to power,” as the expression goes. You do not see that very much, anymore.
I understand that this is beyond what your committee could even recommend doing anything about. However, there was a story in The New York Times just two days ago about the Pentagon planning actual disinformation campaigns throughout the foreign press. I do not know if any of you saw that, but it was chilling. The fact is that we get a lot of our news through our American colleagues, and if, indeed, they are going to treat the public trust in what the government has to say that callously, then a lot of what we absorb from them, which is a good percentage of our news coverage, is going to be untrustworthy.
One of the problems the media has is that the young people, as some of our earlier speakers have said, are tuning them out, because they do not trust the media. And if we allow people to manipulate us, in part because it is cheaper to not cover something yourself but rather go to the photo op, or go to the press conference and just absorb what they have to say, then we are destroying our own industry.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it not part of the strength of the American media that they actually — the story was about the fact that they were trying to plan misinformation?
Mr. Shannon: Oh, absolutely, but the thing is they have not stopped it. This is still going to go on, and it is going to go on under the radar, even though we know they are planning it. The news information that is going to come out of the U.S. government, at least the military side of it, is going to be information that you cannot trust.
The Deputy Chairman: Do you trust the information coming out of any government?
Mr. Shannon: Increasingly less and less.
The Deputy Chairman: Exactly. I am a parliamentarian, I do not.
Mr. Shannon: Right. At least now people in government pretend that what they are telling the public is the truth. When government actually reaches the point where it is consciously and deliberately spreading disinformation, and we, the media, are absorbing this disinformation, the situation will be very scary.
Agreed, we are talking about something that is happening in the States, but what happens in that country spills over, and eventually it becomes a problem here. It is something that we as Canadians have to watch out for, and one of the ways that we have to watch out for it, of course, is to make sure the Canadian media stays in Canadian hands. That is one of the prime lessons we should draw from the scary things that are happening south of the border.
Senator Merchant: We live in a multi-channel universe; we can get information from almost anywhere. With satellite television, I do not know how long we are going to keep out all these other channels.
I noticed that, in France, I believe, they had allowed Al-Jazeera to come in but there was an intervention and they are not allowing them to broadcast anymore.
Mr. Shannon: It was a network that was linked to Hezbollah.
Senator Merchant: Yes, I just glanced at that last night.
I see Canadian reporters reporting to us from Washington. Do you think we are getting good information from them?
Mr. Shannon: Yes.
Senator Merchant: We do get information through Canadian eyes, with Canadian interpretation.
Mr. Shannon: Right.
Senator Merchant: Maybe not enough.
Mr. Shannon: One of the problems with convergence and media concentration is that fewer people are tackling a news story. For example, if the one reporter that CanWest Global has in Washington gets the story wrong, there is no other Canadian voices there to —
Senator Merchant: Yes, but there is the CBC and CTV.
Mr. Shannon: Agreed.
Senator Merchant: When I was the evening news, I watch the CBC news at ten o'clock, and then at eleven o'clock I watch the CTV. I do not really watch Global, but that is my choice. I always like to hear both sides. I hear a little bit of a different interpretation sometimes, and sometimes not.
Mr. Shannon: Yes.
Senator Merchant: I agree with you, however; there are fewer and fewer opportunities to get a divergent opinion.
Mr. Shannon: International bureaus are one of the things that these big chains have not shown a great deal of interest in putting forward. Even though they are making considerable amounts of money in the newspaper industry, say, they are not reinvest a lot of this money in bureaus across the world. CanWest has a few, but far fewer than they could afford.
The Deputy Chairman: I did not introduce Mr. Shannon as a member of the Montreal Newspaper Guild. You are not speaking on behalf of the guild; however, you are a member of the Montreal Newspaper Guild.
Mr. Shannon: Right. I thank you for pointing that out; I am here to observe.
I am also a long-time journalist with The Gazette, in Montreal, but I am, once again, not representing them. I am here speaking out as a consumer of the news, who is more concerned today about where the media is going than I have been in my 40-year career as a journalist.
Senator Chaput: As a Canadian, sir, I would like to keep a vibrant and diverse media in Canada. As a parliamentarian, too, I want that, and I am sure many others want the same. I want Canadians to get the truth when they read our newspapers or watch television or listen to the radio. I want them to know the truth.
How can we keep others from destroying our industries? What would be the three main principles or issues on which we could work?
Mr. Shannon: This is the question that everybody who has come before you has had to deal with.
Senator Chaput: Yes.
Mr. Shannon: As journalists, we have always been reluctant to ask the government to regulate our industry. It is only because the industry seems so threatened right now that people are coming forward, like Enn Raudsepp, earlier, saying we do need this committee to actually come up with serious recommendations that would — for example, putting a limit on the amount of cross-ownership and a limit on the amount of concentration has, in my mind, to be part of the overall plan.
Certainly keeping out foreign ownership is, as far as I am concerned, essential. In the U.S., right now, there are big corporations that own all of the networks, and those big corporations are themselves vulnerable to takeovers. The Chinese are buying up everything in the United States right now. It will not be very long before China actually owns a good percentage of the U.S. media. I certainly do not want to see that happen in Canada. I am sure the Americans do not want to see it happen there either, but they are open to it, they are vulnerable to it right now.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your attendance here.
I would like next to call on Mr. André Seleanu, who is a freelance journalist. You have heard the other two speakers, so you know what the drill is. Please proceed.
Mr. André Seleanu, Freelance Journalist, as an individual: I feel honoured to present in front of this committee. I am happy that you are visiting Montreal and that you are hearing some of the opinions in our community.
I would have to strongly concur with what the previous speaker said. I read The Gazette and have been reading it for many years. I have been following the changes in ownership and I must say that what I saw in the early 1980s and 1990s I liked a lot better than what I have seen since 1995, when Conrad Black bought 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the Canadian newspapers. After that, this was taken over by the Asper family in Winnipeg, and by and large it stayed very similar, with some changes of personal preferences, predilections, due to the ownership's cultural profile.
It is very arbitrary in both cases. We can see where Conrad Black is now, what kind of a person he is. All we have to do is read the Financial Times. We see what kind of a person owned much of the Canadian media, the kind of character and profile impressed on what millions of people had to read every day. A similar situation persists today. There are two words that sum it up — Citizen Kane — and much more now than then.
For me, what I am saying now is an emotional issue. For four years, I was a journalist with a magazine called Recto Verso, a mildly leftwing magazine that covered community issues and Third-World issues, which no one else covered. I was in Puerto Alegre covering the World Social Forum, which I covered for Le Devoir as well as Recto Verso. I actually presented before the Puerto Alegre Summit in 2002. This summer, Recto Verso, for various reasons, one of them being lack of funding, went under because they were clearly told they were too leftwing. In my view, they were not all that leftwing, only mildly leftwing.
Recto Verso is a well-known Quebec magazine that published 90,000 copies several times a year, six or seven times a year, covering issues of globalization and the International Monetary Fund, as well as trade union relations between Canada and the Third World. So you can see the thrust. It focused on issues of civil liberty, such as the laws that were passed quickly — C-35, C-42 and C-36 — in 1991 by the government. So, to some extent, Recto Verso tried to sort out some of the blind spots that the mainstream media may have missed — necessary information.
The Deputy Chairman: This is the anti-terrorist legislation?
Mr. Seleanu: Yes, the whole package.
The Deputy Chairman: So it was not 1991.
Mr. Seleanu: What am I talking about? It was December 2001.
What is the portrait of the media as I see it today? We see that there is very little philosophical diversity. We are not talking about abstract philosophy, here; everything is based on a certain philosophy or ethics. The ethics that we see drummed into us everyday are neo-liberal ethics, ethics of competition, survival of the fittest, of no solidarity. It is as imposing as leftwing ethics, as Stalinist ethics. I find it equally offensive.
We see commercial ethics drummed into us everyday by the mainstream media. So it is not the consumer's choice, it is much more insidious and much more dangerous. I am not against that kind of philosophy, but I would like to see various philosophies at the root of whatever stories are being written. We do not see them.
The New York Times ran a story that was in The Gazette, saying that the Jesuits are too much into social philosophy or into social support. I thought that for 2,000 years this was very important — read Aquinas, Bernard Shaw, Tommy Douglas, coming right up to today. I thought solidarity was something that our societies valued. Apparently, according to the present media — and it is being sort of slipped in here and there, these are disgusting things that we should sweep under the rug, not know about.
The Kent commission took place in the 1980s. None of their recommendations was heeded.
Let me come to the point of think tanks. In the La Presse, in The Gazette, 10 times a month, or so, we see articles that were commissioned and written by think tanks. Think tanks are institutions that have not been properly studied, but they exist. There are 350 in North America. The Fraser Institute regularly places articles in The Gazette that have an extreme rightwing viewpoint. Once every few weeks or so they will write a leftwing article, to sort of balance it out; but there are eight or ten rightwing articles to every leftwing article.
The C.D. Howe Institute is a think tank, as is the American Enterprise Institute from Washington. There is the Cato Institute, and the Hudson Institute. One of the main purposes of these organizations is to influence media. These articles run in Montreal in The Gazette and in La Presse. I am not against these newspapers running the articles, but they never identify what these institutions are. We see, for example, “Institut économique de Montréal” — Montreal Economic Institute. It sounds like University of Montreal. That is not what they are. They are a body that is designed to influence public opinion in a certain direction.
Nevertheless, in Canada, in the last election, 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the popular vote went to centre and leftwing parties — the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. This is not reflected in our media. Mr. Shannon probably gave some reasons for this — and media concentration is certainly one.
All of a sudden, there is this wonderful phenomenon of documentaries and books, wonderful phenomenon, like Fahrenheit 9/11 and three other documentaries on the Bush administration and on the Conservatives, the neo-Cons, and so on.
I would suggest that documentaries and books on politics are not a normal phenomenon. The reason they happen is because the media, such as Maclean's, The Gazette, La Presse, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and their homologues in the United States, do not properly cover the various viewpoints, of which poverty — one person in six in Montreal does not get enough food, according to today's Journal de Montréal. Globalization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, OECD, Third-World issues — these are not properly covered in the mainstream media.
About 80 per cent of what actually happens in the world is not covered. When it is covered, they are Associated Press stories, which only give a very small side of the story. Information is totally monopolized. There is absolutely no diversity. A lot of journalists are on the sidelines because of censorship; they are being kept out because of this phenomenon.
Then we see the phenomenon of books and documentaries, which come in to fill the gap of what the media is not doing but should be doing, in order to contribute to the freedom that Mr. Shannon described as being an inherent and necessary function in a liberal and democratic society.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Sir, if you had a magic wand and you were told that you could change everything that you did not like and with which you did not agree, what would you do first?
Mr. Seleanu: I am not an expert in how government works. I think there should be well-intentioned legislation without too much wiggle room. Our laws should be respected; they should break the media monopoly and provide, through subsidies or an appropriate trade policy, more room for publications such as this magazine called Recto Verso which was not perfect but which played an important role by representing disenchanted intellectuals.
That is what is so wonderful about a city like Montreal or Paris, that is, the fact that there are disenchanted intellectuals. We must not beat them, we must not strike them. And what about the poor people who have nothing to eat?
There must be room for these media, which, although they are aggressive, are not out to hurt or destroy anyone.
All this must exist. Culture must be present. We also need investigative reporting. The state must encourage coverage of the third world through all types of incentives, for example, through federal or provincial legislation.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I can see that you are a concerned person. I can see that you are frustrated by many things that you do not think are properly addressed. I know how you feel, because a lot of Westerners do not feel that their issues are reflected in the national media. I can tell you as well that many of them are diametrically opposed to the feelings that you have.
The country is diverse, and there are a lot of issues. I think it is good for dialogue, and I think that all voices should be heard. We in the West — I personally, I should say, am quite happy to see a family from Western Canada play a large role in the media. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. I just think it is good to have somebody in the West because we get a lot of voices from the West. The National Post is widely read in the West.
I do not know how much you want to regulate, but there is a magazine called Slate, which requires or asks their writers to state how they vote. Not only their writers, but I think anybody who works for this magazine. Would you approve of something like that?
The Deputy Chairman: Do you feel more comfortable in French?
Mr. Seleanu: No, not at all. I live in Montreal, so I feel comfortable in both languages. I write in both languages; I have published widely in both languages. I just try to choose my words carefully, that is all.
The Deputy Chairman: As politicians, we should learn from that.
Senator Merchant: Yes.
Mr. Seleanu: To be blunt, I could care less if Asper is from the East or the West. It is just a matter of one can really feel — it is a matter of big bucks and small bucks. Perhaps it is inevitable, but, I think there is an arrogance that comes with huge commercial interests, an arrogance that percolates right down to many articles, and especially the editorial page. Perhaps it is inevitable, but that is very bad if it is inevitable. We should not be so cynical. I think it is part of democracy not to be cynical.
I am totally sympathetic to Western aspirations, but I do not think it has much to do with East and West. I do not think I am a typical Easterner — in fact, I do not think I am typical of anything, for that matter.
I am bringing in an issue — I am talking about the issue of media concentration. I do not think the Internet has much to do with it, because most people, from what I understand, do not take their news from the Internet. One has to first have a culture in order to know where to look for it on the Internet. Hence, it is important that TV and newspapers give a first unbiased, in my view, anyway, view of things for people then to go to the Internet.
It is not a matter of East and West; it is a matter of the centre and leftwing viewpoint today being expressed with the same poignancy as the right and the extreme right viewpoint.
The Deputy Chairman: Would you consider the CBC right wing radio and TV?
Mr. Seleanu: No.
The Deputy Chairman: Especially in Quebec?
Mr. Seleanu: No. Le Point, for instance, does a very good job. No, I think the CBC is very welcome, and it is a very, very important institution in Canada, given the circumstances. It is with great sadness that I hear that its funds are always being cut, because what that does is it puts — and here, perhaps, we are talking of what Senator Chaput said. It puts a lot of pressure on conformity, a lot of backbiting in the office among the journalists when they know that there are all these cuts and that somebody is going to be out. It creates conformity — and the last thing we need today is conformity.
I would certainly support the CBC, French and English. Since 1989, when Mr. Mulroney, with great hoopla and trumpeting announced, cut the CBC — as though he was slaying the dragon. Since then, we have been seeing the CBC being cut, and cut, and cut, and cut, and cut again. There is a whole atmosphere of that.
The Deputy Chairman: So the dragon is being “slayed” by Liberals as well as Conservatives?
Mr. Seleanu: Well, if you wish, yes.
The Deputy Chairman: Well, you are the one saying it.
Mr. Seleanu: Yes, so I do not know. I think the CBC is very important, to some extent, as an independent point of view. It is always with a certain amount of regret that I see the way they try to conform to commercial imperatives, advertising their own shows and so on. The role of the CBC should be to reflect, to debate; its role should be an intellectual one. I do not believe we are intellectual enough. “Intellectual” is a beautiful word, not the dirty word the neo-liberal media tries to make it come across as.
I thank the CBC, and do not want to see it cut, but I want to see it more profound, more cultural, and more wide- ranging in its approach.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much.
We have one more speaker.
Mr. Del Hushley, as an individual: Can you hear me?
Senator Merchant: Yes.
Mr. Hushley: I cannot speak very well. I lost my teeth and cannot find a decent dentist.
I am almost 90 years of age. I have been involved in the health care system for 65 years, and now I find that it is running with the Mafia. The Mafia control the health care system — but people cannot accept the truth.
I am writing a book, too. I hope to finish it before I kick the bucket. Who knows the truth? Where and what is God? We say “God bless America,” “God bless this,” and “God bless that,” but what is God? It is a mystery to me.
I have been communicating with the dead, and people hate me for it. Six years ago, a psychiatrist wanted to kill me for that. He told me I was having hallucinations. Big deal.
I have tape recordings. In a previous incarnation, I was Greek. Therefore, I am connected with democracy. I have tape recordings from the time of Socrates and Plato. In another incarnation, I was a Persian. Raja Saloni was my master. I tape recorded them, I have colour pictures, I have the whole works.
My family cannot accept me; they hate my guts. Why? Why is truth so difficult? Where can we get open- mindedness? This is a problem.
Who controls the media now? Two people continue the media — Michael Sabia and CanWest. I wrote the newspaper, but they will not publish my letter. A Montreal newspaper interviewed me — you were an editor at one time, were you not?
Senator Chaput: In a former life.
Mr. Hushley: My memory is failing me, because of age. I remember hearing people say, “I cannot remember, I cannot remember.”
I had dinner once with Ronald Reagan — that was in 1948. I was sitting alone, and when we noticed, he asked me to join him. Ronald Reagan. I admired Ronald Reagan; he was a great man. They had a great funeral for him.
The Deputy Chairman: You remembered that.
Mr. Hushley: Oh, yes. I remember certain things; but my problem with memory is a problem with aging.
There is a good part to it, though, because when you age you prepare yourself for death. The last thing I am worrying about is my death; in fact, I am looking forward to it. There is really no such thing as death. Immortality and reincarnation — that is the truth, but people are not ready for that truth.
Look at all the killing that is taking place; it sickens me. I cannot look at any of it. Look at Bush — kill, kill, kill. He can kill a person as easy as a fly or mosquito. I do not mind killing a fly or a mosquito; however, beyond that, I have a hard time. I shot a rabbit in Saskatchewan — which is where I was born. I wounded the rabbit, and he started crying like a baby. I put my rifle down, and swore I would never kill another animal again. That is how I feel, but that is not the way all people feel.
The Deputy Chairman: Where are you from in Saskatchewan?
Mr. Hushley: I am from Vanguard, Saskatchewan, not far from Gravelbourg.
The Deputy Chairman: I know where that is.
Mr. Hushley: I was born in 1915, in a mud hut. I remember things going back as far as 1916. It was an open prairie, and of course at that time we were afraid of animals — wolves and coyotes — and the devil was very important at the time.
The Deputy Chairman: And the cold, I would think.
Mr. Hushley: Oh, it was terrible out there. The wind would stop you in your tracks. You had to be careful.
My life was no rose garden, by a long shot. It has been a long, long journey. I hope to be able to write everything about my life in my book. I am starting on it now, and I think I can hang on. I will be 90 this coming May 2.
Four years ago, a psychiatrist put me in a straightjacket in the hospital. He told me I was suffering from hallucinations. I was arrested and put in a straightjacket.
But during the war —
The Deputy Chairman: You were in the war?
Mr. Hushley: Yes, I was, for a short time.
The Deputy Chairman: Was that the Second World War, or the First World War?
Mr. Hushley: I remember the First World War, because we did not suffer from the great flu. My parents told me that there were funerals every day. The flu was in 1918.
The Deputy Chairman: Well, we have just about run out of time.
Mr. Hushley: I have lots to say, but sooner or later I will have that book out.
The Deputy Chairman: You can send us a copy of your book.
Mr. Hushley: Who knows the truth? Where, what and who is God? Let us know who God is.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hushley.
Mr. Hushley: Nice talking to you.
The Deputy Chairman: Nice talking to you, too, sir.
Mr. Hushley: You will hear from me, if not now, when I speak from heaven. I am not worried about dying. I am looking forward to heaven. If you want to go to heaven, give me a deposit and I will make a reservation for you.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.