Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 17 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
DIEPPE, Thursday, April 21, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 1:18 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 Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we resume our hearings in Dieppe, New Brunswick. We are fortunate to welcome Mr. David Henley, but I do not seem to have his biography here, which is such an embarrassment. Forgive me for not having my cheat sheet. Please tell us who you are.
Mr. David Henley, as an individual: Some days I do not know who I am. Today is one of those fortunate days when I do.
The Chairman: Then we will go on from there. We are delighted to have you with us, especially since you had to drive across most of the province to get here.
Mr. Henley: I am from Woodstock, New Brunswick, and I am the former owner, with my wife, of Henley Publishing Ltd., which owned four community papers in Western New Brunswick until November 2002, when we sold those properties to the Irving-owned Brunswick News. We also owned a central printing plant and two small papers in Eastern Maine.
When it was announced that a committee was being formed to study Canadian media and, specifically, the concentration of ownership, I told my wife I would like to appear before this committee. She said, "What is the point? The barn door is already open and the horses are gone.'' My daughter then added, "Yes, and they have taken all the hay.'' They have taken all the hay; and for a lot of people, that describes the situation. Many people have asked me if this is just a waste of time and taxpayers' money spent on an irreversible, done deal. After all, the Davey commission and the Kent commission recommendations were made years ago, long before the media were being gobbled up by the giants. Very little action was taken and most of the Kent commission recommendations seem to have been ignored; all this, I believe, to the detriment of the quality of journalism, the number of jobs affected, most certainly, and the fair comment or appearance of fair comment the public expects and deserves.
I believe competition improves quality and creates a survival-of-the-fittest atmosphere. If there is a concern about media concentration in Canada in general, that concern should be multiplied many times over on the state of the media in New Brunswick, where one company owns all the English dailies, most of the community newspapers, shoppers, most of the flyer business, and I am not certain, but I think some radio stations as well. When one company controls all those information sources and also dominates so many other sectors, such oil and gas, transportation, forestry, pulp and paper, shipping, real estate, food and retail, and with the vertical integration in all these sectors to boot, it is certainly not a healthy situation and raises the question of whether the press can provide unbiased news coverage relating to these vast holdings. It obviously could not happen to the same degree as with an independent press. No matter how unbiased the intent or open the editorial policy, there would be an unconscious loyalty to the "parental control.'' It is inconceivable that a writer reporting on a sensitive issue involving one of these companies would not be intimidated by the fact that he or she is writing about another arm of the Irving body. That reporter would be gambling with the potential of a subtle punishment by way of lack of promotion, or maybe even job loss. I emphasize "potential.'' I am not saying that would necessarily happen. There are now few places to go to find another job in that field. He or she would have to uproot and move out of province as the only other option.
There is concern over media concentration in the rest of Canada, but that only involves companies with a concentration in the media alone, and even then, there is some diversity of ownership and competition in other provinces. In New Brunswick, one company dominates most other business sectors as well. It is more serious than government ownership. At least with government ownership, the public has an opportunity to make a change every four years.
However, a reformation of an independent press in New Brunswick is virtually impossible because Irving also controls most of the newspaper printing presses in the province. When Irving purchased two family chains of community newspapers, one of them ours, they dismantled and sold off the presses. Therefore, if some daring souls wished to operate a newspaper, there are very few places they could go to have it printed other than the dominant competitor.
The Government of Canada is very supportive of building export markets, but with the closing down of our Woodstock press, which moved, I understand, to Peru, a local export printing market into Eastern Maine was also terminated.
There has also been a negative financial effect on communities where independent papers no longer exist. In the tiny village of Perth-Andover, where we had a newspaper and, obviously, an office, the office was shut down and more than four jobs were lost. In the town of Hartland, the newspaper office and press were shut down and several jobs lost in that economy. That paper was combined with The Bugle of Woodstock. And in Woodstock itself, almost half a million dollars in salaries were taken out of that community after the sale of the assets of our company.
Historically, community newspapers have been operated as family businesses, as newspapers first and as businesses second. When large corporations take over, the priorities are reversed and the bottom line becomes sacred. While this may seem like sound business practice, it is to the detriment of the quality of news when these big companies centralize production and jobs.
As I said at the beginning, the horses are gone, but the question remains: Is there a will to reverse the situation? Can it be done, and how? Obviously, the industry will not be the instigator because it is controlled by these large companies and they will not be involved in any such process. They are the ones who created the situation. I have always been pleased that there is no CRTC or government control of the printed press, but now it might be the only answer to satisfy the concerns of people who see a danger in so much concentration in so few and powerful hands.
The U.S. has very few laws regarding media ownership. They have not been taken over by foreign countries. Perhaps the time is right to liberalize the ownership laws here and seek outside investment that can diversify control of our Canadian press.
The Competition Bureau has been noticeably ineffective in policing infractions, with very few convictions in relation to the number of cases brought before it. It appears small companies have little chance if large companies move in, cut prices and offer free advertising. The small company is forced to sell or go out of business. However, once the monopoly controls the market, those prices are often raised even higher than before.
In these monopolistic times, we thank God for the CBC. Although the CBC is much maligned, it usually gives another viewpoint on the news and offers freedom of information that is both credible and trustworthy. Because of this, public broadcasting should continue to be a valued, funded resource in providing balanced information to the Canadian public.
We have here a major media problem brought on bythe indecision and inactivity of many federal governmentsover 40 years. If the situation is ever to be reversed, it will require both provincial and federal governments to realize the dangers inherent in these problems and develop laws that require some assets to be sold off to allow fair competition and prevent domination in any specific market.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Henley, I have heard your name, but it is nice to have you here today. Thank you for coming.
As I listened to you, I wondered why you sold, and I do not expect you to answer that personally. I thought to myself that it was probably because it was a business deal that you or your family could not turn down, especially in view of your daughter's reaction. You do not necessarily have to answer that, but you obviously did sell to Brunswick News or to the Irving family, however one puts it.
You have laid out very clearly the loss of jobs in each of those little communities and the loss of salaries in Woodstock. I wondered how the reading public feels about the changes, and because I know there is a great deal of emphasis in those community papers on advertising, how the business community feels in terms of the results of their advertising. I do not know whether you can answer either of those two questions, but how the public feels is the bottom line for us because we are trying to see how well the media are serving the public, community by community across the land.
Mr. Henley: Certainly. One promise that I made to myself when I sold was that I would not sit back as a former owner and criticize the quality of what was being produced, but I can reflect on what I have been told. Obviously, as I walk around town, go into the restaurants and so on, people do make comments about the product that they are getting, and I think it is fair to say that, generally speaking, they are impressed by the colour that the big presses now provide, because it is all printed, I understand, in Moncton now and trucked around the province. They have a huge press, so the number of colour pages has certainly increased, although not necessarily the quality of that colour. However, the general opinion is that the content is of a lesser standard. Now, I try to say that with an unbiased voice.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, no.
Mr. Henley: I was talking to advertisers who also have some problems that I would prefer not to go into at this point, but some have been upset with policies and so on.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know the community newspapers often use writers who just send the news in mainly from villages. Does that continue, this very local kind of news that people in our smaller communities appreciate? We do not get that in the bigger communities. It has to be a big story or somebody's hundredth birthday, right?
Mr. Henley: Certainly.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Even a hundredth birthday party does not get into the big papers.
Mr. Henley: No.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is that tradition continuing in the three papers that you mentioned, or are you down to two now? You had three?
Mr. Henley: We had four when we sold.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You had four and now it is two?
Mr. Henley: Yes, and I should mention one was in Fredericton North —
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Oh, you had the Northside News.
Mr. Henley: Northside News. One was in Woodstock, which was our flagship paper.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes, Woodstock and Hartland, you said, came together.
Mr. Henley: Yes, but we did not own Hartland. We owned Woodstock, Perth-Andover and a bilingual paper in Grand Falls.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Who owned Hartland?
Mr. Henley: The Fairgrieve family owned it and then they sold it to a third party, who owned it for a short time and then sold it to the Irvings.
In answer to your question, when my wife and I were owners, one of the things that we really stressed was local news. You hear these things as you go to community newspaper conventions and so on, that you should keep the news local, local, local. People get news of Iraq and Ottawa and so on by way of their daily paper, television and other sources. One of the things we stressed was to keep Woodstock area news in the Woodstock paper and local news in the papers for all the other towns as well. I see now, and I guess by way of bottom-line benefits, there is news creeping into our former paper in Woodstock that was generated in Grand Falls. Obviously, if there is some space to fill, there may be a news bank there from which they pull this news in. It may be of great interest to readers in Woodstock. It certainly would not be to me because Grand Falls no longer has an appeal. I never go there and I do not have any contact with anybody there, so any Grand Falls news I read in the Woodstock paper would be superfluous as far as I am concerned.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I think the hottest issue, at least that I am aware of, up the river has been the hospital. That has gone on for about two years now. Has that been covered well, in your opinion? Has it been covered fairly? What do you think?
Mr. Henley: I think is has been covered fairly. It is obviously written with an idea that part of the circulation of The Bugle in Woodstock, which is what I am talking about, is up river where the hospital is going, and part of it is down river where the opposing people live. However, I think generally, they are walking a fairly steady line through the middle of that. Meanwhile, I am from Woodstock, so I am active in trying to keep the hospital there.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You think the coverage is not as good. Is it because there is some mix of the strictly local and news from the adjacent communities, or is it the writers?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are they from away or are they local people? Who runs the paper for the group?
Mr. Henley: I did not say that I thought it was. I have tried to steer clear of that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, no, you said people you talk to.
Mr. Henley: Yes. I think most of the people are local, and I do not want to mislead the committee. Most of the news is of the community where those newspapers originate, but some of it creeps in from other communities that did not when we owned it.
Senator Munson: Which four newspapers were sold, did you say?
Mr. Henley: The Northside News in Fredericton, The Bugle in Woodstock, the Victoria County Record in Perth- Andover and the bilingual La Cataracte in Grand Falls.
Senator Munson: Is the Hartland Observer still around?
Mr. Henley: No.
Senator Munson: No?
Mr. Henley: When the Irvings bought that, I think it was last year, they combined it with The Bugle. They folded one into the other and now it is called The Bugle Observer.
Senator Munson: One of my dad's best friends ran the Hartland Observer a long time ago, and I cannot remember his name. I will ask the same question that Senator Trenholme Counsell asked: Why did you sell?
Mr. Henley: Well, look at the wrinkles on my face. I am 68 years old. I have three daughters. They were not interested in taking it on. Two of them had moved away, and it was becoming time to sell. Some pressures were brought to bear as we got closer to making that decision that had a great effect on what we eventually did.
Senator Munson: Are those confidential pressures, or is it the same story of a big company marching forward and gobbling up little newspapers?
Mr. Henley: One of the things about a powerful company is that they can tie you into not saying anything about the sale, and I have signed such an agreement. I can talk about everything else, but I cannot talk about the details of the sale.
Senator Munson: I am very sorry.
Mr. Henley: However, I am assuming I can talk about things that led up to that situation.
The Chairman: Yes, you can.
Senator Munson: Go right ahead.
Mr. Henley: I prefer to do it by answering questions rather than offering comments, but essentially, a former employee started a shopper in competition with us in Woodstock. They could not make a go of it, so they transferred it over to another person, who also could not make a go of it. I suspect, but I am not sure, that that person might have owed money to the Irvings for printing bills or whatever, because they were printing down there. In any case, the ownership eventually came into Irving hands and things then changed, because we noticed a definite increase in the competition in a number of ways.
The Chairman: What do you mean by, "a number of ways''?
Mr. Henley: For instance, before the sale, the shopper offered free classified advertising and put out a price list. There is nothing wrong with this, I suppose, but they sold ads that were far under the price list.
The Chairman: Your price list or their price list?
Mr. Henley: Their price list. Obviously, by offering free classifieds, that cut into the classified advertising revenue of our publication. Newspapers are usually sold based on their revenue, and so when the time came to sell, obviously, the price would have reflected the decreased revenue.
By the way, there is certainly a price now to put your classified ad in the shopper. Since The Bugle is now the only publication in the area, the classified rates are now double what they were when we owned the paper.
The Chairman: The Bugle was, under your ownership, obtained through paid subscription?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: I am just trying to probe here.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: You said you wanted questions to be asked. I am trying to ask questions. I am not sure about this, but I have understood that free distribution papers, such as a shopper, cannot charge as much for ads because they are free, whereas paid subscriptions mean people are actually putting down money to read a paper. You have a better chance that your ad will be read, so you can charge more for it.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting that the gap in rates was greater than those two market facts would normally have made it?
Mr. Henley: Well, that is certainly a subjective viewpoint in any case, but yes, that is what I would suggest.
The Chairman: Would you go so far as to say that what was going on was predatory pricing?
Mr. Henley: Well —
The Chairman: You are protected in a room like this.
Mr. Henley: Yes, and that is why I mentioned the Competition Bureau, because we had thought of taking it to them, but when our legal advisers told us the problems that we would have there, we decided that it was not worthwhile pursuing that because of the success rate, because of the cost, because of getting tied up in court with a company that could afford legal rates that we could not.
The Chairman: So you just did not lay a complaint?
Mr. Henley: We did not do anything about it, no; we could not.
Senator Munson: Just to follow the flow of questioning, you did not go to the Competition Bureau. What would have to change for the Competition Bureau to be effective, to protect people like you? You were just marched out of the business.
Mr. Henley: Yes, pretty much.
Senator Munson: It is hardly a level playing field in the province of New Brunswick.
Mr. Henley: We certainly did not think so.
In answer to your question, I guess we would like to see greater empathy for our plight from the people at the Competition Bureau and for them to be a little tougher when it come to this type of situation.
Senator Munson: I will probably get back to this, but in Halifax, Nova Scotia, there seems to be room for two newspapers; granted, one is a tabloid, but this also appears to be the case in Saint John and Moncton.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Munson: I just cannot understand why there is not enough room for another newspaper in this province, somebody with courage, lots of money, to compete against the monopoly that exists here today.
Mr. Henley: I can answer that. I refer back to all the business sectors owned by the Irving family. When we started the Northside News in Fredericton, we found, whether this was real or imagined, that sometimes we were forced out of sales by Irving-owned companies, because when we went in there, Irving felt that we were really operating in their territory. That was sacred ground as far as they were concerned and they really did not want us to be there.
Senator Munson: Therefore, if you own everything in the province, you have the ability to deny advertising to anybody who wants to be competitive?
Mr. Henley: That is right.
Senator Munson: Go ahead. I should not be shocked or startled.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I was in Fredericton for a long time and I had the impression the Northside News was very popular with the people, that it was theirs. It was free, was it not?
Mr. Henley: Yes, it was free.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Again, it must have been your bottom line, and we can all understand that.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Were there other pressures? You sold it and then it was closed by the new owners?
Mr. Henley: That is correct. It was closed, much to the disappointment of a lot of people on the north side, because it was a very popular paper. We started it because of the new high school that was being built there and we felt there would be a competition between the north side and the south side. As you know, the north side is growing very quickly and we saw a market there for a paper that, again, paid attention to local news. Nearly everything in that paper dealt with the north side of the river; not very much came from the south side, other than the odd parliamentary item. Everything was north side, north side. When that was sold, that paper was closed down.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Did you sell it as a package then, with The Bugle?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Just looking at your daughter's reaction and that of the people in the community, I presume it would not have been possible financially for you to keep that one?
Mr. Henley: It would have been impossible.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Where would you print it? Where were you printing it before?
Mr. Henley: We were printing it. We had our printing plant in Woodstock.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Which, of course, is gone now?
Mr. Henley: It is gone. I believe our press is now in Peru.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Has there been any effort by any community group or any person on the north side to start something, even something like what used to exist here in small cities?
Mr. Henley: Not to my knowledge. I think it would be an impossible venture. It was very tough when we did it, and we had our own printing press. Anybody trying to start a paper without their own printing press would find it a tough row to hoe.
The Chairman: What happened in commercial terms when you were publishing the Northside News? What happened, for example, in terms of ad sales and competitive activity there?
Mr. Henley: Well, one instance that I can tell you about I learned as a result of a conversation with one of our advertising salespeople, who came back to the office one day and said, "You know, I almost had a deal with Canadian Tire for a full-page ad.'' I cannot now remember what our rates were.
The Chairman: A full page is nice.
Mr. Henley: Yes. She said, "I lost it to The Daily Gleaner because even though their rates were in the vicinity of $15,000, $16,000, $18,000, when they could see a deal in the offing with the Northside News, they offered it to Canadian Tire for $400, including colour, which was bad enough. Then the next week, the salesperson came back and said, "Guess what? If Canadian Tire repeats that ad, they can run it for $200.'' That is a long way from the published rates and I doubt very much those rates would have existed if we had not been present.
The Chairman: Did you get the ad as well?
Mr. Henley: No.
The Chairman: Did you ever have any indication that potential advertisers were told that if they advertised with you, they would not be able to advertise in The Gleaner, or anything like that?
Mr. Henley: Not to my knowledge, no.
The Chairman: When did you start the paper?
Mr. Henley: We operated the paper for three years.
The Chairman: Did you start it? You launched it?
Mr. Henley: Yes, we started it.
The Chairman: Did you ever make money on it?
Mr. Henley: Not over the course of a year. We had some months that were profitable, but over the course of the year, no.
The Chairman: Was the trend improving?
Mr. Henley: Yes. I think if we had been able to stay there a little longer it would have improved, because people were starting to get used to it. My experience has been, when you start a paper, unfortunately, people say "Well yes, okay, we will see how you do.'' Very often, while they are waiting to see how you do, you go under. However, we had the press and we had the power of the other community newspapers to support that paper. We hung in there, and each year it got better.
The Chairman: Your press was in Woodstock?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: How old was it?
Mr. Henley: We were burned to the ground in October1984 and ordered a new press at that time.
The Chairman: Was it brand new or new to you?
Mr. Henley: It was a brand-new press at that time. The press, our building and pretty much everything in it was post-1984.
The Chairman: That is not old for presses.
Mr. Henley: No.
The Chairman: This was an offset press?
Mr. Henley: This was a web offset press, yes.
The Chairman: You think it is in Peru now?
Mr. Henley: I have heard it is.
The Chairman: Or somewhere, anyway.
Mr. Henley: Somewhere.
The Chairman: It is not in Woodstock any more.
Mr. Henley: It is nowhere close to New Brunswick.
The Chairman: You had four papers. Were the two papers in Maine part of the same deal?
Mr. Henley: No. I would have liked them to be part of it, because obviously, after we sold, we did not have a press to print them on and we had to go elsewhere. We subsequently had to close the tiny one in a place called Fort Fairfield, right on the border. We still operate one down in Millinocket, Maine, which is a mill town.
The Chairman: You still have that one?
Mr. Henley: We still have that one, yes.
The Chairman: You sold four papers in New Brunswick and a printing plant?
Mr. Henley: Correct.
The Chairman: Two of the papers were closed?
Mr. Henley: Well, one was closed, one was merged.
The Chairman: One was closed, one was merged, and the two others are still there? I am sorry.
Mr. Henley: Yes, one of the other two was renamed, and I have not seen it, but I understand that the other one in Grand Falls was then turned into a completely French newspaper because the renamed one was aimed more at the English-speaking population in Grand Falls.
The Chairman: I think you said half a million dollars of payroll went out of Woodstock?
Mr. Henley: Yes, almost.
The Chairman: Was that the printing plant?
Mr. Henley: That was everything: our production, sales, administration, the whole operation.
The Chairman: It is all done centrally now?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: What is in Woodstock now; a couple of reporters?
Mr. Henley: Our building went with it and it was large enough to house all those things you needed. I understand now the basement is not being used at all. It is a 60-by-60-foot building.Of course, as you know, the technical part of putting a newspaper together has changed. Now it is all computers, and when you walk into a newspaper office you could just as easily be in an insurance company.
The Chairman: However, as far as you know, they must have some reporters in Woodstock.
Mr. Henley: Yes, they do. They have reporters and they have some production people. They do the ads there. They make up the pages there and then send it over.
The Chairman: Then they ship it all down to the central plant and it is shipped back?
Mr. Henley: Yes, that is correct.
The Chairman: They did not lay off newsgathering staff in Woodstock, as far as you know?
Mr. Henley: No, they still have the same complement.
The Chairman: Why did you sell to Irving?
Mr. Henley: That is an interesting question, but easily answered too, because when Irving first approached, naturally, I thought, "Well, who else could do this?'' I contacted some Upper Canadian firms and there was absolutely no interest. I am of the opinion, and this is strictly my own feeling, that again, those firms felt, "If we go into New Brunswick to try to operate newspapers and we are trying to sell advertising to largely Irving-backed companies, they will eventually put us out of business.''
The Chairman: May I ask if one of the firms you approached was Transcontinental?
Mr. Henley: Yes, it was.
The Chairman: They did not bite?
Mr. Henley: They were not interested at all, no.
The Chairman: Because they have been investing heavily in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Henley: That is what surprised me, but at that time, they were not interested.
The Chairman: The sale was completed in November of 2002?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: Irving was your only customer?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: You believed that they had so conducted themselves as to reduce the price that they would have to pay for your operations?
Mr. Henley: Correct.
The Chairman: Do you have any documents?
Mr. Henley: Regarding?
The Chairman: I do not mean any documents about conspiracies of one sort or another, but things like ad rate schedules, ad contracts, anything?
Mr. Henley: Left over from those days?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Henley: I might have. My wife is constantly telling me to throw things out. I try to horde them, but she is more successful.
The Chairman: I think in every family there is someone who hordes and someone who throws out.
Mr. Henley: I believe I have a few ad rate cards.
The Chairman: Anything that you have that might be relevant to what we have been discussing, we would be grateful to receive.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Henley, putting aside your own experience, do you think it is possible, with the advent of highly expensive and modern presses, for the world of journalism, the world of community papers, to even think of functioning as they did in the past? We are talking about a very small province. It does not compare, perhaps, with Alberta or Ontario or British Columbia. In a province like ours, where you will only print such a few copies, is it possible to continue?
Mr. Henley: Obviously, it is becoming more and more difficult. It becomes more difficult each year for the whole print industry because the Internet is now such a powerful player, and as you probably know, daily newspaper circulation in general is shrinking. It is tough now to be in that business, and especially to try to start something.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am certainly not an advocate for anyone's business interests, but could it ever be said that in New Brunswick we are lucky to have a family that will keep all these papers going? Now, I know you say we have gone from four to two community newspapers in your area. I have wondered whether it is our good fortune that we are in a business situation where we can continue to have all of these small papers, considering our low population.
Mr. Henley: Generally speaking, the Irvings have been good for New Brunswick. They have created a lot of jobs here. They have developed the economy to a significant degree, thankfully.
The Chairman: We are talking about newspapers now.
Mr. Henley: I was just about to say that they have not started any newspapers, to my knowledge, from scratch, so nothing new has been added. Therefore, whether the Irvings own them or they are owned by private entrepreneurs, there would still be the same number of newspapers existing in the province.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Well, maybe yes, maybe no, because, remember, the English-speaking population is only around 500,000. It is a tiny population.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Within that population, we have three or four dailies, and then, of course, for the other third of the population, there is another daily. If you consider the population compared to the rest of the country, we still have a lot of papers.
Mr. Henley: Thank God. However, in some places in the United States, there are very successful papers operating with a circulation as low as 1,200. I do not know how they do it, but I know of several such papers.
The Chairman: What was the circulation of your papers and what was the trend at the time that you sold them?
Mr. Henley: Our circulation pretty well stayed constant in all our papers. The Bugle's was about 5,800, I believe.
The Chairman: That was your largest paper?
Mr. Henley: Yes. The Perth-Andover paper was around2,400 and the Cataracte up in Grand Falls was 3,300, I believe.
The Chairman: You did have new presses.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: I assume they were modern presses?
Mr. Henley: Very modern. We probably had the most modern weekly community newspaper printing plant in New Brunswick.
The Chairman: Yes. I assume some of that came from insurance money? After everything was lost, you had to have some insurance.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: Was that enough, or did you have a heavy debt load?
Mr. Henley: Oh no, we had some very rough banking experiences after the fire.
The Chairman: By 2002, was the debt gone?
Mr. Henley: Yes. Well, a debt is never gone because you are always buying more things.
The Chairman: Yes, but it was not the classic case of you have to sell at fire-sale prices?
Mr. Henley: Oh no, not at all.
Senator Munson: We will hear from Brunswick News tomorrow, and we have heard a lot this morning and this afternoon, but I am sure that Brunswick News will have their side of the story.
Mr. Henley: Sure.
Senator Munson: As a former reporter and after doing this job for more than 30 years, I think what you have said is a sad commentary on the freedom of diverse voices in New Brunswick. To me, it is not the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the wealthiest.
Mr. Henley: What concerns me is that same body owns and controls so many different business sectors as well as the press.
The Chairman: Are there any questions you expected us to ask or thought we should ask that we have not?
Mr. Henley: No, there are not. I came with great trepidation, based on my comments about the sale agreement, so I did not anticipate any questions and I was very fearful of any answers I might give. When I reflect on this, I will probably be in even worse shape.
The Chairman: No, no. We are very grateful to you. Obviously, we will be hearing from Brunswick News, and we will ask for their side of this story and of others. However, it is very important and in the public interest for people who have a story to tell to come and tell it.
Mr. Henley: May I make a comment on that?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Henley: When all this was going on, I spoke with newspaper publishers, mainly in Nova Scotia, who were afraid to make comments about media concentration lest one of these giants knocked on their door and their negotiating position was compromised in some way. By the same token, I spoke with politicians who I had hoped would raise a voice, and in some cases, they were fearful that their career could be jeopardized as well, and that was disappointing.
The Chairman: I am sure. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Henley.
Mr. Henley: Thank you. It was a pleasure.
The Chairman: It has been, to say the least, an interesting session.
Colleagues, we now welcome Mr. Jack McAndrew. Mr. McAndrew is from Prince Edward Island. He has been a reporter for a long time.
Mr. Jack McAndrew, as an individual: May I tell you an anecdote about Mr. Henley?
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. McAndrew: Mr. Henley and I at one time both worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Halifax. He was then a unit manager, which meant that he managed budgets for various programs. On one of my departures from the CBC, we were having a few farewell glasses of tomato juice on a Friday afternoon, and I turned to Mr. Henley and said, "Can you get my final paycheque for me, because they have not given it to me yet?'' Mr. Henley went over to some office or other and came back in about half an hour and said, "Jack, they will not give me your paycheque.'' I said, "Why not? It is my money. I earned it, they owe it.'' He said, "Well, it is something about a travel claim.'' I said, "I do not owe them any travel claims.'' "Well,'' he said, "It is something about a pair of sneakers.'' I said, "Pair of sneakers?'' Then I recalled that two years earlier, I had gone aboard a 35-foot sailing vessel to go down to Gloucester, Massachusetts, sail back and do a film about it, and I had bought a pair of deck shoes. Two years later, the CBC was asking for the return of these deck shoes before they would give me my final paycheque. I used some language that probably should not be used anywhere, and Mr. Henley took off again and, sure enough, he came back with my paycheque another half-hour later. From that moment on, I have held him in the greatest esteem.
The Chairman: Do you still have the deck shoes?
Mr. McAndrew: Not that pair. I always have puzzled over what the CBC was planning to do with a used pair of sneakers, but that is another story, I guess.
I live in Prince Edward Island and I got my first job as a reporter when I was 15 years old, reporting sports for The Guardian. I am now in my seventy-third year and I am still a practising journalist. To those who practise it, journalism is an addictive avocation, and I for one cannot kick the habit. I am also something of a critic of the practice of contemporary journalism and the disturbing trends in play that are diminishing the quality of journalism we see and hear and read. It is the business of the quality of journalism to which I decided to address myself in the outline that was provided to me.
There was a time when journalists were perceived as something close to secular priests in ink-stained holy orders, as seekers after and purveyors of the truth, when many were elevated to figures of great stature and respect in our society and when journalism was more of a calling than a career choice. That era is gone. Journalists are now perceived by some segments of the public to be bottom feeders, along with lawyers and politicians. My concern is that journalism is overly concerned with the trivial and the inconsequential, with quantity instead of quality, so much so that it has merged with entertainment to the point that it is often difficult to tell which is which. A case in point is the comedy show This Hour has 22 Minutes, which reports the news of the week with a sharper journalistic approach than most of the programs supposedly following the basic principles of journalism.
That is not necessarily the fault of the working journalist. The fault lies with the basic values of the people who own and operate the radio stations, the television stations, the newspapers and the magazines, which have nothing to do with tenets of good journalism and everything to do with the mantras of the free market. It is they who have consistently over the years practised the "dumbing down'' of the content of their newscasts and news pages to attract readers and listeners and viewers and profits; and the slashing of the staff required to produce quality journalism, again in the never-ending search for profit and more profit.
What I mean by "quality journalism'' is stories that are well researched and with a clear idea of what they are about, that get to the "why'' of things, the most important of the famous five "W''s, rather than practising what I call "stenographic journalism,'' simply writing down anything that anyone says and spewing it out over the airwaves or in the newspaper.
Why does stenographic journalism happen? Why are stories so badly researched? Why is the writing unclear, ambiguous and so often ungrammatical? It is because it is easy and fast to think in vague terms. However, vagueness is the brother of ambiguity and the antithesis of good journalism. Good journalism is marked by qualities of clarity and logic.
The "thinking vague'' school of journalism began when bean-counters replaced journalists in the executive suites and began practising the gospel of convergence. In search of greater and greater profit, the conglomerates fired freelancers and cut staff. At the CBC, shrinking budgets forced the same practices. The combination of fewer journalists and greater workloads has diminished the quality of journalism being practised in this country. It had to. At The Guardian, the editors go home at five o'clock. There is no one there when the paper is put together to vet and edit the content of what we will read the next morning. At CBC radio, where standards of quality journalism were once set to which others could aspire, newsrooms have been replaced by a single editor who is both the writer and the on-air voice, churning out five-minute reports every half-hour all day. At privately owned radio stations in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, all under the same roof and all owned by the same out-of-province company, one newsroom of three people tries to cover the community with 90-second hourly newscasts. The term "video journalist'' was invented to describe those poor souls who shoot the tape, write the script, edit the videotape and then voice the script — four distinct functions rolled neatly into one: one sensibility, one mind, one perception, and no voice to say, "Wait a minute. Let's check that.''
Advances in electronic technology have been both a curse and a blessing to the trade, a blessing because the Internet is the researcher's best tool, a curse because the latest phenomenon, "blogging,'' has created another universe of bad research and worse writing.
Fragmentation of readers, viewers and listeners is having its own effect. The competition is fierce and that puts more pressure on conventional outlets to go after viewers and listeners and readers by lowering the bar ever farther into the muck and mire of titillation, into the world of inconsequential and celebrity-driven journalism. We live in a post- modern world, where logic and rational thought are no longer in vogue among some elements of society, especially those reaching maturity in the age of computers. We are confronted by a global culture more and more based on beliefs, where cool analysis and discourse is snowed under by fervent religious and political rhetoric. The elusive truth and social values sought by the journalist as the raison d'être of the craft are dismissed as irrelevant, or as myths from another age.
To older generations like mine, the replacement ofsubstance and rational analysis of fact by subjective judgments and emotional beliefs is an invitation to chaos. In thispost-modernistic world, there are no immutable standards. Grammar is whatever you make it, as is meaning. Quality exists only in the eye of the beholder. There are no standards of judgment. Beethoven and rap are equals. Desperate Housewives is the Hamlet of our times.
Senators, I know of no ways for parliaments and legislatures to regulate quality. The trend lines are too firmly in place. When news and information are perceived only as "product,'' to be churned out as cheaply as possible; when quantity overrides quality; when vagueness is preferred to clarity; the underlying values of quality have already been sold out to market forces and relegated to industrial values. As has the passion that drives any good journalist, and it is only that passion that produces quality and, occasionally, the truth.
That, madam, is my rant for today.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We have all listened with great interest. People will wonder why I have changed sides here today. I hope they are not thinking it implies anything.
The Chairman: I should explain.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You certainly should.
The Chairman: Senator Eyton, who was with us this morning, had to leave, and just to spread people out and not have one whole side of the table empty, we rearranged the seating slightly.
Senator Munson: One to the right and one to the left.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am rather amused by all this. I do not know where the others are, but they seem to be paying less attention than we are to what is going on here today. I had to get that in, did I not?
Sir, the comments you are making are sad. You are from Prince Edward Island?
Mr. McAndrew: I was born in Dalhousie, New Brunswick. My mother was from Campbellton and my father was from Saint John.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes, but I meant, has your career in journalism been mainly in Prince Edward Island?
Mr. McAndrew: And Toronto.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You are living on Prince Edward Island now?
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Would the comments that you have made apply to The Guardian and the quality of what you read in that paper?
Mr. McAndrew: Absolutely. This is widespread. I know what I said does not get down to specifics, but I decided not to do that.
I do believe we live in a post-modernist society. Several of us journalists, myself certainly, came from a life where our learning was linear. We read books. We did not have television to watch. We had radio, yes, in its relative infancy. That teaches you to learn in a certain way. It teaches you the techniques of rational analysis, that things happen for a reason, and the cause of something is where the "why'' comes into play in journalism. My concern is that there is so much of what I call stenographic journalism coupled with the notion of celebrity today. For anyone who is perceived to be a celebrity, the reporter holds out a little microphone and simply presents what is said, even though it may not contain a vestige of the truth. That is as far as the story goes because of deadlines and the pressure to get out the product; so much is expected of a reporter in any given day. There is no time for the thoughtful second look, to sit back and let another pair of ears hear the story, if it is a radio story, to have an editor vet the story to see if it makes sense. All of these forces, it seems to me, have conjoined, if you will, to lower the quality of what we hear and see, and we hardly ever get to the "why'' of things. If we do not get to the "why'' of things, then ultimately, journalists can be totally replaced by computers.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: If you are talking about the 90-second news bites, which I almost never hear because I listen to another radio station, then that might be the case. However, as I listened, I tried to reflect on what has been in the newspapers lately that I look at, and I look at two national papers and probably three provincial papers most days, and I read some of it. It seems to me that although you say journalism is inconsequential and celebrity-driven, in Moncton right now, you would read a lot about literacy, you would read a lot about Northrop Frye, you would read a lot about writers from around the world.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We certainly have been reading a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, about the choice of a pope, and, of course, we have our share of national and provincial politics in the papers today. You are giving us your opinion —
Mr. McAndrew: Exactly.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: — but how do you react to the items that I have just mentioned and the pretty extensive coverage that one sees in the papers of these subjects?
Mr. McAndrew: However, think about why is it so extensive. It is because one newspaper or one radio station thinks it will sell more newspapers or attract more listeners if it outdoes another in coverage of that event. It is very subjective, journalistically, as to how much play to allow any given story. I am saying that those judgments are being coloured by what the reader wants. Does the reader really want to know the intimate details of the Michael Jackson trial day after day? My subjective judgment is no, but if you give it to them, they will accept it, because a dumbing-down process has been going on for a long time. If you watch television in the early evening, there is an entire spate of shows every night that purport to be journalistic. Every one of them is celebrity based, where it is enough to be a celebrity and to simply utter words. These utterances are written down and thrown out as a story on radio or television or in newspapers without anybody getting behind those words to find out whether they have any validity, or whether, indeed, they would have any cause at all to be printed or heard or presented if that person was not a celebrity. That is really the test. There is a balance point, and I think we have tilted too far the other way.
I act as an adjunct professor at King's College, a journalism school, where I come into contact a couple of times a year with young students. I expect it has been said before, but the sense of English grammar that I grew up with is offended daily by the news, where there is a howler in practically every newscast. I suppose that goes back to the education system.
The Chairman: This is true. They do not teach grammar and they do not teach the multiplication tables. There are many things they do not seem to teach any more.
Senator Munson: Good afternoon, Jack. You seem to be saying there is no going back, but is there anything that we could do that would help?
Mr. McAndrew: Well, Jim, I suppose when I say there is no going back, I find it hard to visualize the pressures that could be exerted to increase the quality of journalism. That is my subjective assessment. It is also the assessment of a great many other people whom I respect. When the concentration is on a boardroom and a three-month stock report of a company, and whether this unit made more money than at the time of the last stock report, I do not know how you remedy that. News, like politics, is local. It all starts that way. You know that as well as I. It is all local to somebody. How do you force people to staff their organizations sufficiently? Do you know what the radio stations do? All the programs are brought in by satellite. If you phone a private radio station any time from noon on you cannot find anybody, because everything is on the air as part of a taped package, particularly into the evening hours. It is cheaper to import now. Since Transcontinental bought both the Guardian and The Journal-Pioneer, The Eastern Graphic, a weekly, where I write a column, is the only independent paper in Prince Edward Island. The two towns are 50 miles apart, but you see the Guardian reprinting stories from The Journal-Pioneer and The Journal-Pioneer reprinting stories from the Guardian. To me, that means they were able to do away with at least one or two reporting positions. The diminishment in the number of eyes on the community means that the coverage is bound to be that much less in depth. I do not know how you cure that.
Senator Munson: What about private radio? You have mentioned private radio. There was a time when, even on Parliament Hill, there were six competing private radio networks in this country, and that is all gone. I was part of that, and when you had that competition in those days, it was great because you wanted to beat somebody, and you felt bad if you were beaten. However, in small-town radio people used to cover town halls and local politicians, and it does not seem to me that that is happening at all any more.
Mr. McAndrew: No, it is not, because you cannot do it with a three-person newsroom working seven days a week.
Senator Munson: The issue is there were regulations at one time. The CRTC eased them because owners were going broke; there was a transition from AM to FM and so on. We are now back in an age where it seems to me that radio stations in New Brunswick are making money, or else they would not continue. Should there be some new regulations put into place that would mandate private radio owners to cover the news?
Mr. McAndrew: We once had three radio stations in Prince Edward Island. Each of them had their own little newsroom, so you had those different sets of eyes. Now, one owner controls all the radio stations in Prince Edward Island. Not only are both daily newspapers owned by Transcontinental, but the radio stations are all under one owner, and one newsroom essentially services four stations. I do not know how you would go about it, but yes, I suppose it is theoretically possible to mandate that they have to provide a certain level of local service.
I should tell you that I once did an open-line show, in fact, the first one ever in Prince Edward Island, on CFI, and I had incredible ratings because they had just switched off the party lines and my radio show was almost like a party line. One year there was a bump in the ratings, and some experts came in from Halifax, cancelled the death notices and fired me. It was a matter of some humility for me that, because of the public outcry, the death notices came back but I stayed fired. I was replaced by a canned music show rather than an hour every morning of local coverage, a trend that has continued to grow.
Senator Munson: Well, if we want to tell stories, the reason I may have gone into television is because in 1971 I worked for CFOX in Montreal. I was there for six months. I had been five years in the Maritimes and I was heading to the big time.Then Gordon Sinclair Jr. called me in. He owned the station, and it was number five in a four-station market in Montreal. I was replaced by a jingle package. That was rather humiliating. It cost $11,000 — that was my salary — so I had to start all over again. Maybe I should have seen the writing on the wall, too.
Mr. McAndrew: I see it every day in the lack of depth in the stories that I read in the local newspaper. When Neil Reynolds headed the Telegraph-Journal, it was like the sun suddenly came out. Over in Prince Edward Island, I used to buy the Telegraph-Journal every day because he infused his reporters and his columnists with a whole new spirit. Jackie Webster was there in those days, and Mr. Pichette and Dalton Camp and others, but not only that; the stories were long and well researched and in depth. That does not happen any more. Somebody came in and fired the lot and the Telegraph-Journal became yet another "who needs it?'' daily.
Senator Munson: Thanks very much, Jack.
The Chairman: You inspire the contrarian in me here.
Mr. McAndrew: I have a habit of doing that.
The Chairman: I have no quarrel with your concerns about the impact of closed newsrooms, diminished numbers of journalists and whatnot, but I really leaned back in my chair when I heard you say:
There was a time when journalists were perceived as something close to secular priests in holy orders, as seekers after and purveyors of the truth.
I found myself recalling a piece of doggerel, which I am sure you also recall; to wit, "You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist, but seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's little reason to.''
Mr. McAndrew: Ouch.
The Chairman: That is not recent.
Mr. McAndrew: I may have overstated the case slightly, but only slightly. I use Edward R. Murrow as the cliché example, for all of the things he inspired and the way that CBS used to run their newsroom in those days. They did not simply churn out product. In fact, it used to cost CBS a lot of money to run their news department. The decline occurred when news became a product to be sold to the public like anything else.
The Chairman: As a profit centre.
Mr. McAndrew: You know that for years at the CBC, the idea of running a commercial during the newscast was anathema. It just was not done. Well, all of a sudden, these things started to be done, and we chip away and we chip away. I was in this very room today when a fake news event took place. The guys came in to take pictures, but nothing was really happening, so everybody acted as if it were.
The Chairman: We were listening to all kinds of interesting information from Ms. Webster, who continued to testify even as the cameras rolled.
Mr. McAndrew: I am saying it is being chipped away.
The Chairman: That is not their fault.
Mr. McAndrew: I understand.
The Chairman: That is our fault, because we have had a practice of not allowing television cameras to run while we are conducting hearings, on the fundamental principle that we want an undisturbed atmosphere.
Mr. McAndrew: Pay me no mind. I am just getting even.
The Chairman: No, but that required a response. I still want to push back.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
The Chairman: When I was a child, I spent a lot of time in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, listening to the radio station where you worked because my grandmother had her radio tuned to it all the time. I confess I did not pay a lot of attention to Charlottetown news, and maybe it was great, but I remember every day listening to swelling chords of music, and then it would be back to the Bible with Ernest Manning.
Mr. McAndrew: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Ernest Manning was, at the time, the Premier of Alberta, if memory serves. He went on doing his broadcasts after he became premier.
Mr. McAndrew: Did he? It could be. I do not remember.
The Chairman: Today, any media outlet that I can think of would say, "Wait a minute. We do not do that. We do not give daily air time to practising politicians.''
Mr. McAndrew: They did not give him air time. He paid for it.
The Chairman: He paid for it. However, they would not do it anyway.
Mr. McAndrew: Well, I do not know about that.
The Chairman: I really do not think so.
Mr. McAndrew: I do not know.
The Chairman: What I am suggesting is that standards can shift, and sometimes they improve and sometimes they decline, and that some of what we see today, with all the flaws of which we are all aware, is terrific. It seems to me that The Globe and Mail, which is one example everybody loves to cite, is an infinitely better newspaper than it was 40 years ago when I started in journalism. Infinitely better. It seems to me that the arrival of Newsworld has in many ways transformed the news landscape in this country for the better; not always, but for the most part. It provides more and often deeper information than broadcasters could do on a regular basis 30 or 40 years ago.
Mr. McAndrew: I think the problems I talk about are more relevant in the extremities of the country, in smaller communities.
The Chairman: I suspect it is more in smaller communities than in the extremities, actually.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes, that is right.
The Chairman: All I am trying to extract from you here is some recognition that things may not be entirely black, that there may be some shades of grey involved.
Mr. McAndrew: I agree that lilies can grow in a manure heap.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McAndrew.
[Translation]
Honorable senators, the following witnesses are representatives of L'Acadie Nouvelle, the French-language Acadian daily. Now let us welcome, from L'Acadie Nouvelle, Mr. Clarence LeBreton, president of the board of directors, Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr, managing editor and Mr. Gilles Haché, director of sales and marketing.
Welcome to all of you, you will speak to us briefly about L'Acadie Nouvelle. You are invited to make a ten-minute presentation, and then we will continue with questions.
Mr. Clarence LeBreton, president of the board of directors, L'Acadie Nouvelle: Madam Chairman, first let met tell you that we are encouraged by what you intend to do during this country-wide tour taking stock of the current state of communications in Canada. Your work shows the importance of media in society, and especially in Canadian society where accessibility to information, diversity and freedom of the press are basic values. We will also take this opportunity to summarize our brief history which is somehow the story of a heartfelt effort to carry out the important mission of a francophone daily newspaper in a minority setting.
I am Clarence LeBreton, and this afternoon, I stand here as the chairman of the board of directors of Éditions de L'Acadie Nouvelle, the company that owns the L'Acadie Nouvelle daily newspaper and the Acadie-Presse printing establishment. With me are Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr, managing editor and newsroom director, as well as Mr. Gilles Haché, director of sales and marketing.
We would like you to know more about L'Acadie Nouvelle, and we would especially like to make you aware of the context within which we work. I think that you were given a copy of the newspaper and Mr. Rainville, our newspaper editorial writer, commented your visit and explained the context.
This context has to do with media issues. We understand that the committee intends to encourage discussion rather than propose conclusions. We want to carry on in the same spirit. Now, let me introduce you to L'Acadie Nouvelle, our newspaper and its ambitions. L'Acadie Nouvelle, as you know, was born from the ashes of a hundred-year old daily newspaper, l'Évangéline, and another francophone daily, le Matin, which only survived for three years, even though a trust fund had been set up to cover the outrageous cost of distributing a francophone daily in New Brunswick. Let me note, Madam Chair, that this trust fund is of benefit to us, because 80 per cent of our readers live in rural areas, where distribution is very costly.
L'Acadie Nouvelle was born out of a collective effort to answer a need to communicate in French among ourselves on a daily basis. Our deep motivation is to offer readers a daily source of information in French which is distributed, and I emphasize this, on a province-wide scale.
After a vast awareness-raising campaign among business people, nine companies with hundreds of investors, were able to raise the start-up operating capital for the incorporated company called Éditions de L'Acadie Nouvelle, in 1984. Our market is made up of francophone regions in New Brunswick with only 230,000 persons, which is just about the size of one of the large communities of metropolitan Toronto.
Now, let us see how the written press is marketed in this large rural francophone community. We serve 180 towns and villages in New Brunswick. We have 750 sales outlets, and sell on the average 3,300 copies a day. Now, let us calculate. If maintaining sales outlets that sell 3,000 copies is not a social mission, we can say that it is nonetheless sometimes not very viable. And as you know, this is what the trust fund is for.
L'Acadie Nouvelle is a private company, and its founders have never deviated from its initial mission which is to give a first class source of information for most of the francophones of this province. L'Acadie Nouvelle was founded in 1984 as a regional daily, and became a provincial daily in 1989. In 2003, after lengthy financial and operational planning, L'Acadie Nouvelle launched its week-end edition. Currently, we distribute 20,400 copies from Monday to Saturday, 84 per cent of which go to subscribers who have the newspaper delivered each day at their door, and we have, as you know, more than 125 employees.
The print media in New Brunswick lives with the same realities as does the print media in Canada. L'Acadie Nouvelle is one of two independent French-language dailies in Canada, the other one is le Devoir in Montreal. We are independent, and some admire us for that, but this is at the price of financial vulnerability of a kind that would strike terror into the heart of many a press magnate. The paper supply, especially distribution costs, the lack of the advantage of selling a whole range of products, dailies, weeklies, Publi-sac, and so forth, all these things prevent us from taking advantage of the economies of scale enjoyed by larger publishers. Like the CRTC, we have a problem with the decrease of editorial independence when there is cross-ownership or concentrated ownership. We believe that each owner of any kind of media represents an individual voice, as for the written press in New Brunswick, because of ownership concentration in the media, there are only two voices heard by the New Brunswick population, namely Brunswick News which you have heard much about, and L'Acadie Nouvelle.
Given that New Brunswick's advertising market is small, a large number of publications often controlled by a single owner only serves to fragment the advertising market instead of widening it.
Despite the fact that newspaper circulation has decreased both nationally and internationally, L'Acadie Nouvelle has been stable for the past few years, and I might even say that it has seen a slight increase in its circulation which is especially due to our Saturday edition. Given the fact that we are working in a minority francophone market, current changes in the press media oblige us to be very vigilant if we want to safeguard our future.
We already know that all the anglophone dailies belong to Brunswick News. A lesser known fact, Madam Chairman, is that this company owns two out of three newspapers in New Brunswick, including dailies and weeklies in both official languages, which means that they belong to francophone weeklies. In New Brunswick, in our francophone territory, there is an offensive of the weeklies. For the past two or three years, they have systematically gained ownership of most francophone weeklies and even founded a few new ones. Concentration and the recent acquisition of the Brunswick News group has a fragmenting effect on the advertising market and is a source of worry for us, because it puts even more pressure on the advertising market which is already very precarious in a minority market like ours. Everyone finds it harder to stay viable.
To conclude, if we really want a free market of ideas, where many different opinions are debated in public, we must ensure that any new press organization should belong to as many people as possible, and represent as many people as possible. This quote is from an article written by the head of the journalism department of Concordia University, professor Raudsepp. It is in this spirit that L'Acadie Nouvelle was founded, a newspaper which is a beacon for independent expression in the francophone print media in New Brunswick, and we are encouraged to do the same for several other groups, both francophone and anglophone. Unlike the electronic media regulated by the CRTC, the print media is not regulated by any authority, either federal or provincial. Here is an example. When Quebec acquired TVA, the CRTC gave Quebecor a choice: they could either acquire TVA and sell off the TQS network, or give up the acquisition of TVA. From this we conclude that the CRTC forced Quebecor to make a choice in order to protect the public interest and the diversity of opinions.
The Déry report for instance recommended that a surveillance council of press ownership should be set up to deal with problems created by media concentration. We agree with this recommendation.
In conclusion, we hope, in light of the presentations that have been made, that the committee will be able to take steps to ensure the vitality of the print media in minority communities. The insecurity associated with minority markets must be dealt with a sensitive management of realities. A number of the media industry's specific issues were raised in the report. For example, we believe that individual corporations that own several newspapers actually limit the diversity of voices and that there is less diversity than when newspapers are controlled by separate owners.
Madam Chair, that concludes our general presentation. I am accompanied by staff that look after the daily running of the newspaper. Obviously, I represent the shareholders and the company's mission statement.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Sir, I am going to try to ask my questions in French. It will not be easy, but it will be a good challenge for me. I am tremendously grateful for your presence and presentation here today. I read L'Acadie Nouvelle most of the time, but, due to lack of time, I do not get to read it as much at the moment. I am very impressed by the L'Acadie Nouvelle. You provide residents of New Brunswick with very good coverage of events, culture, sport, current events and other issues both at a provincial and international level.
Are you happy with the interest shown by young people, particularly young Acadians? Do you think high school and University of Moncton students are interested in reading L'Acadie Nouvelle?
Mr. Jean Saint-Cyr, Senior Editor, L'Acadie Nouvelle: Mr. LeBreton has asked me to answer this question. Indeed, Madam Senator Counsell, it is worrisome when you look at studies on reading habits, especially those of the younger generation when it comes to where they get their information. We are hearing more and more about how important the Internet is and New Brunswick is no exception. It must be said that governments in New Brunswick have made a concerted and focused effort to ensure that every household in every region of the province has access to the Internet and that young New Brunswickers are no different from other young Canadians. They show a tremendous and increasing amount of interest in the Internet; there is a clear trend in this direction.
This is an issue that concerns us. Currently, our newspaper can be consulted on a same-day basis by people on-line from outside New Brunswick. Residents of New Brunswick only have access to our archives dating back more than seven days. So, it is indeed a concern. Currently, we prefer to focus on printed copy. We go to great lengths to ensure that our newspaper is as attractive as possible to our readers. In the past, we have taken a number of initiatives, with varying degrees of success, in an effort to increase the distribution of our newspaper among young people by involving them in reading in general and particularly our newspaper. Right now, we are not sure what the trend among youth will be. Will this interest in getting information off the Internet be a passing fad and, if so, will we see renewed interest in the newspaper? When the computer age came upon us, some people claimed that it would lead to the demise of the print paper and yet, when computers came on the scene there was more paper produced than ever before. So, it remains to be seen what will happen with the Internet. There are other schools of thought, but it does seem that humans still need this sort of hands on contact with a newspaper. And obviously, as a newspaper, we hope that that will not change. So, even if we are concerned and we continue to closely follow the trends and make adjustments where necessary, the fact is that the jury is still out on that one.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have asked this very same question throughout Canada. Have you regularly distributed copies of L'Acadie Nouvelle in French schools throughout the province?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Yes, that experiment conducted in schools has shown mixed success in that area. A good deal of money was invested in producing an educational guide, with the assistance of specialists in the field of education. So, it was not an in-house document. It was a project that L'Acadie Nouvelle invested in, which did not end up producing the results we had hoped for. We wanted to raise interest by touring schools, organizing mini conferences with students, and so on, but the results just did not turn out the way we had hoped. I think that the document is still valuable as an awareness-raising tool when it comes to reading and literacy. Would we reinvest in order to relaunch this document and continue our educational program on reading?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is absolutely necessary that schools have a copy or copies of newspapers daily. Teachers should give the students class projects that require the use of newspapers. Do you have any sections targeting youth in the Saturday edition? Do you include any material that is especially appropriate for young people?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: We perhaps do not currently have enough that is appropriate for them. With the limited resources we have, we have to prioritize. We have only been around for 20 years and we have been a provincial newspaper for 16 of those years. Our newspaper has a lot of projects, however we do not have the money to fund them. We do intend to further develop this section in the future however. Such an undertaking will initially involve developing a network, making contacts and organizing meetings. All this is relatively easy. The next step, maintaining the network, is not so easy. This would involve maintaining a youth network, if you will, and developing a section run by young people, which is another thing all together. Currently, we are trying to fine tune our newspaper in order to make it more attractive. What is difficult for newspapers is that other medias, such as television, offer a whole range of channels catering to the young, including music, science and so on. Television is a very attractive medium because it targets several of the senses, while a newspaper only targets two... Competition is tough for the print media, but we believe in this business and we hope to be able to attract young people into reading a daily newspaper. It is also a question of habit.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do you have a good relationship with the University of Moncton and its department of journalism?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Yes, I think we do have a good relationship with them.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do you get students involved in projects from time to time?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Every summer, we hire recent graduates or students who are in their third, or between their third and fourth year of study. For example, this summer, two students will start to work for the newspaper next week. They will become part of that team and not only as part of a student's project. L'Acadie Nouvelle invests in these young people to give them an opportunity to work at a daily newspaper and we are the ones that pick up most of the tab. Also, every fall, the information-communication department of the University of Moncton invites employees from our newspaper to address students. Throughout the year, depending on what is going on, we have an exchange on a number of issues and try to develop projects together. So I think that the short answer to your question is yes. We have a good relationship which should be made even closer and consolidated. But, there is a good relationship and the willingness to operate on both sides.
Mr. LeBreton: There are also permanent employees at L'Acadie Nouvelle who are graduates of the university.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Really?
Mr. LeBreton: Certainly. Furthermore, L'Acadie Nouvelle, in spite of its limited resources, does offer these students scholarships and we hope to improve them in the future. I would say that yes, it is a good relationship.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: The news' editor, the news' desk editor, the console operator, the person at the regional news' desk are all, along with the journalists, graduates of the information/communication department at the Université de Moncton.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In fact, it would be a good thing for the immersion students in the province to have the opportunity to read your newspaper but it probably would not work.
Senator Munson: It is the same for me, I should be speaking to you in English because I do have a lot of trouble speaking French.
[English]
The most important thing I have done in my life is marry an Acadian, so I have to ask this question, half in English and half in French.
[Translation]
According to page 5 of your brief, the offensive undertaken by Brunswick News on francophone territory is through the weekly paper. For the past two or three years they have been systematically taking up the greater share of the francophones.
[English]
I am just wondering here, is Brunswick News deliberately trying to fragment the market?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles F. Haché, Sales and Marketing Director, L'Acadie Nouvelle: Yes, I think it is systematic. For three years there has been L'Étoile de Madawaska in the northwest and in the same area, the Chaleur region, there is a weekly acquired by the Irving Group, the Northern Light. There is also the Publi-Sac, providing a free English-language weekly known as Market Place and in third place, recently, there is a French weekly for the same market. They make combined offers for advertising. We cannot get involved in a price war, we do not have the means or resources and it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to prevent them. This is taking place in various regions, in the Madawaska area, the southeast and the northern part of the province.
[English]
Senator Munson: What do you think of it?
[Translation]
Mr. Haché: It is already difficult enough. I am attempting to imagine what the situation will be five or six years from now without being a prophet of doom and I wonder whether L'Acadie Nouvelle will be able to keep this up or to make this kind of offer. We do not have the capacity to make this kind of combined offer because we do not have the economies of scale.
[English]
Senator Munson: Have the Irvings ever approached l'Acadie Nouvelle?
Mr. LeBreton: No, but the way we are structured, it is impossible to be on the market. We have too many shareholders. We are not for sale, and I think they know it.
[Translation]
I would like to add, Senator Munson, that in the case of our weekly competitors, it is not just necessarily a question of acquisition.
When they bought the Northern Light, an anglophone newspaper in the north of the province, they set up a parallel French-language weekly and as I said at the beginning of my presentation, our clientele is 80 per cent rural with all the difficulties that involves when it comes to coverage and of course the weekly is quite attractive. We are not able to cover all the municipal councils of all the villages. So they are attacking a market where there is a demand but at the same time, we will be quite honest, as Mr. Haché said, in the long run they will be hurting us and the question that might arise is why would L'Acadie Nouvelle not get involved in weeklies. We are attempting to provide daily coverage at the provincial level, particularly in rural areas, and I am afraid that we will end up being surrounded and literally squeezed out.
It is a daily struggle and as you know, in a rural and minority setting we do have a number of challenges to meet, particularly in the Moncton urban area and in the northwest, in Madawaska. Those are our immediate priorities. It is absolutely essential for us to have much greater penetration in these two regions as a daily. We are definitely not in the weekly business but this is a tool that is being used, both the English language weekly in the North as well as the francophone one when it comes to marketing, for example, to keep the pressure on us.
[English]
Senator Munson: Keeping that in mind, in your presentation you talked about the precarious state of the minority language press. Obviously, this does not help. Do you have anything on your minds that we can recommend to make sure that your newspaper and other newspapers remain vital and important to not only the French community, but to the English language community of New Brunswick?
[Translation]
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Senator Munson, in the conclusion of our presentation, we refer to the difference which currently exists between the electronic and the print media. Electronic media are regulated because they require a license. But to start up a newspaper, you do not need a license, although from a public interest point of view, from a diversity of opinion point of view, if Canada wants to maintain a diversity of voices, including diversified and distinct sources of information in particular, we believe that we need a mechanism to help maintain diversified newspaper ownership. This is more or less what the CRTC imposes with regard to TQS and the acquisition of TVA by Quebecor, which already owned TQS. In the print media, this type of thing does not exist, so who will examine our situation as a communication enterprise which is systematically attacked in an organized manner to weaken us? We are being pressured to decrease our advertising rates, which would translate into a decrease in our revenues. It means that instead of growing as a newspaper, we would have to streamline our operations by cutting staff yet still trying to put out a daily newspaper.
As it now stands, this is not at all the direction we want totake and the chairman of the board can testify to that. I receivea huge amount of applications because I want to increase the size of my research department. I would like to have more newspapers in the regions and more columns. What can I afford to do as editor-in-chief?
The company, represented by the board of directors, says yes, but we are barely breaking even. We want to improve the quality of the paper, we would like to diversify our content, but where would we find the money? What does the future hold for us? The paper is breaking even today, and I believe that the purchase of the paper has stabilized the company. It is on a more sure financial footing, but we are far from becoming a listed public company. If we did decide to go public tomorrow morning, I do not think that Bay Street would jump to its feet. We are an almost homespun organization and we cannot compete against a huge conglomerate like that one which puts pressure on us daily.
Luckily, there is lot of solidarity and pride amongst the Acadian people, and I believe that they are loyal to us. The majority of our readers are very aware of the newspaper wars in New Brunswick. We are fortunate to benefit from a certain degree of support, and certainly the sympathy and the empathy, of New Brunswick's Acadian readers. It is what enables us to survive. I hope that the next generation will also remain loyal to us. If indeed we manage to get young people to read the paper, rather than surfing the Internet or getting their information elsewhere, at least, with our paper, they will know who wrote the articles, where an event took place and what is happening. I certainly hope that our readers will remain loyal to us, but there is no guarantee, only the future will tell. We are working very hard to maintain the loyalty and interest of our readers for New Brunswick's Acadian community.
Senator Munson: I have a final question. Is the Presse canadienne important for L'Acadie Nouvelle?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Definitely, since for the moment, it is still part of my projects. I am in preliminary talks with a journalist who now works as a professor in the Ottawa area and who could be a correspondent for us at least once a week, and provide us with an analysis about interesting events which happened during the week and which affect New Brunswick and Acadians in particular. This is the type of requests I have to make to the board of directors in order to get money. If we do not have anyone on site, it is obvious that if we did not have the pieces from the Presse canadienne and from the Associated press, it would be hard for us to have a section on national politics, and even harder as far as international politics are concerned. Without these two news organizations, we could simply not afford it.
The current situation is not what I would wish for as editor-in-chief, and I would rather have someone from L'Acadie Nouvelle on site whom we could call in every day. Of course that is what we would wish for, but since we are an independent newspaper, we cannot afford it for now. We hope to continue to develop our market and to increase our penetration in some areas of New Brunswick, which would increase our revenues which we could then reinvest, for instance, in having our own correspondent in Ottawa. We already have a correspondent in Fredericton, and we have reporters throughout the province, we also have correspondents in Montreal who cover cultural events, but for now, that is all we can afford. It is part of our plan to increase our penetration in New Brunswick markets where we believe there is still room for expansion. We hope we can counter Brunswick News tactics, which consists in pressuring us to reduce our advertising rates, which would lead to a decrease in our revenues and force us to back down. At the moment, we are more focused on expansion and improving our services rather than cutting back and streamlining. We are swimming against the current because we are one of the only remaining independent newspapers. We are a young newspaper organization which is still growing rather than cutting back. How long will we be able to swim against the current? Perhaps we are wearing blinders, perhaps we are closing our eyes to an approaching wall, but we remain unrepentant optimists.
The Chair: That is always good to hear. How many reporters do you have?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: There are about 60 people on the payroll in the newsroom, but I have about a dozen full-time reporters, including four sports reporters plus one or two general news reporters who also write pieces on sports and arts and culture. My reporters are versatile. Some of my reporters have to do desk work one or two days a week. I have a dozen reporters, but each of them is not necessarily specialized in a given area.
The Chair: When you say they are on your payroll, are you referring to news room reporters, or does that figure also include freelancers?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Yes, included in the 60 people are also freelancers.
The Chair: How many full-time employees do you have?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: I have a dozen reporters who provide editorial content, in addition to the console operators, two secretaries and three layout designers.
The Chair: That is not bad.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Two full-time proofreaders and two surplus employees. So we have about 20 or 21 full-time or part- time employees working on a regular basis.
The Chair: For a circulation of just over 20,000?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Yes. My newsroom budget is just under $2 million a year.
The Chair: That is not bad. What is the price for a subscription?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: It is $215 a year.
The Chair: Do you receive any grants? Of course, there is the foundation which contributes to or pays entirely for circulation.
Mr. LeBreton: No. You know, we have a trust fund which was established with an original amount of $6 million.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: It was not set up for us.
Mr. LeBreton: Not for us, for Le Matin, but it was transferred to L'Acadie Nouvelle. We did not say so in our presentation, but in the good years that $6 million amount brought in $700,000. To give you an example, last year it brought in $269,000, and in an average year our distribution costs between $550,000 and $650,000 a year. So, as you can see, the last two years have been tough in that regard.
The Chairman: Do you receive any grants?
Mr. LeBreton: No.
The Chairman: From any government?
Mr. LeBreton: No. We use the trust fund for distribution only.
The Chairman: Only. Are there not any contributions from the community? For instance, at a certain point, dinner fundraisers were held for Le Devoir.
Mr. LeBreton: No, not at all. As Mr. Saint-Cyr mentioned, when we saw that our income from the distribution trust had fallen drastically, we made a business decision to buy our printer. We were the main client of the printer, who paid us rent, so we bought the operation while simultaneously launching our week-end edition, which increased the volume of activity of the printer. These somewhat convoluted operations allowed us to survive through fairly difficult periods. However, we have to say that the reason why we wanted to put out a week-end edition was to stabilize our market penetration in Moncton.
The week-end edition is first and foremost an urban product, which was lacking in the Moncton area. It was also a profitable undertaking, because we increased our market penetration with the week-end edition. You know, Moncton is the only urban centre we have in Acadia. Of course, Moncton serves other areas, but we think of it as our town.
The Chairman: You had a problem, and you reacted by going on the offensive and by occupying the territory, if I may put it that way. Could you not achieve the same goal by buying or creating your own weekly publications, or by creating sections which would be the equivalent of weekly publications?
Mr. LeBreton: Once more, Madam Chair, if I may, over the last four years we have launched a week-end edition, we bought L'Acadie Presse, we created a pension fund for our employees and we built a warehouse because when you are in the newspaper business, you obviously need a place to store paper.
The Chairman: I was not accusing you.
Mr. LeBreton: If the next time I went up to the board and announced that we were buying a weekly, I would lose my job. If we could increase and consolidate our market penetration in the northwest, in the Greater Madawaska and the Greater Dieppe-Moncton areas, that would allow us to engage in other activities, which you qualified as an offensive, which I think is a very good idea. But for now, my board members have told me to "hold back on major offensive and try to stabilize what you have achieved until now.''
The Chairman: I understand. How many French-language weeklies are there in New Brunswick?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: I could perhaps name them for you by beginning with the northwest. Do you want exact figures?
Mr. Haché: I do not have the exact figures, but I can name them for you.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: If you start with the northwest, there is the Cataracte in Grand-Sault, which was bought out by Brunswick News. There are two papers in the Edmundston area, namely the République and the Madawaska.
Mr. Haché: There is also l'Info Week-end in the Madawaska region.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: L'info Week-end is a product from Quebec which is attempting to serve the needs of the Madawaska area. In Restigouche there is l'Aviron, which belongs to Quebecor, and in the riding of Acadie-Bathurst, the Brunswick News has just launched l'Hebdo Chaleur this spring. In the southeast, there is the Moniteur. It is one of the only independent weeklies. There is l'Étoile, which is headquartered here in Dieppe, but which is distributed in Kent County and especially in the Greater Moncton area, and which is owned by Brunswick News. Have I forgotten a region?
Mr. Haché: Le Journal de Dieppe.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Le Journal de Dieppe, which I am less familiar with and which also belongs to an independent organization.
That is the current situation, but there are 239,000 people living on this territory, and obviously, to reach these 239,000 people, there are no businesses willing to buy advertising space and who are fighting over advertising space, or are trying to get the attention of these 239,000 consumers. There is a very limited amount of space, so as a result the advertising pie is fairly modest. Of course, there are many small business people located throughout this territory, for many of these businesses, their clients are located in a 100-kilometre regional radius. But beyond that, there are not interested in reaching people, because they know that people will not travel all that way to get to them.
It is different for the Moncton/Dieppe region. It is a provincial centre of attraction for all of the Maritimes. The Bathurst or Campbellton business person is interested in the high profile of the county, and the people living there are the ones targeted by the Brunswick News and they provide business people with several advertising options for a lower rate. That is what gives us problems. Mr. Haché can tell you more.
Mr. Haché: To round up the picture, there are 32 free weekly publications; out of the 32 publications, 21 belong to the Brunswick News group in New Brunswick, and according to our sources, this trend will continue. This is a major situation.
The Chairman: As far as the circulation is concerned, is the proportion constant, namely two-thirds?
Mr. Haché: Two-thirds, yes.
Mr. LeBreton: Many of these publications are distributed freely, so it is difficult to assess what the cost of the circulation is.
The Chairman: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Haché: They are distributed in the ad bags, the Publi-sac, which also belong to the Irving Group.
The Chairman: That is normal. From their point of view, it is probably normal?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: It is normal, yes.
The Chairman: That is client support.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: Yes.
The Chairman: This situation creates significant problems for you. Incidentally, since we are talking about the Irving Group, I read with interest the editorial you wrote in this morning's paper. Is Mr. Rainville here?
Mr. LeBreton: Yes, he is here, and he will speak a little later.
The Chairman: Mr. Saint-Cyr, have you ever published reports on this matter or is this the first time you bring it up?
Mr. Saint-Cyr: What are you talking about?
The Chairman: The case of Mr. Mike Parker.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: I only arrived at the paper a little over six months ago, so I could not say whether it is the first time it's been talked about. What is interesting, however, is when people talk about the diversity of opinions. Mr. Rainville will speak in his own name; he is on the editorial team but he is not an employee of the paper. Mr. Rainville is a retired philosophy professor and he was in charge of the Acadian press council for a while. I am very proud that he agreed to be a member of our editorial team on a regular basis and that he contributes two editorials per month.
The Chairman: In fact, he is on our witness list. I will therefore ask him questions on this subject.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: It is nice to see that there are people who are interested in the paper and who feel it is important to maintain this diversity by agreeing to work with us for very little money.
The Chairman: I can imagine.
Mr. Saint-Cyr: I am very honoured that Mr. Rainville is a member of our team, and I believe that he will have many interesting things to say to you with regard to the state of the print media in New Brunswick.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, this was extremely interesting. Thank you. We covered a lot of ground, and if there are any copies of your paper available, I would like to have them. I may even take out a subscription myself.
[English]
Honourable senators, we will hear next from Mr. John Steeves. There is also a slight addition to our program because we had neglected to list Mr. David Cadogan, who will also appear, and then we will go to our gratifyingly long list of members of the public who wish to appear before us. Mr. Steeves, we also spelled your name wrong in our notice. I apologize. Not only journalists, but also Senate committees and staff of committees can sometimes make typographical errors. Anyway, welcome, and we look forward to hearing your presentation and asking you questions.
Mr. John Steeves, as an individual: Senators, it is a privilege to be allowed to appear here today. I intend to try to keep things fairly informal, at least from my point of view. I understand that you have a couple of letters, one of which was originally a personal letter to Senator Day. I do have an abbreviated version of that with me. Some of the comments I have made of a personal nature I would prefer kept confidential among the senators. Also, there is a request to appear —
The Chairman: Let me just clarify that. Yes, Senator Day did forward that letter to us, but it was so obviously a personal letter that we have taken it as a document for our information, not as a formal submission to the committee. You are safe.
Mr. Steeves: Since then, I have given an abbreviated copy to a couple of members of the press. Anyway, essentially, I will try not to repeat some of the comments I have heard from previous witnesses today, although I must confess that I have to agree with 90 to 95 per cent of them. Anecdotally, I would like to concentrate on the responsibility on an individual or a small group of individuals when they hold a predominant concentration of information dissemination in a province, in a territory or whatever.
As I mentioned, when I was 31, I was appointed senior editor in the Yukon, only to find that about three-quarters of the people of the Yukon relied on CBC radio news as their prime source of information. To be honest, it was a terrifying prospect, trying to figure out a way to ensure that the diverse opinions of the white majority, the native minority, the miners, the environmentalists, et cetera, could be broadcast in this situation, because there was no diversity of news. As I said, I would like to think I did relatively well, but I know that it is the type of responsibility that should not be put on any one individual. I also mentioned a similar experience with CBC television in Newfoundland, where I believe a small group of people on the assignment desk or the production desk got too close to the story about the clergy scandal of the time.
That leads me to the situation here in New Brunswick. I know James C. Irving personally and I think he is a well- intentioned young man who really would love to oversee papers of the calibre of The New York Times, of which I know he is very fond. The difficulty for him, or for anyone else, is that power corrupts, and there is always the danger of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The best intentions may not always lead to the best results. I did want to mention one small example here. When I was working at the Kings County Record in the fall of 2002 and Jamie Irving was my boss, I picked up information about a relatively insignificant story. An Irving-owned company called Bayshore Lumber was shutting its doors in Sussex. I think there were around 20 or 30 jobs lost. The employees had been notified. We knew that. Virtually everyone in town knew about it, but for some reason, the Irving publicity people would not comment. I happened to know that Jamie Irving was spending the weekend with his father, so I asked him to get confirmation. We had double-sourced the story, but it is always nice to get the other side. The confirmation came back with an order to hold the story for a week. Now, that is a minor thing, to hold it for a week, but it is an indication of how Irving influences outside the media empire can affect the reporting of the news. We ran the story a week later. Perhaps I should have run it anyway, but it is always hard to violate an order from the boss.
There were a couple of other things I wanted to mention before we get on to questions. I brought with me a copy of this week's Kings County Record. Probably for the province as a whole, but certainly in the Sussex area, and without getting into any priorities, the predominant four industries are trucking, lumbering, agriculture and mining. About a year ago, the Kings County Record introduced a new business section, and yet nine times out of ten, the Kings County Record does not carry any stories at all about agriculture, lumbering, trucking or mining. I do not think there has ever been one in the business section. To me, this would be equivalent to The Ottawa Citizen not covering Parliament Hill.
Sometimes it is easy to talk about diversity, and in manyways, the way the media empire in New Brunswick isestablished, there is diversity. Today, there is a reporter here from the Telegraph-Journal and another one from the Moncton Times & Transcript. They will write separately on this particular meeting and that could be called diversity. However, if there is diversity in stories that are not necessarily the most important ones, it is a meaningless exercise. That can happen. I will just give as an example one story in this province that I would love to see done properly, whether by CBC or by newspapers, but I think newspapers actually have the ability to expand it. Our prime provincial natural resource, our woodlands, is virtually in total control of the forest companies, which can be the Irvings or the Fraser companies and a variety of other companies, but the Irvings are predominant. Recently, there has even been talk of either eliminating or at least reducing the role of natural resources officers, the so-called forest rangers, and having private companies enforce the regulations. This may, in fact, be the best thing for New Brunswick, but instead of having environmentalists say, "This is terrible,'' and the forest companies say, "This is wonderful,'' and a "he says/ she says'' story, I think that there is room for something like that to bedone in depth. I do not think it is likely to happen under the present set-up.
That is about all I have to say. I do welcome your questions.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Well, Mr. Steeves, you have used the phrase "power corrupts.'' Do you have strong feelings about the appropriateness of that phrase vis-à-vis the print media in New Brunswick in 2005?
Mr. Steeves: Possibly it was a poor expression to use. I think "corrupt'' is certainly stronger than I meant. I guess "influence'' would be a better way of describing it. In the Bayshore Lumber story, as an example, there was an influence. It was such an insignificant story that it probably does not matter that much, except that I felt that our paper, I and Mr. Irving looked silly in not having it in our newspaper, a community newspaper, when everyone on the street knew about it. The pink slips had already been handed out. "Influence'' might be a better word to use.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So are you withdrawing the word?
Mr. Steeves: I will withdraw the word.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, I have no right to ask you.
Mr. Steeves: I think it was Lord Acton's comment.
The Chairman: Yes, I think we understand that it was a quotation.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know.
The Chairman: On the other hand, in this particular context, precision is useful.
Mr. Steeves: Yes, I certainly did not mean to suggest any corruption.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Are you still with the Kings County Record?
Mr. Steeves: No, I am not.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You are one of the first people here today, with the exception of Mr. Henley, to speak to us from the point of view of the weekly papers. I am sure that even if you are not working there, you must follow that paper. Can you tell us anything about the quality of the media, because this is one of things we are looking at? Can you tell us anything about the quality of that paper now compared to five years ago, ten years ago? When I say "quality,'' I mean how well it is serving the people of Kings County and surrounding area.
Mr. Steeves: I think that all I could offer are anecdotes, and as Mr. Henley said when he was here, I do not want to be expressing sour grapes, or is that a bad phrase to use as well?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No.
Mr. Steeves: I left the paper for a variety of reasons, including differences with Mr. Irving, and maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong. Who knows? We will not get into that unless you wish to.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, no.
Mr. Steeves: I am prepared to. I think it is so easy to say, "Oh, the new editor is running different types of stories from the ones I think she should.'' I tended to write more political stories. The new editor tends to write more stories about the courts, the church, in many cases, because there is no question that religion is very important in my community. It is the type of situation where I do not feel comfortable saying, "I am right, she is wrong,'' or vice versa.
When I was there, I was never the editor. I was only a senior writer. However, whether under my leadership, or whatever you want to call it, or that of the present editor, it is a valid argument that the four predominant industries that probably are responsible for somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent of the employment in the area should be mentioned in some way, almost as a regular beat, because it is so important whether potash prices go up or down, whether lumber prices go up or down.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes.
Mr. Steeves: I do not think there has been one story in the paper about the problems the dairy farmers in my area face with mad cow disease, in dealing with their culled cattle. I know that the local MLA has issued news releases and I think they have probably been printed, but I have not seen anything more on these types of matters. It does not matter who is running the paper. It is the type of item that should be included, particularly when there is a business section. It should be there.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you very much. That certainly is a good point, about the coverage, or lack thereof, of the local industries.
Senator Munson: Mr. Steeves, it has been quite a day. I think the name "Irving'' was mentioned 150, 200 times, and we heard all morning comments like, "Nobody dares mess with the Irvings''; "Owners interfere in editorial policy'' — their self-censorship — "Our weekly newspapers are being gobbled up''; and you said you had your problems. I wonder if one can get a job in this province any more.
Mr. Steeves: Since I left, I have published a book and call myself an author now.
Senator Munson: I am just wondering what we should recommend at this point. What do you think we should recommend? Are you suggesting that we go as far as recommending the end of a monopoly in this province, that it is not good for the province, not good for the people of New Brunswick? It seems to me, from what we have seen, that this province is different from the others; and I have a great deal of pride in this province. I was born and brought up here. However, I am hearing very few voices except those speaking out against this monopoly.
Mr. Steeves: To start with, were the government, the Senate or the House of Commons, to order an end to this monopoly, I do not think that things would necessarily get better. I am not in favour of government interference as a general rule. I did comment that The New York Times recently appointed a public editor. I listened to an interview on Sunday morning about the appointment of Daniel Okrent as the first ever public editor of The New York Times, a kind of ombudsman who would act as the readers' surrogate to ensure the integrity of the paper. I did outline that. I think it is a good idea in principle. Since I wrote that, of course, I decided to check The New York Times website, and it seems The New York Times has cleaned up its act since Jayson Blair, who had been fabricating and plagiarizing his stories, left, because most of Mr. Okrent's columns are headed, "Correction,'' and it is a spelling mistake of M-O-N-S-E-N instead of M-U-N-S-O-N, that type of thing. However, I do like the concept of a public editor, an ombudsman, hired by the Irving press to be able to tell when stories are slanted, give opinions and be published without fear. If it is a concept that works for The New York Times, then it probably would be valuable here. I could see the likelihood of advertisers actually paying bonuses to publish their ads on the same page, if it were done properly.
The danger is, would this person be suspect? It is so easy to hire a paper tiger who would occasionally slap somebody on the wrist and call it criticism. I think the powers that be within the Irving press could deal with that by using an independent panel to make the hiring recommendation, possibly three or four journalism professors. "This is the best candidate to do this job without fear.'' As I understand it, the person in this position at The New York Times can be fired, but I suspect it would cause a public uproar if that happened for the wrong reason.
I happen to have spoken to James C. Irving briefly about this because I sent him a copy of my letter to Senator Day, and he said that they have toyed with the idea of having an ombudsman. As I say, I think Mr. Irving is well- intentioned, but it is very difficult when you are running a variety of information organizations in a place where your family — your uncles, your grandfather, your father or your cousins — is running everything else. However, it is something that could be explored. The Senate could not order something like that, but it might be able to at least recommend it.
Senator Munson: I have one other question. Do freelancers have a chance to write for the Irving newspapers?
Mr. Steeves: Yes. A few years ago, I was writing a weekly column for both the Fredericton Gleaner and the Moncton Times & Transcript, and it worked out relatively well because they both paid me and I sent them the same material. However,the Fredericton Gleaner finally decided to drop me, so thatwas half of my income, and at the same time, the Moncton Times & Transcript dropped the column fee from $50 to $25; it just did not seem worthwhile, so I stopped. There are some possibilities for freelancing, but for negligible pay.
The Chairman: Was the Bayshore incident the only one of that nature or was it the kind of thing that tended to crop up often?
Mr. Steeves: No, it is the one that came to mind here. I do not like to relate any confidential comments because during the years we were together, Mr. Irving and I were actually very close at times.
The Chairman: I am not asking you to break confidences. I am just asking you, was it that once? It was more than once?
Mr. Steeves: Yes, but that is the one that comes to mind. I can think of one that goes back to 1972, and I wish I had brought the material. I do have it at home and could bring it as early as tomorrow. In 1972, when I was hired at the Telegraph-Journal back in the famous days of the publisher Ralph Costello, my city editor asked me to go to the Red Head area of Saint John because people were complaining that their white houses had turned brown overnight. I do not know how I could have been so green. I think that everyone expected I would get people saying, "Is this not terrible? I wonder what caused it,'' and whatever. Instead, I came back with a letter signed by the Provincial Minister of the Environment at the time, Bill Cockburn, to the local MLA in which he said, and I am paraphrasing, there is no question that this was caused by a breakdown of the Irving refinery sulphur recovery plant. I wrote it, probably badly, but with that as the lead. It was taken from me by the editor of the day, I think it was Fred Hazel, given to a senior reporter who is no longer with the paper, and delayed for 24 or 48 hours. I forget which. When the story came out, great lengths had been taken to soften the comments of the Minister of the Environment, and at about paragraph 17 or 18, it said, "The minister was more emphatic in a letter to the MLA when he said...'', but very few people would have read that far. I still have my original, typewritten notes and the final product as it appeared in the paper. It does happen.
The Chairman: Why do you think the Kings County Record does not cover the major industries? Is it because they just do not have enough reporters? I cannot see how the Irving empire would resist coverage of BSE.
Mr. Steeves: Well, in trucking, there are many independent truckers in the industry, but two of the largest companies in New Brunswick are Midland Transport and Sunbury Transport, both of which are wholly owned by the Irving interests. In lumbering, I do not think we have to exaggerate. The biggest lumber operation in Sussex is the Irving —
The Chairman: Yes, I understand that. Lots of people have explained to us the importance of the Irving empire to the economy of this province.
Mr. Steeves: Right.
The Chairman: I am just asking whether the newspaper does not have enough reporters and has made an arbitrary decision.
Mr. Steeves: I do no think it is necessarily the number of reporters.
The Chairman: No? However, you do not know for sure?
Mr. Steeves: I think that it is an interesting question. The reporters, the editors, follow what they are interested in as opposed to trying to think of what the community needs to know.
The Chairman: Nothing new about that, I am afraid. Thank you so much. It has been very interesting.
Mr. Steeves: If you would like, I could leave a copy of the paper with Mr. Heyde.
The Chairman: Yes, that would be good.
Senators, I will now invite Mr. David Cadogan to come forward. He is a retired newspaper reporter and past president of the Canadian Community Newspaper Association. As I suggested earlier, there was a slip-up in our witness list, but we have him here, which is probably more important than a piece of paper with his name on it. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Cadogan.
Mr. David Cadogan, Past President, Canadian Community Newspapers Association, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable senators. I should explain who I am. I am a past president, honorary life member and founding member of the Atlantic Community Newspapers Association; past president, honorary life member of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association. I have an honorary doctorate of civil laws from the University of King's College and I was a community newspaper owner, publisher and editor in New Brunswick for over 30 years. I think I have half-decent credentials to comment on the newspaper business in Canada and New Brunswick.
I have been a keen observer and a participant in the business for over 50 years. I started working as a printer's devil for my father's tiny newspaper in Southwestern Ontario when I was eight. Just to put that into perspective for you, when I started, the linotype machine, which would set a line of type, was only 65 years old. There were still people around who could remember reading newspapers where every word was set one letter at a time. The headlines were still set one letter at a time when I started. Since then, the information, computation and communication technology explosions have been continual. It has been an exciting time.
To simplify the questions before you, if you perhaps try to consider the state of the media, the trends and so on, in concert with the state of society and trends in community, it might help you to determine what is going on in the newspaper business. In my lifetime, technology turned newspapers, especially community newspapers, into very profitable businesses. When I started, a little newspaper operation would sell office supplies and mainly do commercial printing. The newspaper would fill up some time each week, and somehow or other, they would struggle by. In 1974, when I bought the Dalhousie News, they were producing eight pages a week, and if they could not actually produce eight new ones, they would produce five and run three from the week before. Sometimes, pages ran for several weeks at a time. Things changed dramatically with photo-typesetting and, later, digital typesetting and so on.
When I came along, community newspapers did not have reporters or ad salespeople. However, as the productivity and the quality that came with technology allowed it, that started to happen. It was a great time to be young because the old-timers did not want to learn and so I was able to buy. I did own the Kings County Record, as a matter of fact. That was one of the papers I owned.
At the same time, community itself underwent tremendous change. Chains and franchise and co-op retail groups like Pharmasave drugstores, for example, grew and replaced local owners. Governments enlarged and centralized regions of services, like medical care, education and policing. These developments changed the traditional community market and audience, and in publishing, you always have to match an audience to a market. Large regional retailers must, can and do draw customers from ever-larger areas. Local school boards that dealt with local issues and local schools are now part of huge regional or provincial systems, with little local interaction. This means that newspapers are faced with new challenges in matching their audiences to markets. People in the community used to know each other, know their hospital and school board members, be their hospital and school board members, and shop at the same stores. Now, some suburban people barely know what community they live in and may well not know where city hall is.
As that trend continues, matching an audience with the market becomes more challenging. Community newspapers have had increasing difficulty defining the common interests of larger markets and maintaining circulation, penetration and percentages. During my lifetime, community newspapers have done a far better job of that than any other medium. We had the monopoly on local news. At the time that the daily newspapers were losing their domination in the field of international and national news to television and so on, there was one monopoly left, and that was the local news. However, if the community is gone, the monopoly is gone.
Daily newspapers are having to learn to be community newspapers, as there are so many more sources of national and international news. You will see that on the Internet. The biggest daily papers' lead stories on their Internet versions are local stories.
Young people both marry and have children later. That delays the point at which they have a serious stake in their communities and begin to pay attention to local issues. Young people are also less and less willing to pay for news, to wait for the paper to arrive or to dispose of the carcass. They do not want to have the newspaper lying around the house. They have a responsibility for it then, and perhaps they feel some responsibility for the tree.
It is also difficult for an individual newspaper, or even a small group, to find the opportunity to present its case to a national or regional advertiser. To give you a simple example of that, I live in the Miramichi and it is an easy overnight railroad trip to and from Montreal. Via has a special story to tell there because you can get on the train at suppertime and have supper, have a couple of drinks, go to bed, get up and you are in Montreal; and vice versa coming home. However, Via cannot talk about a program just for my flagship paper, the Miramichi Leader. They do not have time to talk about that one paper. Therefore, chains can work with chains, but the result is a tendency toward generic news and entertainment. We are all familiar with how television and radio have evolved and devolved into networks that run the same shows, music, and much of the same news.
I was an independent owner and sold to the Irvings. There were several issues determining when and to whom I sold. One was my age, although I would have been very happy to continue for several years more. Another was the fact that newspapers have high market value compared to their assets. They are more valuable to buyers with large pools of capital and potential for synergy. It would be almost impossible for an editor or ad manager to make a competitive offer. There is not much traditional collateral available for the business being purchased. It is not as if you are buying a building and can get a 75 per cent mortgage. There is, in a newspaper, a little typesetting equipment and a little software that is depreciating at a tremendous rate of noughts, and so a bank does not want to lend you much money. My children were not interested in the business side, and even if they had been, I would not have wanted to saddle them with the new realities of the marketplace. It is also very important to sell while there is still more than one buyer interested. At the time I sold, the number of groups was shrinking rapidly. I had been approached several times to sell. In other time and places, conglomerates have been known to ask three times. If one declines the third time, they come anyway. One of these large organizations starting a newspaper in your community does not have to kill you. All they have to do is take the cream. That ruins the value of your business and deters another conglomerate from buying into a fight. In business, no one really wants a fair fight. Everyone wants the high ground and the best weapons.
I did feel somewhat forced to deal. I do not think there is anything unique about that in any business. I consider myself very fortunate to have had a business that was cheaper, financially and politically, to buy than simply to crush. Again, in society and communities generally, we have all seen local department stores, clothing stores, drugstores and restaurants driven out of business by national and international chains. Why should it be any different for newspapers?
The chains, franchise groups and co-op groups in other businesses, department stores and so on, began to produce their own flyers instead of advertising in the papers. At first, they distributed the flyers in the newspapers, and I should point out to you that from the point of view of those national chains, grocery stores and so on, those flyers are a money-making proposition. They charge manufacturers to have their products featuredin those flyers and in the stores, and the flyer itself becomesa profit centre. Later, Canada Post got aggressively into theflyer-distribution business and priced newspapers out of the market. They were definitely practising predatory pricing.
More recently, when Canada Post was forced out ofdeep-discount pricing on flyer distribution, what had become one effective Crown corporation monopoly was replaced by what are virtually regional private sector monopolies. Most of these regional flyer distribution monopolies are owned and operated by the biggest printers and publishers.
Technology also contributed to the ability and the requirement, on the part of the public, to print/processfull-colour pictures and advertisements. However, colour printing requires four times as many press units as black printing. The press does not know to put a little red here, put a little yellow there. It knows, put black here, put the primary colour yellow here, primary colour red, primary colour blue. Variations of them produce colour pictures. That, along with electronic information transfer — in other words, I can email all of the pages in my newspaper and you can print them wherever you are — led to much larger regional presses printing many different publications and flyers. Large printing facilities joined newspaper and flyer distribution in the concentration, so we are starting to get a vertical supply control chain.
Unfortunately, this worked strongly against niche publications. Short-run, small-page-count publications are not efficient on huge presses. It is like trying to use a highway construction earth mover to dig a flower bed.
Concentration of media is worrisome, especially in areas like New Brunswick and the Maritimes, where one family, the Irvings, controls so much of the basic industry and commerce. To be fair, before media concentration, there were some very good newspapers and some very bad newspapers. Personally, I very much miss the role and value of being able to use ownership of the local newspaper to be the community's champion. To be fair, others could as easily view that as me being a meddling publisher. As A.J. Liebling famously said, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.'' And I did.
In New Brunswick now, if you do not work for the Irvings, you have little opportunity in the print media. In Miramichi, when I owned the papers, if you did not work for me, you had little opportunity in the print media. In New Brunswick, the Irving media have obviously had more access to advertising from other Irving family businesses than I did. When I owned the papers, my Internet community mall site had privileged use of the resources of and access to the newspaper. The Irving media have been and will be brutal competition for anyone who goes after the same advertising dollars. When I owned the local papers, I competed as hard as I could to preserve my dominance in the local market. I did have a policy that my newspapers paid the same for printing as any other customer, and I did print competitors. I did everything I could to make sure that there was no unfilled product need or advertising opportunity lying around. We did not want advertising dollars lying around for somebody else to mop up.
In considering Irving domination of the New Brunswick market, you were still only talking about some 750,000 people. If one family dominated the media and industry in one city of that size, would it attract any attention?
Concentration of media is not in and of itself necessarily bad. Chains can be dedicated to editorial excellence. David Black's Caribou Press papers in British Columbia are consistent national and international award winners for their efforts, as are many other chains. However, it appears to me that the drive to productivity, growth and profit may well be killing the golden goose. Is it just me, or does it seem the more MBAs there are, the more corporations squeeze profitability to the edge of possibility and legality — and beyond? Am I the only one that sees or thinks that?
Must the pressure for revenue and profit growth only find its limits by exceeding them? To give you an idea of that, local news is more expensive to produce. Local columns cost more than syndicated columns. One-time news costs more than generic news, and you will find in all of the papers that the more the MBAs have control of it, the more what we call "canned news'' or used to call "boilerplate'' takes up space.
The evidence is that audiences are, more and more, being pandered to and polarized by popular media that are increasingly cheap, base entertainment and less and less informed, reasoned debate. We have not gone nearly as far in that regard as in the United States, but you can certainly see it beginning. When you think of it, even the presence of Don Cherry on National Hockey League broadcasts is more for entertainment than real information. If you remember when Howie Meeker used to talk about hockey, it was informed, reasoned instruction, not just "worldwide wrestling'' entertainment.
This is especially unfortunate because it leads to a decline in civic literacy and citizen participation in democracy, as Professor Henry Milner has demonstrated. Just as daily polling has often had a deleterious effect on the sincerity of political campaign messages. When people wonder why this public does not respond as well to politics as it used to, I think it is because the public knows full well that politicians are not saying what they think. They are saying what last night's polls told them we want to hear. Therefore, ratings drive media to the lowest common denominator. When people are pursuing only ratings numbers, they start aiming for a lower form of entertainment, because a fight will attract attention. Print media measurements are getting better, so I think we can expect the same pressure on editors that television producers in the entertainment field have faced for years. Fox News, here we come.
I do not see much future for independents in newspaper publishing. It might have been possible if they had been able to get together in a cooperative management venture years ago, as the Pharmasave drugstore owners did. Community publishers, however, tended to be fiercely independent. They are about as likely as cats to travel in a pack. It looks as though the same conglomerates that control the print and electronic media will probably control the Internet and World Wide Web media. That seems to be how it is shaking down. They do not have to have the best idea. All they have to do is wait to see who does and then either copy it or buy it.
It certainly does not seem fair to try to stop or reverse or interfere with the networking of newspapers when television and radio have been doing that for years. How many community radio stations are there left in the country doing local news and entertainment, featuring local performers and so on? Why should and how could newspapers be the only advertising media not networked?
In conclusion, over the past 50 years, the media, except when temporarily stalled by government regulation or concern, have mirrored changes in community and business nationally and internationally. To subject the media to special rules regarding concentration without subjecting all other businesses to the same rules would be counterproductive and destructive. While I am not cheered by the present trend toward treating news as an "infotainment'' commodity, I firmly believe that government assistance of any kind would not be a solution. I could write a book about the ways it could, would and has been used, abused and counterproductive. I will give you one example. Federal and provincial governments provided $6 million to a French language daily, Le Matin, which politicians and bureaucrats thought would be the solution to the demise of L'Evangeline. The unsubsidized, little l'Acadie Nouvelle matched its market to its audienceand demolished its heavily subsidized competitor, as real newspapers knew it would. The provincial government's decision to give Le Matin the money was, incidentally, passed by the legislature unanimously, so they unanimously decided to do the wrong thing.
I can only speak with any knowledge about the media. However, I think the same principles of fair play can and should be applied to all commerce. One of those is access. Elements of many industries are interdependent. Industry concentration should not be able to block competition by blocking access to necessary elements. If media conglomerates, for example, will have virtual and practical monopolies on printing and distribution, it is essential that competitors have equal access to and equal costs for the use of those services. I think that is understood in the telecommunications business, and I think it should be so understood in the business of flyer distribution and printing. If a publishing firm owns the only local flyer distribution network, a competing publisher ought to have equal access to that network, at equal prices, for his free product.
As community Internet portals come to be dominated by the conglomerates, competitors should perhaps be assured the right to buy links from those too. Predatory pricing, used temporarily to starve out a small competitor, ought to be illegal and enforced in every industry, not just the publishing industry. I think it is in the United States. You hear of the Wonder Bread decision. That was, I think, a common practice of that company and they were convicted for it. I think we should have similar protections here in Canada.
As far as the national interest is concerned, to ensure that there is at least one medium with a mandate to concentrate first on the interests of the citizens, I think it is increasingly important that the Government of Canada properly finance the CBC. It must be able to fill the gaps left as ever-hungrier private media drive for cheaper, more titillating "infotainment'' or the interests of the corporate culture of which they are part. Incidentally, I hope the CBC will wait for its audience to mature to it, even if that takes a bit longer than it has in the past. Haring after the same audience as the private media is counterproductive. The CBC should aim at and cultivate an interest level, not an age group.
I think it is also increasingly important that political campaign financing be more and more publicly provided so that members of parliament are beholden to the electors rather than corporations or unions. That may seem a strange and irrelevant comment, but as media and other corporations continue to grow, media access and citizen participation in democracy are more and more a common cause.
Finally, I believe we must allow the media conglomerates to pursue their course. If they do go wrong, someone will find a way to serve the audience they lose. The media were not always hugely profitable. They have been, at times, the tools of churches, unions and political parties. They have, at different times, been primarily supported by circulation revenue, display advertising and classified advertising, or even organization dues. Frankly, it is hard to imagine the Government of Canada mustering the power or the appetite to tackle the famous fortunes that control the Canadian media. Most of them are thoroughly embedded in the political parties and probably quite capable of fending off any threat to their use of the tools of power to dominate their markets. Good luck and thank you.
The Chairman: Your presentation was so interesting that I let you go on longer than usual.
Mr. Cadogan: Yes, I understood that. I gave myself the benefit for having been left off the list.
The Chairman: You did indeed.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Cadogan, I have been to the Miramichi many times and you remain a legend there; maybe not as much in the public eye as you were, but in the public heart.
Mr. Cadogan: Oh, you are quite the legend yourself, senator.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you very much. I think you gave us probably the best business case we have heard during these hearings on the media today, particularly as it applies, of course, to a smaller province with a population, as you pointed out, that could be a small city. Having given that business case so clearly and so thoroughly, and since we are addressing concentration of the media, in a province of only 750,000 people, one-third of whom are francophone, how do you rate the diversity of newspapers in New Brunswick? When I say "the diversity,'' I am not talking about ownership, but about the diversity of all of the small papers we have plus three English-language dailies. Are we well served in terms of the availability of printed news media or not?
Mr. Cadogan: First, I should say that every individual will have a different view of how the news should be managed. Believe it or not, at one time, I signed Jamie Irving's paycheques, because I owned the Kings County Record when he first came to work there, and I know that we have a slightly different approach. He says that every newspaper should have four sections, one of which is business, one of which is sports, one of which is general news and so on. I have a slightly different view of how it should be done, but anyone would. No two people will have the same view. I do think that we have lots of different publications, but frankly, I would have to say that, not just in New Brunswick, but all over Canada — and bearing in mind that I was president of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association and, as an honorary life member, am still keeping on top of it — the business is being driven by the potential ad dollars, not the interests of the readers. What do you think these free subway papers are about? Are they about the great interests and deep issues of the local community? They are a chance to mop up some advertising dollars. I do not see anything wrong with going after advertising dollars. They fed me and my children our entire lives. However, what I do see is that these MBAs have an entirely different objective than real newspaper people had. There was a time when newspaper people who owned newspapers, and radio stations, by the way, and even TV stations, were interested in their communities. They were the champions of their communities. They saw their communities, even if it was Toronto or Ontario, as a farm that had to be cultivated and kept up. Therefore, they were the champions of education, good government, progress and so on. That has shifted. I am not talking about the Irvings here. I am talking about the chains, and "MBAs'' generally is a label that I throw at them when it is all driven by the number crunchers. Their attitude is, "Fill it up, get it out there and mop up some dollars,'' and if you can get somebody to read it, great; but whatever makes them read it, whether it be a crossword puzzle or a comic strip, fine. There are lots of publications out there, but I do not think that they exist for the same purpose that they once did.
Senator Munson: What did you pay Jamie Irving? He must have thought it was pretty good, in that he has moved on up.
Mr. Cadogan: He has done quite well, has he not?
Senator Munson: Yes, he has.
Mr. Cadogan: To be absolutely frank, I did not pay him anything. He was given to me.
Senator Munson: All right. That was not the question. I met Jamie Irving. He is a wonderful young man.
Mr. Cadogan: I believe that he does truly want to put out good newspapers.
Senator Munson: Right. Well, let us hope so.
I have a question about editorial independence, because this morning at the very beginning of our day, which seems like three days ago, it was mentioned that when Frank McKenna was appointed as ambassador, three editorials praised that choice. Well, that is okay. That can be coincidence and so on, but I am more concerned with the small- town weeklies that the Irvings own. Within this monopoly, is there editorial independence for small-town newspapers in New Brunswick? I will preface it with the fact that the Irvings own so many properties here. Would a small-town editor dare offer criticism, constructive or otherwise, about the Irving empire?
Mr. Cadogan: When I sold the papers, they kept me on in a consulting role for six months, and that was just so that if they could not find something, they could ask me where it was. However, during that time they had me write a column that appeared in all their weeklies. One of the things I did was seriously tackle the Jaakko Poyry report, which I thought was seriously misguided. What I wrote was published, but I have not seen anything since criticizing Jaakko Poyry.
The Chairman: I am from away.
Mr. Cadogan: Oh, I am sorry. The Jaakko Poyry reportwas commissioned by the Government of New Brunswickand the Forest Industries Association, and suggested that the wood production from Crown land should be doubled in thenext 50 years. To make a long story short, even the provincial government committee that was set up to assess that recommended against it. I am quite convinced it is still going ahead. We will know soon. In any case, after I wrote about it, I do not remember seeing or hearing of anything else critical of it in any of the community papers. I do not know why, I was not there, but I think people self-censor. I think employees self-censor. As I said, what if you are wrong and you wind up out of work? Who will you work for? I am not saying the Irvings have to say, "Do not do it.'' I think people might just be afraid to offend them anyway. Again, it is not strictly an Irving issue, in my mind. Do you see much criticism of the Aspers in CanWest publications or of Power Corporation in their publications? I really do not want to make this an Irving issue, although certainly, as I said, I want to make sure that there are alternative voices, which is why I think the CBC is so important.
The Chairman: I will engage in my self-appointed task of pushing back. You suggested that the new, free subway papers or equivalents are designed solely to attract ad dollars. Obviously, they are out there pushing to attract ad dollars, but it has been suggested to us that even more important, from the point of view of those who are putting them out, is the need to attract young readers, that young people are falling away from news consumption in general, more definitely from newspaper readership, and that this is one way the publishers are trying to get them to acquire the habit so that as they age, they will move back to traditional media.
Mr. Cadogan: That could be a factor for sure. I know that all publishers are concerned about young people, and I pointed out a number of reasons why I do not think that those concerns will be satisfied by the print media. I think it will be electronic media, the Internet. That is a personal opinion. However, if you look at what is in the free papers, it is not investigative, hard-hitting local commentary or writing. It is generic news. With the free dailies in The Okanagan and so on, they have said it will be all wire service news. It is generic, so personally, I would just as soon they read Dr. Seuss.
The Chairman: Thanks very much.
Mr. Cadogan: You are very welcome.
The Chairman: It was very interesting. You covered a lot of ground and we are very grateful to you.
Mr. Cadogan: Thank you.
The Chairman: And again, our apologies for the list mix-up.
Mr. Cadogan: And you have my appreciation for the time.
The Chairman: We will now begin our session during which members of the public can share their views with committee members.
I will call on each participant to come to the table and will then ask for opening remarks. I would emphasize to everyone that we are studying the news media, so presentations should be focused on that topic. Participants' remarks will be limited to four minutes.
We certainly have a great number of participants today. We had a lot of people in Vancouver, too. We heard from 17 members of the public in Vancouver. What this means, I have to tell you all, is that we have to be extremely disciplined in terms of time. It really will be four minutes for each person to make a presentation and four minutes for questions and answers, so we all have to be as concise as possible. I ask you to bear in mind that our staff have been labouring away since a quarter to nine this morning, so it is important that we do it properly. However, we are looking forward to hearing from everybody.
The first name I have on the list is Mr. Jonathan Franklin.
Mr. Jonathan Franklin, As an individual: Thank you very much. I feel like the odd man out today, because I have been listening to a lot of opinions and I thought it would be useful for the committee to hear from somebody who actually ran two of these papers in this province in the last eight years. I was publisher of the Times & Transcript from 1996 until 2001, and then the Telegraph-Journal after that. My background in newspapers is 40 years long. I worked with Southam in Vancouver; I worked for Thomson in Victoria and Kelowna, so I have a certain level of understanding of how corporations work and how they work with the journalists.
When I came to New Brunswick in 1996 to rebuild the Times & Transcript, which had fallen on hard times, my only instructions from the owners were "We want you to produce a good newspaper. When you cover Irving company stories, all we ask is that you are accurate and fair.''
These instructions have remained the same for all the publishers over the last eight years. They are slightly more descriptive now. Publishers are told that the owners expect them to produce newspapers that are accurate and respected; that reflect broad, mainstream values; that treat people with dignity and respect; that cover news impartially; that expose wrongdoing, either public or private; and if they make mistakes, they should admit them and correct them. As a professional journalist, that is exactly the kind of paper that I would want to work for, and that is what it has been.
I want to tell the committee categorically — there has been a lot of talk today about Irving corporate control of staff and newspapers — that in the eight years that I was publisher of the Transcript and the Telegraph-Journal, I was never told by the owners what or what not to put in my newspaper, because I regarded it as my newspaper. I was never told what party or candidate to support in an election, and over the last eight years I have supported both Tories and Liberals, provincially and federally. I have never been told what editorial position to take on any issue. I never had a phone call from any Irving about a news story. I never even discussed the specific content of my newspaper with the owners, and I have never been told who and who not to hire. I regard integrity as a very important part of my professional career, and I am not telling any stories here. That has been my experience. Therefore, I have been quite nonplussed today to hear some of the observations from the outside.
I do have just two brief comments before my time is up. In regard to Dr. Steuter's presentation, I have looked into her studies — I have been with her on a media panel — because I thought they were important. They basically use the technique of deconstruction that was set up by a French intellectual named Jacques Derrida, who died recently. Quite frankly, without being unkind, that technique is regarded as a rather murky intellectual process these days. I can go into the details because I have read her original study, and I can tell you the process that she used if we have the time for that.
The only thing that I would say is that in her study, she lumped the three Irving dailies in with The Globe and Mail in their coverage of that strike, and that is pretty good company. I am happy with that.
In closing, I am very proud of the papers that I produced here. I took the Transcript editorial staff from 18 people when I arrived to 34. I expanded the news hole. We run on news holes more generously than most papers, and we benchmark them. We run on news holes that are around 34 to 36 per cent, and the benchmark is about 40 per cent.
I was the person who introduced the freelance contracts, which you heard about from Jackie Webster this morning. They were basically standard contracts that came in at that time. Admittedly, the wording might have been viewed as offensive, but the Internet was coming in, and other organizations, not only us, had to do the same kind of contracts. Freelance coverage was mentioned.
I do not know whether the committee saw the Globe piece, which I will leave with you, which deals with the LNG coverage in Saint John, with the city council praising the Telegraph-Journal for the coverage it gave. Thank you.
The Chairman: I gave you more time than I said that I would, precisely because you were pushing hard on the other side of the story from what we have heard. I am sorry to have to cut you off. We would love to hear from you if you have further details that you want to give us in writing.
Mr. Franklin: I have been retired for six months, by the way.
The Chairman: You can still write.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you for coming today, Mr. Franklin. If you were to write a column or editorial on what has happened here today, what might you say?
Mr. Franklin: In this province there are people who love the Irving family and there are people who hate the Irving family. I think the Irvings are committed to this province. They made clear to their publishers and editors that they are here for the long term. They do not want to squeeze the "last nickel'' — those are Jim Irving's own words — out of the newspapers. He is prepared to accept less profitability. He produces the Telegraph-Journal, which is a very expensive animal to produce. He could have reduced that to a Saint John paper.
My experience with these owners here has been nothing but positive.
Senator Munson: You are a very patient man. You have been here all day. You obviously wanted to state your opinion, and it is great to have it. You know, as a journalist, you have to have balance in every report.
Could you quickly comment on self-censorship?
Mr. Franklin: I never felt restrained and never restrained any of my editors from covering stories. We covered the Irving Whale story; we covered LNG, a recent one when I was not there. I never felt restrained. The only thing that I would say is the key point was that one could expect that the Irvings would be treated just like the McCains, or any other company.
The Chairman: I would love to have a copy of the admirable statement of principles, instructions, from which you quoted, but more pertinently, does anybody other than the publisher and the editor-in-chief know about them? Do the staff know about them? Does the public know about them?
Mr. Franklin: It was more the owners stating what their expectations were to the publishers.
The Chairman: Do you think it would be helpful if such statements were more broadly circulated?
Mr. Franklin: It could be.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
[Translation]
We will now hear from Mr. Bernard Robichaud.
Mr. Bernard Robichaud, Agence de presse atlantique inc., as an individual: Madam Chair, I have to tell you that this is quite the opposite of what was happening in court this morning when I was arguing a case. What I have to say to you is this.
My father is 90 years old and he writes. My brother is a reporter with the Acadie Nouvelle and he is in charge of the culture desk. I founded a press agency in 1979. I sell information to the media, or exchange it with the media, that is newspapers, radio and television. I help and train reporters, and I work a lot with freelancers. I myself am a freelancer. I am therefore very ambivalent about today's discussion. Every day, I read the following papers: The Globe and Mail, the Telegraph-Journal, the Times & Transcript, l'Acadie Nouvelle, the Chronicle-Herald and the Journal de Québec. I read the following weeklies: the Miramichi Leader Weekend, the Northern Light, l'Étoile in the southeastern region, the Kings County Record, and Hebdo Chaleur. I get up at 3 a.m. and read until 7 in the morning. I am a news junkie. I therefore live through the papers. My favourite papers, in order, are the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax and the Globe and Mail.
I take no issue with the fact that the Irvings have given New Brunswick good newspapers, but I wonder what is becoming of the opinions of freelancers, that is, people who have an opinion? Here is an example of an attempt to sell information fornon-financial reasons. Ms. Bethany Dykstra, who will testify later on, is a journalist I have been training for a year. I have tried in vein three times to get her column published in the Moncton Times. Her case is now before the Editorial Board, but I have not heard anything yet.
I think that if there is one message I want to get across, it is that we need an ombudsman or an editor. The Brunswick News has made the case for the survival of all of its newspapers. That could be debated for hours. I have nothing against the Brunswick News group. All I want is for them to give more space to readers' opinions, because the space they provide in their paper is not very generous. There are wonderful people who write, and we should have the opportunity to read what they have to say. That is really the message I want to get across. I hope that the representatives of Brunswick News who are listening to us today, and who include some journalists from the Times & Transcript, and the Telegraph who might know very well realize that we are happy to read every day what they put out, but we would like to see more independence and more varied opinions. I know Jamie Irving and Jim Irving and other people who work for the organization, and I am pleased that, for such as small province, there are papers in Moncton, Fredericton and Saint-John, as compared to other provinces who only have one newspaper. This is one of the reasons why I am not against the Brunswick News group. They are efficient and they keep their eye on the ball. I think that on the hole, what I would like to see is a little more openness.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So you are satisfied with the situation, except that you would like to see more pieces by freelancers?
Mr. Robichaud: The message I want to get across is not that I believe in government interference in the print media, which was the argument of David Cadogan, it is that the group has to understand that is possible to put out good papers, but that on the inside there should be someone elected by a panel of journalism professors who would act as a protector of opinions and a protector for independent writers. It is important that their papers give more space to public opinion, because that is something valuable.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes. We also heard in the other provinces that there should be an ombudsman or a press council in order to assess the situation.
Mr. Robichaud: Exactly, and that would help protect our own journalists. I often speak with journalists and some of them tell me that is not easy. So there should be someone to defend journalists and journalistic independence; that would be a good recommendation.
[English]
Senator Munson: How do you make a living?
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: I have many other feathers in my cap. Journalism is my passion, I will be opening an office here in Moncton on Main Street, so I still have many opportunities. I would like to provide more opportunities to others such as Bethany Dykstra and to others whom I have trained, because they have something to say and a different point of view. Bethany Dykstra is a freelance rural reporter. She is a keen observer and can present rural life from her personal perspective. I would like her to have her own column entitled Bethany's World. It already appears in several community papers. I have asked three times that the Moncton Times publish her column, but I have not heard anything yet. I just want the Irving Group to realize that it would make even more money and create even more interest if it involved freelancers who have their own opinions. That is what people want to read about.
The Chair: It has to be said that very few young journalists have supporters who are as eloquent as you are. Thank you very much, Mr. Robichaud.
I would ask the next witness to please take a seat. She is Ms. Bethany Thorne-Dykstra.
[English]
Welcome to the committee.
Ms. Bethany Thorne-Dykstra, as an individual: Unfortunately, I am not very knowledgeable and experienced in the realm of media, but I did feel it was important to come and share some of the experiences that I have been facing. The big question in my mind, since I do appreciate the spoken word and that every person should get a good perspective on issues from all angles, is what criteria are used for freelance writers to get into any kind of paper? I am very confused at this point in my life. I have had so many people come up to me after writing a number of editorials in newspapers, both in the Times and the Telegraph, and in our little local newspaper, the Community Digest, and saying "When are you planning to put another article in? I cannot wait to hear your story. I cannot wait to hear your perspective on that issue.'' That is why I decided one day that maybe I should have an article in there on a regular basis from a rural perspective. I really appreciate Mr. Steeves' comments a little earlier about Sussex, because I am also a dairy farmer, and I know the agricultural issues quite well. I feel that the general public out there needs to hear that perspective. For the Times & Transcript or the Telegraph-Journal, or any of the major papers in this province, knowing that 50 per cent of the population in New Brunswick is rural, I would think a rural perspective would be welcomed.
I have had a number of journalists critique my writing because I do not really know what people are looking for and they have told me, "Wow, you have quite a perspective there, and I have never heard agriculture explained that way. I actually understand.'' I consider that such a compliment coming from journalists who are writing regularly in the papers currently.
I know I do not have too much time, but I really appreciated the quote mentioned earlier today that, "Good writing, good stories and characters of the community they serve make quality papers.'' I think a rural perspective is needed on a lot of issues: education, the political scene, transportation. There are so many different issues, and I think it is a perspective that would be welcomed if the opportunity was allowed.
My big question is — and maybe you people can answer it for me — what are the criteria to become a freelance writer in this province?
The Chairman: I can tell you, before I give my colleagues a chance to put questions, that we do not have control over the decisions editors make about what to put in their papers, nor do we seek that control. We can ask questions about anything that the spirit moves us to ask about, but a Senate committee is not the place to go to to tell an editor to put this in the paper and not that.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: I want to clarify that I am not implying that, but what I am asking —
The Chairman: None of which diminishes your concerns about covering agriculture and rural life, I understand that.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: What I am asking is, are there criteria that newspapers use? Are there standard criteria or is it just up to an editor of whatever paper?
Senator Munson: Well, you were the editor. You explain it. You were at The Gazette.
The Chairman: I would say that there are certain elementary rules that people follow. For example, does it seem to be accurate, is it intelligible, grammatical, fair, will we be sued for liable and is it of interest to a broad swath of our readers, not all of them necessarily? However, every publication will then apply those criteria differently and even apply them in the same publication differently over time, depending on who is the editor in question. Therefore, there is no easy answer to what you are asking. You have a good platform today, though.
Senator Munson: I just want to say that we are in a public forum. Senator Fraser talked about asking questions, but it is public forum. The media have been here. Maybe somebody can recognize the talent that you have, including all of the newspapers owned by the Irving family, and take a good look at the work that you do and who you represent — as you say, the 50 per cent who live in rural New Brunswick. It sounds to me as if you are offering a unique service and I am rather surprised that, as you say, there is not that much writing about agriculture in this province. I just add my support to your cause.
I got $20 for an article I wrote for the Edmonton Journal last week. I have not cashed it yet.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: The interesting thing is when I have approached a few papers, and a few journalists have approached them on my behalf, I might add, I have never asked for money, because I feel it is important for people to understand those in rural areas, our perspective and how we think, and I am just interested in making sure that that side of issues is heard. It is not about money for me. I feel it is a view that is not heard often and is needed.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I do not know if there was any confusion between being a freelance journalist and writing letters to the editor. Sometimes, a letter to the editor can be quite a long piece about an issue, even in our big national papers. If you feel there is a subject that should be covered, be it rural childcare, something to do with the mines or BSE and our New Brunswick farmers, I think you have the opportunity to have not just atwo-paragraph letter, but maybe an eight-paragraph letter published. However, it is certainly up to the publisher of the paper to decide whether to hire you as a freelance writer, or anyone else. That is a hiring decision. However, you do have the right to put your opinions in the paper, and I have seen them. They get in.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Yes, I have written many editorials, and I am not quite clear —
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Not editorials, but letters to the editor.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Or letters to the editor, yes, and I am not quite clear on why certain ones get in and others do not. However, I do take that avenue now, as much as possible.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know some people who write a lot of letters to the editor. Editors will say, "Well, we had two of his last month, so we will make that person wait another month maybe,'' because they certainly do not all get published. I do not think it is necessarily the subject; it is the frequency of writing so that they give many people a chance.
The Chairman: I can confirm that. Very few newspapers publish anywhere near all the letters that they get.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Oh, definitely not.
The Chairman: They do try to give a fair shot to as many people as possible, which can make it hard on the keen and frequent writers.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Could I just say one last thing? When you do not have that opportunity in papers, and in hearing a lot about the control of papers in New Brunswick, I wonder, if you do not get into one in the province, how do you get into another?
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Thorne-Dykstra.
I will now call on Mr. Eric Tobin.
Mr. Eric Tobin, as an individual: I wanted to make a comment before I started. I have four children, one of whom is not in professional employment, but my other three, through this world of precarious employment, are a consultant, an accountant, and another is employed with the Irvings in the transport industry. They are all, by the nature of what is happening in North America, in communications right now. That has something to do with the term the economists have invented, "precarious employment,'' whereby you are hired for 40 hours a week. If you are not prepared to work 60 hours for the same money, there is somebody waiting for your job. There is no loyalty that I can see in either direction, and maybe that is the way it should be.
Anyway, I will just make my comments because I have used up a minute already.
I was first alerted in this Lawrence Martin article, dated March 3, "In press v. the People, the Liberals take a bruising,'' and it pointed out that all of the large media have come out in favour of the missile shield, while 75 per cent of the Canadian people are opposed to it, and that is a problem.
Also, there is this tendency in all the media to look for a story. There is a feeding frenzy right now on having an election, andI have to say one of the places where this has been most prevalent recently is in the Moncton Times & Transcript. It is becoming a feature, and this is the April 13 edition. The editorial is pushing the issue. "It's time for a change,'' and then, here is the next one, "Liberals are morally lacking.'' "It's time for an election.'' It ends up on April 14 with, "Time to let the people judge.'' "We say the Liberal Party and the present government have lost any moral authority they might have had to continue governing. It's time to ask the people again.''
Bill C-24 changed the funding of elections in 1999. Between articles like this and Mr. Harper, they have now said "Well, what the heck, we will not be paying for it any more. Let's have another election.'' I think it was Mr. Schopenhauer, the philosopher who was the inspiration for Mr. Freud and Freud made a mess of it, who said:
In that resistance of the will to allowing what is contrary to it to come under the examination of the intellect lies the place at which madness can break in upon the mind.
We have that in the media right now, in demanding we have an election. I am happy that we do have media you can actually communicate with, and I had the occasion recently to question an editorial in The Globe and Mail about Justice Iacobucci. I said this editorial does not do Mr. Iacobucci — and I am not being facetious here — justice, because it is misrepresenting the context of his Supreme Court persona, and the assistant editor agreed with me that there was considerable controversy about the editorial. The problem is The Globe and Mail, under Mr. Thorsell was a little to the right. The new editorial staff have moved it to being right wing. However, I will write you a letter.
The Chairman: Thank you. You will have to because I have to cut you off now.
Mr. Tobin: Yes, I just want to make —
The Chairman: No, you cannot. We have to go now to questions.
Senator Munson: Well, sir, I will give you the opportunity. You wanted to make one more point, so I will not ask a question if you want to get something off your mind. Those media people are something else, are they not? They drive me nuts.
Mr. Tobin: Well, actually, I do not mind. I called the National Post a few weeks ago after reading the statements in two or three parts of the National Post of what Dale Orr of Global Insight had to say.
Senator Munson: You wanted to say something there. Go ahead.
Mr. Tobin: I got a call from Terrence Corcoran wanting to know why I called, and we had a little debate.
I want to say that the National Post seems determined to wipe out the CBC, which is the one place where I think you can find objective truth. I will just refer to two comments, one from Shelagh Rogers, who is a music person, that now, when she talks to the provinces, it is like she is talking to 10 different countries, and this has evolved from the creation of a Council of the Federation. I happen to be the one who in 1992 at the constitutional conference on institutional reform objected to a council of the federation, which was not Jean Charest's idea at all. It was the idea of Mel Smith of the Van Dusen era and Bill Bennett; that is where that came from. The council of the federation as proposed would have removed the Senate as the mediator between the provinces and the federal government; it was irrelevant then, and it is irrelevant now.
I think that is enough for now.
I wrote down my additional comments, because I sat down for three hours last night and never stopped writing about things that could be said about the media.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. Tobin, I think it would be wonderful if you wrote to us tomorrow, or Monday or Tuesday, to tell us what your reaction is to the coverage of these two historic speeches tonight — and they represent two very different points of view — by Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper. You could you let us know whether you think the coverage is fair or not.
Mr. Tobin: Sure.
The Chairman: Just write us a letter. It does not have to be an endless dissertation, but it would be nice to know what you think.
Mr. Tobin: Okay, because I think the freedom of expression in the Charter concerns not just what I say, it concerns what is said to me.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We want to know what you think.
The Chairman: In the meantime, let me say how nice it is to hear a defender of the Senate. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobin.
Mr. Tobin: I have to say I caused Pierre De Bané and Ghislaine Dufour to do a high-five. As an ordinary Canadian, as I put on my form there, I was chosen to participate in those workshops on Senate reform. I challenged Westerners to recognize that if they did not trust the politicians from Québec, they should at least trust the people of Québec.
The Chairman: Good for you. What a lovely closing line. Thank you, Mr. Tobin.
Our next presenter, senators, is Mr. Charles LeBlanc.
Mr. Charles LeBlanc, as an individual: I just want to apologize. I am what you call a blogger, so I was in and out on the computer down there. There are a hundred people outside who want to know what is going on.
I have a point of concern before I start. About a month ago, two months ago, I said that I wanted to make a presentation. In the past, I have made presentations in front of standing committees in New Brunswick. They told me yesterday I only have four minutes. I was not allowed to make a presentation like everybody else. Could you tell me why?
The Chairman: Essentially, sir, the problem is we only have a little over a day and a half here. We would like to have more time; we would like to have a week, but we do not.
Mr. LeBlanc: Who chose these people?
The Chairman: The steering committee of the Transport and Communications Committee has spent a long time looking at the long list of possible witnesses, and I am very sorry if you feel you have not been treated justly, but we are doing the best we can.
Mr. LeBlanc: I just wanted to go on record because I was told this morning that people in B.C. had four minutes, and also in New Brunswick. You cannot compare the population of New Brunswick to B.C. There are more media, more newspapers in B.C. than here. Here we have a major problem.
But I have ADHD, attention deficit hyperactive disorder. I like to take my time on issues, but this morning I apologize for the way I am. I hitched a ride from Fredericton. Sorry, I should take my hat off, but I hitchhiked from Fredericton to be here. I just want to go on record that I have been, as the senator from Sackville knows, very outspoken. I am the most outspoken citizen in this province on this issue. I will try to relax so I can concentrate on the issue at hand, but I only have four minutes.
The Chairman: I will give you five minutes, how is that?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Because you hitchhiked all the way here.
Mr. LeBlanc: I hitchhiked, yes, and believe me I had to listen to two writers who were complaining about what I am talking about. They agree with me 100 per cent.
Okay, here we go and I will try to put in everything I can. I hate to rush, but when I was told yesterday, four minutes, I said, "Oh my God, that is almost impossible.''
I was born in Memramcook. I lived in Saint John for 18 years. I have worked at the Irving shipyard and I am now living in Fredericton. I started to write letters to the editor of l'Évangéline, which is a French paper, and I enjoy writing. I enjoy spreading my views to other people. I have a column in the River Valley News. Maybe it has not been bought yet by the Irvings, I do not know why. Maybe the Irvings know what is going on through this paper. That is why they are not buying it. I am allowed to write anything I want. I will leave you a copy. It is a biweekly paper that is now owned by Irving.
During the frigate program issue, I was very well known in Saint John for writing letters to the editor. I wrote and had printed 500 letters to the editor. Not too many people in this province can say that. If I wrote letters supporting the Irvings, they would turn around and say, "Oh, what a suck-up.'' If I wrote against them, they would say, "Hey, don't you know who your boss is?'' Well, I could have written on both sides, but I had the right to condemn the Irvings, had the right to praise the Irvings.
Then something happened. I was working for a company and I had a protest going on in front of the Golden Ball, and the next thing you know there was a story in the Evening Times-Globe stating that Charles LeBlanc was fired three times. That was not true, and they allowed me to write a short letter to the editor, but the damage had already been done in terms of Saint Johners knowing the truth. That is how the Irvings run it.
We heard a lot about Jamie Irving. Jamie Irving is a nice kid. I met Jamie, a very nice guy. When I found out he was the editor, the publisher, of the Kings County Record — I am talking fast because I only have four minutes and there are some many issues — I said "Okay, he is a good kid.'' Then I walked through McAllister Place and saw a picture on the Kings County Record, "J.D. Irving Sawmill record production.'' It was on the front page of the Kings County Record and should have been in the workplace. What was it doing on the front page of the Kings County Record that J.D. Irving Sawmill produced record products?
Then there was a big pollution spill in West Saint John on Christmas Day. I wrote a letter to the editor about it. It was denied. I do not know what was going on. There were changes made. I made a complaint to the Atlantic Press Council, and Ken Sims from Halifax was surprised when I told him I wrote 500 letters to the editor. He said, "500? My God, there is a procedure here. Then suddenly they stop. We will investigate this.'' Peter Haggert, who is from Ontario, and the publisher of the Telegraph-Journal, called me and said, "We will not print critical letters of the Irvings by former employees.'' I turned around and said, "Okay, so that means if there are 6,000 people in the shipyard who are former employees, they cannot write letters to the paper.'' Then when I wrote a letter to the EveningTimes-Globe, I was told, "We have to investigate what you wrote.'' I said, "Investigate? I wrote 500 letters to the editor. Why do you suddenly have to investigate?''
In the summer of 2003, Peter Haggert from the Telegraph-Journal wrote a column to tell the readers, "We will only print one letter by one writer on any issues once a month.'' I was shocked. Now they are stopping people from writing letters to the paper. Three weeks later, they announced that Saint John Shipbuilding was closed. Those three regular writers who wrote about the shipyard had their say, and then they had to wait a whole month. That is not right. New Brunswickers' rights are being denied, and that is what I am very concerned about.
In the summer of 2003, I decided to set up a tent in front of the legislature and I was protesting against the use of Ritalin for ADHD, against young kids, five years old, being forced to take these drugs, and the next thing you know, it took 50 days for the press, the Daily Gleaner, to cover this story. The Irving press never covered this story.
We are not talking about a tent in a cow field. It was in front of the legislature. The citizens of Fredericton — I am sorry I am talking so fast — were wondering, "How come we have never seen this in the Gleaner?'' It took 50 days. Suddenly, they stole my tent. To make a long story short, I got good coverage in the end, but it took 50 days.
I turned around and came here to Champlain Place to collect names for my petition. I collected 10,000 signatures and the Acadians, les Acadiens, knew who I was because l'Acadie Nouvelle covered this story. The Moncton Transcript never did — the English side. This is what I am talking about.
The Chairman: I do not like having to cut anybody off.
Mr. LeBlanc: It is a shame.
The Chairman: I do not like it; we do not like it. However, you are not the only one we need to hear from.
Mr. LeBlanc: No, I made a presentation.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Mr. LeBlanc, I think there is no doubt that in the end, you have made a very important point about Ritalin and ADHD. I know you as a person who has taken a strong, valid and important position on ADHD. Do you feel satisfied in the end? It is like it was for Terry Fox; you do not get recognition right away. Do you feel now that you have achieved your goal?
Mr. LeBlanc: No, I understand your question, but as I said, I had to speak so fast. It had nothing to do with whether I reached my goal on Ritalin. My goal is freedom of speech; that is the problem. Frank McKenna came to see me when I was protesting, I met him in Fredericton. I have known him for a long time. He came to me and said, "Charles, how come we have not seen any letters from you lately?'' It is freedom of speech. I do not want to compare the Irvings in this province to Germany. We do not go around executing people. However, do not forget, when Hitler took power, he took power over the media.
The media here, they call it Brunswick News, is "Irving News.'' On my issue of Ritalin, did I succeed? I do not know, but this is not the point. The point is that people, New Brunswickers, be allowed freedom of speech; they are being denied it big time.
Like I said, I wish I could have made my presentation in whole. We were talking about advertising. I heard one person from the Telegraph-Journal say, "If you do not pay your bills, we own all the newspapers.'' I am just trying to answer a question and get some more time here.
The Irvings gave St. Thomas University $1 million to study journalism, to train journalists. Why did the Irvings give $1 million to St. Thomas and l'Université de Moncton? These people, when they graduate, will not write critical stories about the Irvings. It is freedom of speech.
The Chairman: Mr. LeBlanc, I will give Senator Munson a chance to ask a question if he wants to, but I will also ask you, because we are running out of time — and you do a blog so you know how to email — if you could please send us a letter outlining your difficulties. In the meantime, I will undertake tomorrow, when we have representatives of Brunswick News here, to ask if they have a written policy on letters to the editor.
Senator Munson: If there is another message you want to give us, I would certainly accept that.
Mr. LeBlanc: I really appreciate that. One thing that I was concerned about is that during the 1997 federal election,J.K. Irving wrote a letter to the editor and it was printed on the front page. I did not know what was going on, but maybe it was good, because Paul Zed lost. Maybe that is why he lost, because J.K. Irving told the public to vote for his son-in-law, but we will never know. The question is still there.
I was allowed, a week later, to condemn J.K. and his letters to the editor, and I have seen him face to face. Trust me, he just looked at me and said, "I own the paper and I will put the damn letter anywhere I want to.'' That is his point. However, the bottom line is, personally, I respect the Irvings. J.D. Irving,J.K. Irving's son, is totally out of control. It is like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons. "I will crush you with my bare hands.''
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. You made your point to us here.
Mr. LeBlanc: My blog is Charles LeBlanc, ADHD.
The Chairman: Thanks very much.
[Translation]
I would now invite Mr. Gilles Haché.
Mr. Gilles Haché, Le Moniteur acadien, as an individual: Madam Chair, I am the owner of the Moniteur Acadien. I believe that we are a rare breed in New Brunswick, that is, an independent newspaper in the southeastern part of the province.
The Chair: Is it a weekly?
Mr. Haché: Yes, in the southeastern part of New Brunswick. When I bought Le Moniteur eight years ago, I had a competitor in Kent county. My operations are in Westmorland county. My competitor received a grant of $145,000 from the Department of Human Resources and Development to increase his coverage and thus to penetrate my area. When I bought the paper, I had a circulation of 5,000 copies, whereas his was of 30,000 copies. After nine months, my competitor went bankrupt, so the Irving Group stepped in and took control of the paper, but not that paper since it closed down, but it launched other papers with a circulation of 30,000 as well.
At the time, they covered the entire territory. But they have now split in two. There is the Étoile du Sud-Est et the Étoile de Kent. I am more or less stuck between both. I have a circulation of 5,000 copies. I cover my costs. What I find hard is working with a paper which is not really a paper at all. I say it is not a paper because it is simply used to put the flyers into bags. When you get it, it is used as a cover to put into the bags.
The Chair: It is what we call a "shopper'' in good French.
Mr. Haché: Yes, a "shopper''. They do not cover town assemblies, they just write about certain people. However, I think the main point to their existence is to sell advertising space, because when cutbacks are made at the paper, they let the reporters go first. So we wonder what their motives may be, is it to cover the news or to sell advertising space? I think it is the latter.
Another point concerns prices. It is not normal that they sell their papers at the same price I sell mine because their circulation is three times higher than mine. Their price should be much higher. Though often they compete against me with lower prices.
I had made a booklet for an economic council in New Brunswick, but I wanted to distribute it in Kent. The Irving Group also controls the ad bags, Public-sac, and I had asked them to put the booklet into the ad bag, and they said yes and asked me to send it to the Times & Transcript, which also belongs to the Irvings. When they opened the bag, they said "we cannot include it, there is advertising''. I said "yes, I know, that is why I want it in the bag and why I do not want to insert it in the Étoile'', which is the Kent paper. They told me that both papers belonged to them. So I had to take back my copies, fold everything and put everything in the mail, which cost me three times as much.
The Irving Group controls everything. Their advantage is that apart from the profits they make with their newspaper, they sell the paper and distribute it in the bag. They make money at every stage. They have a $20 million press, and the more they use it, the more economical it is. That is why they make more money than us with lower costs. Since I bought the paper, I have not really been able to improve it or increase circulation. I have to stick to the shore because I cannot venture out into choppier waters, since that is where they make part of their money.
Allow me to give you another example. When I worked for the Acadie Nouvelle's printing shop, we printed a car magazine called Auto Sellers; and in order to be allowed to sell the magazine through Irving convenient stores, we had to use Irving paper. That meant that if, for example, we normally bought Bowater paper, we would have to buy Irving paper to print the magazine. It is this sort of control over our activities which irritates us and puts us in a difficult situation.
I would like to make one last point. In the Madawaska region, there used to be two newspapers in competition with one another, Madawaska and Info Week-End. The Irving group bought over Madawaska and subsequently launched a weekender called République to drive Info Week-End, an ads-bag circulated paper, out of the market. They launched a paper similar to InfoWeek-End; that is what they do, they create competition and then slowly squeeze the life blood from their competitors. It is all of that which makes things difficult; they are putting us under constant pressure.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Haché.
[English]
Senator Munson: Is there anything else you would like to add to that, because I know this four-minute time limit seems to be tight for everybody?
The Chairman: It is rough.
M. Haché: No, I am done.
Senator Munson: However, you are having a difficult time competing?
M. Haché: Yes.
Senator Munson: In the present climate that you work and live in?
[Translation]
Mr. Haché: The arrival of another paper on the market does not lead to people placing more advertisements. I live in Shédiac, and my problem is that in the summer people do not place advertisements, because there are a lot of tourists and everyone is operating at full capacity; However, nor do they place advertisements in winter, because everything is shut. We have to find other funding sources, or other means of bringing in money.
The Chairman: I have two questions for you. Am I right in thinking that if you wish to sell your newspaper through Irving convenient stores, that is to say through their gas stations, you have to buy Irving newsprint?
Mr. Haché: I was not speaking about my own newspaper; it was what we had to do for one of the magazines we printed when I was working for a printing shop, that is why I know about it. They had to use Irving paper if they wanted to be able to sell their magazine.
The Chairman: And when you say that they seek to eliminate the competition, is that a supposition that you are making, or have you seen them take measures to that effect? Have they admitted that this is their objective?
Mr. Haché: Allow me to give you an example. It is the case of a woman who worked at the paper and who took maternity leave. During her absence, the employer took on another employee to further weaken the woman's position. That is another thing which annoys me.
The Chairman: I understand, but are you getting by?
Mr. Haché: Yes. I have been managing for the past seven years; I am not rich, but neither am I poor.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. Claude Bourque. Welcome, Mr. Bourque.
Mr. Claude Bourque, as an individual: Madam Chairman, I was chief editor and director of the daily newspaper Évangéline in the 1970s, and following that I was news editor and regional director of French services at Radio-Canada for the Atlantic provinces.
I would like to make a general observation. I think that it is important to bear in mind that the face of journalism has radically changed. For the past 30 years, journalists were the public's only source of information; however, nowadays, journalists' lives have been greatly complicated by the communications industry and government as well as private sector communications officers. This is something which must be kept in mind; it is complicated, and I do not want to get into the details.
I think that our situation in New Brunswick is truly unique. For 20 years, some 20 to 25 years after the Davy Commission, calm reigned in the Irving press empire; however, over the past five to ten years, we have noted a radical change in the market and the emergence of trends which are worrying for Acadians. Until now, the Irving empire were not active in the French-speaking press; however, their tentacles are today slowly reaching for the daily newspaper Acadie Nouvelle.
Although the committee's intentions are noble, I do not believe that you have much room to maneuver on the issue of media concentration and the Irving Group. We have seen what has happened over the past 30 years. I would like to stress how important it is that you do not simply step back and let things continue. It is all very well to say that governments should never get involved, but that is simply not true. You have to consider New Brunswick as being in a unique situation. The Irving empire publishes some good newspapers, but you have to look at the whole picture. They are the fish in a small pond, and there is not much room for anyone else.
I have two recommendations to make, the first of which pertains to CBC/Radio-Canada services. The government and CBC/Radio-Canada have to consider New Brunswick as an exception and increase the number of journalists, both for news and for current and public affairs, in order to guarantee diversity of opinion, as well as creating a ripple effect in order to create leveraging on the other media, and ensuring that information cannot be hidden.
My second recommendation concerns the trust fund used for distribution, which worries the representatives from Acadie Nouvelle. I see this as an example of how a government can act for the good of a community by funding distribution; by getting involved and setting up an independent trust fund. There may well be problems related to interest rates, but I believe that such an initiative is an example of how governments can act to minimize market forces. It is very important.
I hope that you will have a lot of questions for Ms. Marie-Linda Lord tomorrow morning on how the Irving Study Chair and newspaper program are managed. Their actions thus far have left me confused. The Irving group is in the process of buying and launching French-language newspapers, as well as trying to get its hands on our daily French- language paper and trying to work its way into the university's department of journalism. I understand the university's dilemma. An empire such as the Irving group is not only interested in corporate philanthropy, but in their own family and business interests. They may well be excellent business people, but you must keep media concentration in mind. CanWest would be far less problematic for New Brunswick, as it is not a family business. The Irving group's economic control in New Brunswick should worry not only the Senate but also, and even more so, the Government and the legislature of New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I will speak in English because I do not want to be incorrect in what I say. I gather, from you and two or three others, there is currently a fear about the future of French-language written media in New Brunswick?
[Translation]
Is that currently a fear?
Mr. Bourque: It is not so much a fear, as a sense of foreboding. Acadians are worried of losing control of their weeklies and, eventually, of seeing the Irving group take control of their daily or launch another one to compete with it. Acadian history has shown that from the time Renaissance Acadienne became a newspaper, the press has always played an important role in the development of the Acadian people and in defending their interests. That is why our unique situation must be taken into consideration; we need to control our means of communication, not necessarily all of them, but a daily newspaper is of significant importance, as our week-end papers, and that is why we are concerned by the Irving group's control. From my understanding, strategic plans entail risk analysis, so why is it that the threat to such a small province is not being analyzed? We are going to reach the point where there will be nobody other than the Irving group in New Brunswick.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Would it not be possible for the Irving group's financial strength to help get the Acadian voice heard? Are you saying that the two cannot work together?
Mr. Bourque: I do not exactly understand what you mean. Are you saying that we could be happy with the situation were the Irving Group to control our daily? I do not think that would be possible.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You would not have the Acadian voice if the money was coming from that group?
[Translation]
Mr. Bourque: We Acadians believe that it is important to control our own means of communication. There is no society in the world which would want to hand over control of its media to a third party. I have seen how Irving newspapers handle issues important to the French-speaking community, even in Moncton. They often show a lack of understanding of the greater interests of the Acadian people, be it on their front pages, or through their editorial stands.
The Chairman: Is the idea of looking for French-speaking allies in Quebec also of no interest to you?
Mr. Bourque: We want to maintain a certain autonomy, to be able to take on responsibilities as Acadians; we want to have tools available to us, and not have to depend on others. We spent 150 years fighting for tools to ensure our development and freedom.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is it true that the Irving family have made a significant contribution to Acadian cultural life in New Brunswick?
Mr. Bourque: I am not denying the importance of the Irving family's corporate philanthropy, even if we were wondering what they were actually going to do for a certain period of time. The problem is that the province is too small. If the Irving family did not have such a tight grip on New Brunswick's industry and economy, the situation would be less problematic both in terms of freedom of the press and democracy in New Brunswick. You cannot overlook all the other industries which are financially involved with the Irving Group. I do not believe this to be an immediate concern, but it nonetheless important. It is important that the Irving Group understand that they cannot be the only player; the ought to show discipline and follow the example of McCain, they should seek to expand in another province rather than simply trying to do so in New Brunswick.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bourque. I am sorry to cut you off.
Mr. Bourque: It is quite all right. Thank you.
The Chairman: I try to be fair with everybody.
[English]
I will now ask Mr. Kevin Matthews to come forward, please.
Mr. Kevin Matthews, Max Media Ltd., as an individual: Thank you.
I am an independent documentary filmmaker and have worked in various parts of the media in New Brunswick, mostly television, for the last 25 years. I am here today to speak to you about what I see as a very necessary, immediate and effective solution to the problem in New Brunswick of the Irving print media monopoly.
I, as well as many New Brunswickers and other Canadians who are aware of it, feel that it is unacceptable, and contrary to a free, independent media and the right to free speech, that one family and corporate empire owns all but three of 15 English weekly and daily newspapers in New Brunswick.
As you may know, the Irving empire has begun to buy some of the French weeklies in the province. The Irving family, through its wide spectrum of industrial and business interests in New Brunswick, controls much of the local and important resources in the province and, essentially, has an iron grip on the economic well-being of all New Brunswick people. The Irving success is based on vertical integration, controlling resources, means of production and, through sheer size, a large pool of labour. With such complete economic power in the hands of one family, a very big fish in a small pond, they also control much of the political life of the people and their communities, from the provincial legislature through to city governments, town councils and rural municipalities. With such enormous economic and political power, and with, essentially, complete control of the print media, it would be nothing less than absurd to suggest that that print media is in any manner independent, open, unbiased, fair, or even objective. This is the fox in charge of the henhouse, and control of the media is like the fox having the key to the front door and choosing when and how much that door will be opened to shed light on the conditions under which the chickens must live.
My direct experience with the Irving media is through the launch of a documentary film titled Forbidden Forest, about the people of New Brunswick who depend on the forest for a livelihood. I made this documentary with the National Film Board of Canada and the CBC's Nature of Things and it was released in November 2004 as part of the Tidal Wave Film Festival. The launch of Forbidden Forest was a gala event organized by the CBC, with Dr. David Suzuki present, but it was also the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Nature of Things, a double-billing event.
The venue was the Fredericton Playhouse and was sold out; there were a number of disappointed people out front who could not get tickets. Though there was good coverage on CBC radio and TV and in the French New Brunswick media, there was no coverage of the event in any of the New Brunswick English-language Irving-owned daily newspapers. After all of the advance press releases coming from the CBC and formal invitations sent out to the media, and given that this was a film about forestry, a very important part of the Irving empire's industrial complex, and that in New Brunswick we had one of Canada's top ten most popular Canadians, Dr. David Suzuki, there was essentially nothing but dead silence from the Irving media. Even in the weeks following, when Forbidden Forest toured the province for community screenings, there was no coverage in the Irving media.
Here you have an issue, forestry, an important New Brunswick industry upon which a good part of the Irving empire is based. They own two large pulp and paper mills, two tissue production plants and eight sawmills spread throughout the province, and hold a significant interest in who knows how many otherforest-related businesses. On top of this, the Irving empire controls at least one-third of the public Crown forest lands in the province.
Given the enormous power and control of this family dynasty over the forest industry, I ask, does anyone in their right mind truly believe that on an issue so important to the Irving empire and to the people of this province, that the launch of the film, Forbidden Forest, did not in any way warrant any coverage in any of the Irving daily print media? Did not Dr. David Suzuki, so popular with Canadians, coming to New Brunswick not warrant some acknowledgement in any of the major Irving media? The solution to the problem —
The Chairman: You are running into overtime, so please give us your solutions.
Mr. Matthews: The solution to the problem of the media monopoly is a simple one. The federal government, through Heritage Canada or other government agencies, must establish a trust fund that will allow for the creation of an English daily newspaper that will be independent of any political manipulation.
There is an example of that in this province in the French print media, and that is the daily newspaper, L'Acadie Nouvelle. L'Acadie Nouvelle operates under an $8 million trust fund established by the federal and provincial governments. The trust fund pretty much guarantees the survival of an unbiased, objective, independent voice in the French print media. Creating at least one independent English newspaper in New Brunswick will give English-speaking — and French-speaking, for that matter — people the trust that at least there is a possibility of getting the whole story and objective views on issues that concern all the people of New Brunswick. If an independent English voice in the print media does not exist, then we can expect to continue to live in darkness when it comes to knowing the full truth about issues of importance.
The Chairman: I take it that this is the film?
Mr. Matthews: That is the film, yes, and there is the brochure.
Senator Munson: Well, you have made your point.
Mr. Matthews: Too quickly.
Senator Munson: I know that.
The Chairman: However, we have your document.
Senator Munson: On the issue of a trust fund, how can a newspaper be independent if it gets money from federal and provincial governments?
Mr. Matthews: As I understand it, the trust fund set up for L'Acadie Nouvelle is invested in stocks and they draw the interest from that. Then they pay for their operating expenses outside of that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We were told that that money is only used for distribution purposes. We asked about it.
Mr. Matthews: Yes, distribution costs, whatever.
The Chairman: I think the point there is that L'Acadie Nouvelle cannot survive just on the basis of the trust fund. It also has to have readers, advertisers, subscribers. The model that they outlined to us was one where they specifically separated out, if you will, the subsidy element from journalism.
Mr. Matthews: Sure, I understand that, but I believe that if you had an English newspaper, it would end up being able to cover its own costs and would not need a trust fund. I think there is enough interest in this province in an independent paper. People are tired of not getting the news.
Are there any other questions?
The Chairman: You have another 30 seconds to give your opinion.
Mr. Matthews: I have driven all the way from Fredericton. This takes me two hours.
The Chairman: I am so sorry.
Mr. Matthews: I came all the way from the north of the province. I got home at three o'clock in the morning, to turn around and come down here to tell you that, basically, we live in a futile state effectively, the way things are set up at this moment. You had a past editor saying that, effectively, the Irvings would not squeeze every nickel out of the newspaper, but the Irving empire is squeezing every nickel out of the people of this province. The problem is that we are not hearing about it, we are not getting the full story. I do not know how much you know about two issues of late, the LNG and the tax break that they got on that.
The Chairman: We are learning.
Mr. Matthews: On Lepreau, for example, there is no investigative reporting at all on what is actually behind that. When you talk about the Assessment Act in this province, you are talking about Louis Robichaud, who fought for 10 years against K.C. Irving to bring in fair taxation in this province, and it is being destroyed in one stroke. You do not get any background information on what the Assessment Act is. In fact if any reporters cared to look at the Assessment Act, they would see that the Irvings get huge exemptions on anything to do with their petroleum business. We do not get the news, period. What we get is basically regurgitation. We do not, in any sense, get investigative reporting.
The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, thank you so much. I appreciate your frustration.
Mr. Matthews: I am not frustrated. I am just trying to get my point across in what little time I have.
The Chairman: Your frustration with us and our time limits. That is what I am saying I appreciate. The issues you raise are serious and important and you have made your case eloquently. We thank you very much for it. It will be on the record.
Mr. Matthews: You are welcome.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We now have Mr. Maurice Rainville, whom we spoke about earlier. Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Maurice Rainville, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. I began working at the University of Moncton in 1963 as a professor of philosophy; from 1983 until my retirement in 1996, I was a professor of information ethics. I was ombudsman for the Presse acadienne, set up by the Association canadienne des journalistes, for the first two years of its existence. Twice a month, I am called upon to write editorials for the Acadie Nouvelle; indeed, I wrote one this very morning about which I will speak extensively, as there are some points which are important to know but which cannot be expressed in an editorial due to word count restrictions.
I am gravely concerned. In my opinion, the situation of the press in New Brunswick requires federal government intervention, and I am thinking of New Brunswick as a whole, not just Acadians, although, as a French speaker, the lot of Acadians is particularly important to me. In New Brunswick, democracy, and all the rights it affords our citizens, in particular the right to speak, requires urgent protection. The Parker case speaks volumes about this concern.
Until very recently, Mike Parker was employed by the St. John weekly Here. He published an article in the paper denouncing the excessive privileges granted to the Irving family by the city's local council. What was it that Parker said? In a nutshell, he drew attention to the fact that the Irvings managed to have taxes on their liquefied natural gas terminal frozen at $500,000 a year for the next 25 years. Had the local council not made such a decision, Parker believes that the Irving family would have had to pay between $3 million and $5 million in taxes to the city. The municipal council took the decision shortly after imposing a new tax on the city's residents to fund municipal services. Parker believes that the poverty rate stands at 25 per cent in St. John; yet, he concludes, it will be the citizens of St. John who will pay for the tax break that the Irving Group is set to enjoy for the next 25 years.
From an information ethics perspective, I see nothing scandalous about the article. It seems to me to have been very honestly written, and I cannot find any noteworthy problem. However, Here, the weekly where Parker worked and which he helped to launch, was bought by the Brunswick News group a few months ago, and following the recent publication of his article, Mr. Parker was fired.
This is information that I got from the local French-language press. I have tried to confirm the information with Mr. Parker himself; however, there is only an answering machine at his office, and his home phone is unplugged.
If this does indeed prove to be true, it is deeply worrying. We are left wondering, for example, whether people can still, without fear, exercise freedom of speech to expose injustice, and whether they can do so without suffering reprisals. Some may simply retort "that Parker and his cronies should use another forum to say what they think'', but I imagine that what you have heard this afternoon gives you an idea of whether that is possible. As you know, all of New Brunswick's English-language dailies, and almost all of its weeklies are owned by Brunswick News.
They also own several French-language weeklies, including Madawaska and Hebdo Chaleur; while the others are being outgunned in their struggle against Irving-owned competitors. This is what is happening to Shediac's Moniteur, which Mr. Haché spoke about earlier; it has to deal with the Étoile du Sud-Est being distributed free of charge.
Madam Chair, I would be very grateful if you could agree to study the problem. I would like to share with you in simpleterms and in an open manner my message. The committee has to understand that the people of New Brunswick need morethan just another study to follow on from the Kent, Davy, Caplan-Sauvageau, Godfrey, and Juneau studies, a study which would only reveal things which we are all acutely aware of already. The people of New Brunswick need the government to take the necessary steps to protect their rights and to protect democracy.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You have been most eloquent, but am I correct in saying that you have been unable to confirm why Mr. Parker is no longer working for Brunswick News?
Mr. Rainville: That is correct.
The Chairman: Am I right in saying that there could be several reasons behind his departure?
Mr. Rainville: Indeed.
The Chairman: We are very interested in what you have told us, it is indeed extremely interesting; but, for the moment, nobody knows exactly why he no longer works for the newspaper.
Mr. Rainville: That is correct, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: That poses a problem, but we will be hearing from representatives of Brunswick News tomorrow, and perhaps they will be able to shed some light on the matter.
Mr. Rainville: Allow me to be a little more specific. You are absolutely correct in saying that I have been unable to confirm what the local press have reported on what I term as Mr. Parker's dismissal. The articles in question state that "Mr. Parker has been fired'', however, this is as yet unconfirmed. This "occurrence'', because I presume that it did take place although it remains unconfirmed, provides us with the opportunity to make another point which we are able to confirm, and which is also at the heart of my concerns: virtually all English-language and French-language daily newspapers belong to the Brunswick News group.
Mr. Claude Bourque explained earlier the link that exists between the press business as a business, and the press business as press. Both this situation and monopoly and concentration are ongoing problems, and are, above all else, what lies at the heart of my concerns. The events surrounding Mr. Parker's article gave me the opportunity to air my concerns on the subject.
The Chairman: As I already said, these are subjects of great importance; but, when talking about a particular case, we need details, we need to be sure of what we are saying.
[English]
Senator Munson: At the end of your article you say that the government should take necessary measures to protect rights and freedoms, but you are not specific.
[Translation]
Mr. Rainville: I know, I will try to be more specific. One thing that I could come up with off the cuff is that there are laws on press concentration in Canada. You could take these laws and enforce them. It is going back a fair bit, but if memory serves me well, the Kent Commission made reference to this legislation, but the situation has only worsened since the time of the commission.
Enforcing existing legislation could be a possible solution, but it is not for me to tell the Canadian government how to act. There are perhaps other approaches which would work. You could intervene on the grounds of freedom of speech, and on Charter grounds, because the Charter also makes reference to the freedom of the press. I do not want to see the Irving Group denied freedom of speech or freedom of the press, it has the status of a citizen as well. I would, however, like to see it share the freedoms it enjoys.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I am sorry, but you are out of time.
Mr. Rainville: Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman: It would seem that we have two members of the public, Mr. Jean-Marie Nadeau and Mr. John Murphy, who wish to appear before the committee together.
Mr. Jean-Marie Nadeau, New Brunswick Federation of Labour, as an ithe Individual: Madam Chairman, I have known Senator Munson for 40 years. We will be brief, because this is a very busy time for us. We are in the midst of organizing the biennial convention of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour, which will be held from the 1st to the 4th of May. The federation has 35,000 members and represents 260 union locals from both the private and public sector. I am the federation's executive assistant, and I am also the provincial coordinator for the Common Front for Social Justice, a group which helps people living in poverty to help themselves in order that they gain a little more dignity. Although we did not have time to prepare a brief, we felt it was important to appear before the committee. I am not asking Irving newspapers to be our best friends, I am simply asking them to recognize who we are and what we are trying to do. I am not only speaking on my own behalf, or an individual representing unionized workers and people living in poverty. We are asking the Irving Group to recognize the people whom I represent, in order that they feel part of the public debate, in order that they feel involved in the democratic debate.
It is about having a sense of empowerment. When people take the trouble to speak to the media, they expect at least to find an echo of what they said in their newspaper the next day, especially here in Moncton. I know that the director is here, and I would say the same thing to his face, even though he is sitting behind me at the moment, I have to say that I view this as being a lack of common courtesy. It is a question of respect. As I said at the beginning, we are not asking people to like unions, we have known from the outset that they do not like unions; we are not asking them to become the best friends of the various social groups. All that we are asking is that they at least report what is happening so that people can form their own opinions.
Our plea concerns the issue of democracy in New Brunswick. As an Acadian, I support the comments made by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Rainville about their grave concern as to what the future holds, and the Irving Group's control over French-language newspapers. I am going to leave it to my colleague to give you some concrete examples of what is happening.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy, New Brunswick Federation of Labour, as an individual: Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I heard you talking earlier about, in terms of the media and your hearings, the key buzz word "quality,'' and whether media, particularly print media, are serving the people of the community. I think a lot of people here this afternoon would say, particularly in terms of the Irving print media, they are not. The local newspaper is now gone. A lot of prominent people, some of them retired but in the media business all their lives, have had the opportunity to speak late in the day. Obviously their words will be listened to, recorded and dwelled on by you, but they will not be reported in tomorrow's Times & Transcript for sure. They are gone.
I looked for coverage of these hearings, the fact you were coming here, in this week's Times & Transcript. I found it nowhere as a news story, but I certainly found it as a paid advertisement buried on the back page.
Yes, changes are due, and I will get specifically to recommendations. I have heard some people come close to where I am going, and certainly on behalf of the labour movement, we have had resolutions over my 33 years with the New Brunswick Federation of Labour, at the time of the Davey commission, the time of the Kent royal commission, that we need less media print concentration in this province, more so than ever before. There must be forced diversification of some of the holdings of the Irvings — there must be — and hopefully, you will take that into account. Why not a print version of the CBC funded by the taxpayers of this country? I have absolutely no qualms about that, and I know a lot of our members would not. We do it on the electronic side of public coverage and reporting. It is critical to a properly functioning society, a properly informed society. It is long overdue. I suggest you give it some serious consideration. In additional to the national coverage, there would naturally be community spinoffs and that would allow organizations like the Moncton local newspaper, le Mascaret, struggling to survive like the Acadian Monitor, to continue. If nothing else, if we cannot have a publicly owned print CBC, then certainly the Irving media should be forced to divest, because they do control the distribution — you have heard about that from the earlier speakers — of these types of publications that offer an alternate perspective on issues critical to society.
I will end because I know I am running out of time. After 33 years this summer in the trade union movement, I have had a working relationship with the Times & Transcript and the other Irving media. Naturally, I do not have time to talk about the better years versus the current years, since new publishers came to town. The past Labour Day edition of the Times & Transcript had front page coverage of a research story out of the Fraser Institute linking high rates of unionization and strict labour laws to lower productivity. It is bad enough that it was the front page story on Labour Day weekend, but it only quoted the author of that research document. There was no commentary from anybody else on what they thought of that particular research item. Then three days later, for whatever reasons, they finally decided to seek another view. They went to what we call a right-wing think tank, the Atlantic Institute for Management Studies, or AIMS, if I have the name correct, and got an extensive, exhaustive commentary from its head, and one other commentary from the Minister of Business New Brunswick, who took issue with the story. However, there was nothing from the trade union movement, which is what the story was all about. Is that balanced journalism? I suggest not. I was so annoyed, and I have sent more than one letter to this newspaper that has not been printed. I sent another one September 15, 2004, and I will leave it with you.
The Chairman: Please do.
Mr. Murphy: At the end it says:
I think the readers deserve an explanation. Why is it that the Times & Transcript refuses to give fair coverage to organized labour and other social action organizations — what you call special interest groups — but doesn't hesitate to always carry the views of the business community and right wing think tanks? Are they not special interests groups? Or could it be that you prefer to slant the news?
That is what it is about, New Brunswick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, and do please leave us a copy of your letter.
Senator Munson: I just want to go over very briefly the concept of a French print version of the CBC. Who would run it? Who would have the courage to step up to the plate?
Mr. Murphy: We found the ways and the means in this country, through our government, to structure the CBC. I think we can find the ways and means to structure and run, independently of government insofar as possible, a print CBC. We do not want to get into how you can do that, but it is possible.
Senator Munson: Well, it is not happening now. What do you predict will happen in the future, in the next 10, 15, 20 years? Will the lay of the land, the communications land of New Brunswick, just stay the same?
Mr. Murphy: No, no. It is gradually but certainly getting worse, not better. You have heard that from people who work in the industry, not just me. They are buying up everything. I very much fear, as do a lot of Acadians, that the next one to be taken over by the Irving print media will be l'Acadie Nouvelle. It is a matter of time, or they will be squeezed out of business totally.
[Translation]
Mr. Nadeau: I have two comments to make. Radio-Canada Internet and CTV Internet could also be expanded; the more news there is, the better things will be. I would have no problem with Global, even in written format. I should also point out that, since February, I have been the new columnist at Acadie Nouvelle. Thankfully I am a French-speaker, because given my opinions, I do not think that I would get a job with an Irving newspaper.
The Chair: If it is any consolation to you, the representatives from Acadie Nouvelle, who were here earlier, explained that it would be virtually impossible for them to be bought due to the way they are currently structured.
Mr. Nadeau: Impossible is not a French word, nor it is a word in the Irving Group's vocabulary. That is the way it is.
[English]
The Chairman: Well, there are lots of lines about impossibility and I will not take up your time with them.
The justification for the CBC was initially, and still is, essentially, that there is a limit to the number of available broadcast frequencies and it is in the public interest to have some of them consecrated to public broadcasting. Indeed, that is the justification for all regulation of broadcasting. There is no such inherent limitation on the number of newspapers, and that is why not all, but most of the journalists and the people who are actually connected with the press who have appeared before us have said, "Do not even think about a print CBC because the price you pay in terms of potential government control is too great.'' What do you say to that?
Mr. Murphy: It is just the reverse, Madam Chairman. What is the potential for somebody who has the desire, the skills and the interest to establish a newspaper in this province? I have listened to them. You said, "Where can we go with impossibilities?'' It is a virtual impossibility now to successfully establish a community or provincial newspaper in competition with the Irvings. I would suggest that is why a lot of the other big corporate players in the print media have not attempted it in this province. That is why it is needed.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you both very much.
Honourable senators, members of the public, those who have presented and those who have listened so patiently, this has been a very long and lively day in which many points were made that bear serious thought and examination, and we will come back and do it all again tomorrow. We thank you all very much. We resume our proceedings in this room tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
The committee adjourned.