THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE-UNREVISED-NON-RÉVISÉ
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.
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 because you had to drive across most of the province in order 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 up until November of 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 urgently 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 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 by 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 when that same company 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 with an independent press. No matter how unbiased the intent or open the editorial policy might be, 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 about 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 loss of a job. 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 their only other option.
In the rest of Canada, there is concern over media concentration, but that concentration only involves companies with a concentration in the media alone, and even then, there is some diversity of ownership and competition in those 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 as well. When Irving purchased two family chains of community newspapers, one of them ours, they dismantled and sold off the presses in each case. So, if some daring soul wished to operate a newspaper, there are very few places they could go to have it printed other than with the dominant competitor.
The Government of Canada is very supportive of building export markets, but with the closing down of the Woodstock press that was ours, which moved, I understand to Peru, a local export printing market was also terminated into eastern Maine.
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 out of that village. 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 was 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 practise, 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? Could it be done, can it be done and how would it be done? Obviously, the industry will not be instigator because it is controlled by these large companies and they will not be involved in any process to do so. 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 here to liberalize the ownership laws 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. But 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.
What we have here is a major media problem brought on by the indecision and inactivity of many federal governments over 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 over 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 I wonder, 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 I guess especially how the public feels is the bottom line for us because we are trying to see how well the media, community by community by community across the land, are serving the public.
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 be a critic of the quality that was being produced, but I can reflect on what I have been told. Obviously, as I walk around town and go in 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, here in Moncton now and trucked around the province. And it is a huge press they have, so the number of colour pages have certainly been increased, although not necessarily the quality of that colour. But the general opinion is that the content of a lesser standard. Now, like I say, I try to say that with an unbiased voice.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, no.
Mr. Henley: I was talking to advertisers who have some problems as well that, you know, I would prefer not to go into at this point, but there are advertisers who have been upset with policies and so on.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know in the community newspapers, often, there is people who just write the news in, let’s say, 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 in the big papers.
Mr. Henley: No.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: But 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 sort of 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 is local news. And 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 and by television and other sources. One of the things we stressed was to keep Woodstock area news in the Woodstock paper and for all the other towns, local news 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. So, obviously, if there is some space to fill, there may be a news bank there that they go to that 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 to me. 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.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: 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 are. But, I think generally, they are walking a fairly steady line across the middle of that. Meanwhile, I am from Woodstock, so I am active in trying to keep the hospital there.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: So, the coverage, you think, is not as good. Is it because there is some mix of the strictly local and the rest of the adjacent communities or is it the people who are writing it?
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. No, I think most of the people are local people. 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: So The Hartland Observer is that 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.
Mr. Henley: Ralph Allan --
Senator Munson: Probably.
Mr. Henley: -- or was it Fairgrieve?
Senator Munson: I do not know.
I was born in Woodstock and brought up in northern New Brunswick.
Mr. Henley: Oh, you lucky man.
Senator Munson: Oh, yes. I am going to 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. There were some pressures that 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: But 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 than to offer comments, but, essentially, there was a shopper that was started in Woodstock against us by a former employee. 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. And I suspect, but I am not sure, that that person might have owed the Irvings a printing bill 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 different ways.
The Chairman: What do you mean, “a number of different ways”?
Mr. Henley: For instance, before the sale, the shopper offered free classified advertising and they put out a price list, and there is nothing wrong with this, I suppose, but they sold ads that were far, far under the price list.
The Chairman: Your price list or their price list?
Mr. Henley: Their price list.
The Chairman: 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 the revenue of the newspaper and so when that time came to sell, obviously, the price would have been reflected by the decreased revenue.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Henley: By the way, now, there is certainly a price 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 from when we owned the paper.
The Chairman: The Bugle is, or 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 question.
Mr. Henley: I am not sure about this, but I am pretty sure I have understood that free distribution papers, such as a shopper, do not ever get to charge as much for ads because they are free, whereas paid subscriptions means 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 the Competition Bureau, but when our legal advisors 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 the legal rates that we could not afford.
The Chairman: So you just did not lay a complaint?
Mr. Henley: We did not do anything about it, no; we couldn’t.
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 yourselves?
Mr. Henley: Yes. Well, I mean –-
Senator Munson: 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 could use a greater empathy for our plight from the people that sit on 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.
Senator Munson: I refer back to all the sectors of business that are 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: So, 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. No, go right ahead. I should not be shocked or startled, but what the heck.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I was in Fredericton for a long while and I had the impression Northside News was very popular with the people on the north side, 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, I mean, we can all understand that.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Were there other pressures? Well, 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, very quickly there and we saw a market there for a paper that, again, paid attention to local news. 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. And 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: It was sold together?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Just looking at your daughter’s reaction and that of the people, I guess 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: Which is one. Our press is now, I think, 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 existed here in little cities?
Mr. Henley: Not to my knowledge. I think it would be an impossible venture.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes.
Mr. Henley: It was very tough when we did it and we had our own printing press.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes.
Mr. Henley: 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 doing 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, 16, $18,000, they offered it to Canadian Tire. Because they could see a deal going down with The Northside News, they offered it to them 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: You did not?
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: No, 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, yes.
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, we never made money, no.
The Chairman: Was the trend improving?
Mr. Henley: Yes, I think if we had been able to stay there a little while, it would have improved because people were starting to get a little more used to it. My experience has been, when you start a paper, unfortunately, people say, “Well, yes, okay, we will see how you do.” Well, very often, when they are waiting to see how you do, you go under. But we had the press and we had the power of the other community newspapers to be able to support that paper and we hung in there, and each year, it got better and better and better.
The Chairman: Your press was in Woodstock?
Mr. Henley: Yes.
The Chairman: How old was the press?
Mr. Henley: Well, we were burned down flat to the ground in October of 1984 and we 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 anymore.
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 like to have had them be part of the same deal because, obviously, after we sold, we did not have a press to print them on and we had to go outside. We subsequently had to close the very tiny one up 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, administrative, the whole thing.
The Chairman: Oh, 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 a building large enough to house all those things if you needed and now I understand 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 all changed. Now, it is all computers and when you walk into a newspaper office now, you could just as easily be in an insurance company.
The Chairman: But 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 they send it over.
The Chairman: Then they ship it all down to the central plant and then it gets shipped back?
Mr. Henley: Yes, that is correct.
The Chairman: But they did not lay off news-gathering 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 answerable as well because when Irving first approached, naturally, I thought, well, who else could do this? And I contacted some Upper Canadian firms and there was just 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 and try to operate newspapers and we are trying to sell advertising to largely Irving-backed companies, that they will eventually put us down.”
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: This was in November of 2002 that the sale was completed?
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 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 community newspapers in Alberta or Ontario or British Columbia. But in a province like ours where you are only going to 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 thing, and as you probably know, daily newspaper circulation is shrinking, generally speaking. 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 in New Brunswick that we are lucky that we 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 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 very significant degree, thankfully.
The Chairman: We are talking about newspapers now.
Mr. Henley: I was just going to say that they have not started any newspapers, to my knowledge, from scratch, so nothing new has been added as far as newspapers are concerned. So, whether the Irvings own them or whether 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 population is only around 500,000. It is a very tiny population.
Mr. Henley: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Within that population, we have three or four dailies and then, of course, the other third of the population, there is another daily. I mean, if you consider the population compared to the rest of the country, we still have a lot of papers.
Mr. Henley: Thank God. But in some places in the United States, there are very successful papers operating with circulation as low as 1,200. I do not know how they do it, but I know of several papers that have very small circulations.
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 around 2,400 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, certainly 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: Oh, yes. Well, a debt is never gone because you are always buying more things.
The Chairman: Yes, but it was not the sort of classic case of you have to sell at fire sale prices because you just could not pay it any more?
Mr. Henley: Oh, no, not at all.
Senator Munson: We are going to hear from Brunswick News tomorrow and we have heard a lot this morning and this afternoon, and I am sure that Brunswick News will have their side of the story.
Mr. Henley: Sure.
Senator Munson: As a former reporter and 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 asked.
Mr. Henley: No, there are not. I came with great trepidation based on my comments about the agreement of sale, 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 is.
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 that 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.
The floor is yours.
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 something called 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 I 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 he came back in about half an hour and he said, “Jack, they will not give me your paycheque.” And 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 and sail back and do a film about it, and I had bought a pair of deck shoes. So, two years later, the CBC was asking for my return of these deck shoes before they would give me my final paycheque. And I used some language that probably should not be used anywhere and Mr. Henley took off back again and, sure enough, he came back with my paycheque another half hour later. And from that moment on, I have held him in the greatest of esteem.
The Chairman: Do you still have the deck shoes?
Mr. McAndrew: Not that pair. I always have puzzled over what the CBC was going 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 Charlottetown 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 practise of contemporary journalism and the disturbing trends in play that are diminishing the quality of journalist we see and hear and read. And 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 feeding right down there at the bottom along with lawyers and politicians. And my concern is that journalism is overly concerned with the trivial and the inconsequence, 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 like 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” are stories well researched and with a clear idea of what the story is about, stories that get a 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 badly researched? Why is the writing unclear and ambiguous and so often ungrammatical? It is because it is easy and fast to think in vague terms. But vagueness is the brother to ambiguity and the antithesis of good journalism. Good journalism is marked by qualities of clarity and logic.
The “thinking vague” school of journalism began to happen 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 practises. The combination of fewer journalists with greater workloads has diminished the quality of journalism being practised in this country. It had to. At The Charlottetown 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, qualities 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 all day, every half hour. At privately owned radio stations in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, all under the same roof and same ownership, 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 us 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 of substance and rational analysis of fact by subjective judgments and emotional beliefs is an invitation to chaos. In this post-modernistic world, there are no immutable standards. Grammar is whatever you make it, as is meaning. Quality exists only in 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, where news and information is 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. So has the passion which drives any good journalist and it is only that passion which produces quality and, occasionally, the truth as well.
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 in order to spread it out and not have a whole empty side of a table, we rearranged the seating very 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 busier or 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 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 Charlottetown 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 that is what I decided not to do.
I do believe we live in this 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. So, 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 have any vestige of the truth whatsoever. That is as far as the story goes because of the pressure of the deadlines and the pressure to get out the product because 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, ever get to the “why” of things. If we do not get to the “why” of things, then, ultimately, journalist can be totally replaced by computers.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: If you are talking about the 90-second news bits, which I almost never hear because I listen to another radio station, then that might be the case, but as I listened, I have 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 read some of it. It seems to me that if you say journalism is inconsequential and celebrity-driven, in Moncton right here and 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 would you react to the things that I have just mentioned and the pretty vast coverage that one sees in the paper on these subjects?
Mr. McAndrew: But think about why is it so vast. It is vast because one newspaper or one radio station thinks it will get more listeners and sell more newspapers if it outdoes the other person in coverage of that event. It is a very subjective journalistically as to how much play to allow any given story. What I am saying is 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 after day? My subjective judgment is no, but if you give it to them, they will accept it because there has been a dumbing down process going on for a long time. If you watch television in the early evening, there is a whole 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 taken, written down, thrown out as a story on radio or television or newspapers without anybody getting behind those words to find out whether or not 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.
Mr. McAndrew: One of the things that I do is 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 suppose 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 practically a howler in 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 lots of 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 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 do. 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. You phone a private radio station any time from noontime on and 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. Even in Prince Edward Island, since Transcontinental has bought both The Guardian and The Journal Pioneer, that leaves The Eastern Graphic, a weekly, where I write a column, as the only independent paper in Prince Edward Island. I mean, 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. That means to me that they were able to do away with at least one or two reporting positions if they are going to start trading material. So, the diminishment in the number of eyes on the community means that the coverage is going to 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, you had 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.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
Senator Munson: But in small-town radio peopled used to cover town hall 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 question is, I guess, you know, there were regulations at one time. The CRTC eased them because owners were going broken and there was a transition from AM to FM and so on. But we are now back at 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 regulation 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 also all the radio stations in Prince Edward Island. Not only are both daily newspapers owned by Transcontinental, but the radios 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 that you 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, you see, and my radio show was almost like a party line. And one year, there was a bump in the ratings and some of the experts came in from Halifax and they cancelled the death notices and fired me. It was a matter of some humility 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 you want to tell little 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 and 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 they were number five in a four-station market in Montreal. I was replaced by a jingle package.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
Senator Munson: That was rather humiliating. It cost $11,000 and 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. And 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. I mean, Jackie Webster was there in those days and Mr. Pichette and Dalton 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 and diminished numbers of journalists and whatnot, but I really sort of 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, 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 in those days used to run their newsroom. 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 in 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 there were.
The Chairman: We were listening to all sorts of very interesting information from Ms. Webster, who continued to testify even as the cameras rolled.
Mr. McAndrew: I am saying it is chipping 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 you want to have an undisturbed atmosphere during your hearings.
Mr. McAndrew: Pay me no mind. I am just getting even.
The Chairman: No, 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 that was where my grandmother had her radio tuned all the time. And I confess, I did not pay a lot of attention to Charlottetown news and maybe it was great, but I remember every single 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, afterwards? 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. But 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: I guess what I am suggesting is that standards can shift and that 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, but, truthfully, it 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: Smaller communities?
Mr. McAndrew: Yes.
The Chairman: I suspect it is more smaller communities than extremities, actually.
Mr. McAndrew: Yes, that is right.
The Chairman: All I am trying to extract from you here is a 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.
(French follows - continuing with the Chairman – Sénateurs, nos prochains témoins…)
(Après anglais, La présidente -- Thank you very much, Mr. McAndrew.)
Sénateurs, nos prochains témoins sont des représentants de l’Acadie Nouvelle. Nous accueillons donc de l’Acadie Nouvelle, le quotidien de langue française acadienne, M. Clarence LeBreton, président du conseil d’administration, M. Jean Saint-Cyr, rédacteur en chef et M. Gilles Haché, directeur des ventes et marketing.
Bienvenue chez nous, vous allez nous parler un petit peu de l’Acadie Nouvelle. On vous invite à faire une présentation, comme on vous l’a sans doute expliqué, d’une dizaine de minutes, plus ou moins, et ensuite on passera à la période de questions.
M. Clarence LeBreton, président du Conseil d'administration, L’Acadie Nouvelle : Madame la présidente, membres du comité, permettez-moi dans un premier temps de vous confier que nous sommes réconfortés par l’objet de vos travaux lors de cette tournée pan-canadienne sur l’état des communications au pays. Votre travail témoigne de l’importance accordée aux médias dans une société, et en particulier dans la société canadienne ou l’accessibilité et la diversité de l’information et la liberté de presse sont des valeurs fondamentales. Par la même occasion, nous profiterons de cette opportunité pour vous rappeler notre courte histoire qui est en quelque sorte l’histoire d’un coup de coeur pour la mission importante d’un quotidien francophone en milieu minoritaire.
Je me présente, Clarence LeBreton, et cet après-midi, je suis ici à titre de président du conseil d’administration des Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle, propriétaire du journal l’Acadie Nouvelle et ainsi que propriétaire de la Presse Acadie-Presse. Je suis accompagné cet après-midi par M. Jean Saint-Cyr, le rédacteur en chef et directeur de la salle des nouvelles, ainsi que de M. Gilles Haché, directeur des ventes et du marketing.
Nous souhaitons vous faire découvrir l’Acadie Nouvelle et surtout vous sensibiliser au contexte dans lequel nous opérons. On vous a remis, je pense, un journal et tout à l’heure M. Rainville, éditorialiste de notre journal, a souligné votre passage, et explique le contexte.
Ce contexte rejoint un peu l’enjeu du secteur des médias. Nous comprenons que l’objectif du comité est de favoriser la discussion plutôt que de proposer des conclusions. Nous avons choisi de maintenir cette ligne de conduite. Or, je vous explique l’Acadie Nouvelle, notre journal et ses ambitions. L’Acadie Nouvelle est née, comme vous le savez, des cendres d’un quotidien centenaire, l’Évangéline, et d’un autre quotidien francophone, le Matin, qui n’a survécu que trois ans, malgré la mise en place d’un fonds de fiducie qui visait à compenser les coûts exorbitants de distribution d’un quotidien francophone au Nouveau-Brunswick. Je tiens à vous préciser, madame la présidente, que nous bénéficions de ce fonds de fiducie, car il faut préciser que 80 p. 100de nos lecteurs vivent en milieu rural, ce qui entraîne forcément des coûts importants de distribution.
L’Acadie Nouvelle est né d’un effort collectif pour répondre à un besoin de communiquer en français entre nous sur une base quotidienne. Notre motivation profonde est d’offrir au lectorat une source quotidienne d’information d’expression française distribuée, et j’insiste, à la grandeur de cette Province.
Grâce à une vaste campagne de sensibilisation auprès de gens d’affaires, neuf compagnies regroupant des centaines d’investisseurs, ont permis d’amasser le capital d’opération de départ de la société incorporée des Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle 1984. Notre marché, des régions francophones au Nouveau-Brunswick où l’on ne dénombre que 230 000 personnes, n’est finalement que l’équivalent d’un grand quartier d’une métropolitaine urbaine comme Toronto.
Regardons maintenant la situation du marché de la presse écrite dans ce grand quartier rural d’expression française. Nous desservons 180 villes et villages au Nouveau-Brunswick. Nous exploitons 750 points de vente qui génèrent en moyenne 3 300 copies vendues par jour. Alors, on fait le calcul. Si ce n’est pas une mission sociale de maintenir un point de vente pour trois copies vendues, on peut vous affirmer que c’est une proposition d’affaire peu viable parfois. Or, le fonds de fiducie, comme vous le savez, couvre cela.
L’Acadie Nouvelle est une entreprise privée, et ses fondateurs n’ont jamais dévié de la mission initiale qu’ils se sont donnée: fournir une source d’information de premier choix pour la majorité des francophones de cette Province. Fondée en 1984, l’Acadie Nouvelle passe d’un quotidien régional à un quotidien provincial en 1989. En 2003, après une longue planification financière et opérationnelle, l’Acadie Nouvelle lance son édition du week-end. Nous distribuons maintenant 20 400 copies du lundi au samedi dont 84 p. 100sont des abonnés à qui le journal est livré à leur porte quotidiennement, et nous avons, comme vous le savez, au-delà de 125 employés.
La situation des médias de la presse écrite au Nouveau-Brunswick subit les mêmes réalités que la presse écrite canadienne. L’Acadie Nouvelle est un des deux quotidiens d’expression française indépendant au Canada, l’autre étant le Devoir à Montréal. Cette indépendance, qui nous vaut l’admiration dans certains milieux, est maintenu au prix d’une vulnérabilité financière qui ferait frissonner d’angoisse plus d’un magna de la presse. L’approvisionnement en papier, les coûts de distribution surtout, l’absence d’une force de vente combiné d’un éventail de produits, quotidien hebdomadaire, Publi-sac, et j’en passe, sont tous des éléments qui nous empêchent de profiter de l’économie d’échelle dont les entreprises de presse intégrées jouissent. Tout comme le CRTC, nous sommes préoccupés par la diminution de l’indépendance éditoriale par rapport à la propriété croisée ou concentrée. Nous sommes d’avis que chaque propriétaire de tout genre de média représente une seule voix. Pour ce qui est de la presse écrite au Nouveau-Brunswick, la situation, la concentration de la propriété des médias fait en sorte que seulement deux voix s’offrent à la population du Nouveau-Brunswick, soit Brunswick News dont on vous a beaucoup parlé je pense, et l’Acadie Nouvelle.
En raison de l’assiette publicitaire restreinte au Nouveau-Brunswick, le nombre accru de publications souvent détenu par un seul propriétaire ne fait que segmenter le marché de la publicité au lieu de l’accroître.
Alors, les défis, chez-nous à l’Acadie Nouvelle, malgré la baisse généralisée du tirage des journaux sur la scène nationale et internationale, nous jouissons depuis quelques années d’une stabilité, et je dirais même d’une légère augmentation de notre tirage, grâce surtout à notre édition du samedi. Étant donné le fait que nos activités se déroulent dans un marché francophone minoritaire, les changements actuels dans la presse écrite nous forcent à demeurer très vigilants, dis-je, par rapport à notre avenir.
On sait déjà que tous les quotidiens anglophones appartiennent à Brunswick News. Ce qui est moins connu, madame la présidente, c’est le fait que cette société est propriétaire de deux journaux sur trois au Nouveau-Brunswick, quotidiens et hebdomadaires des deux langues officielles confondues, c’est-à-dire qu’ils appartiennent des hebdomadaires francophones. L’offensive du Nouveau-Brunswick, nous, sur le territoire francophone, passe par les hebdomadaires. Depuis deux ou trois ans, ils ont acquis de façon systématique la majeure partie des hebdomadaires francophones en plus d’en avoir fondé quelques autres. La concentration et la récente acquisition du groupe Brunswick News fragmente le marché publicitaire et représente pour nous une source d’inquiétude, parce que ça exerce encore plus de pression sur l’assette publicitaire déjà précaire dans un marché minoritaire comme le nôtre. Il devient pour tout le monde plus difficile de maintenir un niveau de profitabilité.
Alors en conclusion, si nous voulons vraiment qu’un marché libre d’idée fonctionne, c’est-à-dire qu’ils deviennent un lieu où de nombreuses opinions différentes se disputent l’attention du public, nous devons insister pour que tout nouvel organe de presse appartienne au plus grand nombre de gens possible, et représente le plus grand nombre de gens possible. Cette citation est tirée d’un article écrit par le professeur et directeur du journalisme de l’Université Concordia, monsieur Raudsepp. C’est précisément dans cet esprit qu’a été fondée l’Acadie Nouvelle, l’Acadie Nouvelle, qui est encore le phare de l’indépendance de l’expression d’opinion de la presse écrite francophone au Nouveau-Brunswick, et nous sommes encouragés à le faire par plusieurs groupes, tant francophones qu’anglophones. Contrairement aux médias électroniques réglementés par le CRTC, la presse écrite n’est pas réglementée par une autorité quelconque, fédérale ou provinciale. Je donne l’exemple. Dans le cas de l’acquisition de TVA par Quebecor, le CRTC a demandé à cette société de choisir: acquérir TVA ou se départir du réseau TQS ou renoncer à l’acquisition de TVA. Nous en déduisons que le CRTC a exigé à Quebecor de faire un choix afin de protéger l’intérêt public et la diversité d’opinion.
Référons-nous au rapport Déry qui recommandait, par exemple, la création d’un conseil de surveillance de la propriété de la presse pour régler les problèmes liés à la concentration des médias. Nous y croyons à cette recommandation.
En conclusion, nous souhaitons qu’à la lumière des présentations reçues, le comité puisse démontrer la vitalité de la presse écrite dans un milieu minoritaire et que sa précarité passe par une gestion sensible des réalités que comporte un marché minoritaire. Tel qu’il a été mentionné dans le rapport, ou il y a peut-être eu quelques enjeux dans le secteur des médias, nous sommes également d’avis qu’un nombre de journaux détenus par une même entreprise limite la diversité des voix et que cette même diversité est moins grande que si les journaux étaient contrôlés par des propriétaires distincts.
Voilà, madame la présidente, membres du comité, notre présentation générale et je suis assisté des gens qui au quotidien mènent ce journal. Moi, je ne représente évidemment comme toute entreprise, que les actionnaires et la mission.
La présidente: Alors, monsieur Saint-Cyr, vous n’avez rien à ajouter immédiatement? Merci beaucoup, c’est fort intéressant.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Merci monsieur. Je vais essayer de poser mes questions en français. C’est difficile, mais c’est un bon défi pour moi. J’apprécie énormément votre présence et votre présentation aujourd’hui, et je lis l’Acadie Nouvelle la plupart des jours, tous les jours de ma vie, mon ancienne vie, mais, ça reste beaucoup moins souvent, en ce moment. Je veux dire que j’étais et je continue d’être bien impressionnée avec le journal l’Acadie Nouvelle. Vous avez beaucoup, beaucoup de sujets dans chaque édition. La plupart du temps, il me semble que vous offrez aux citoyens et citoyennes du Nouveau-Brunswick un très bon reportage des événements et la culture, les sports, les nouvelles, toutes ces choses au niveau provincial et beaucoup au niveau international.
Je veux vous demander si vous êtes content ou non du niveau d’intérêt des jeunes, particulièrement les jeunes Acadiens et Acadiennes. Pensez-vous que les jeunes dans les écoles secondaires, à l’Université de Moncton, etcetera, sont intéressés et vraiment, est-ce qu’ils lisent l’Acadie Nouvelle.
M. Jean Saint-Cyr, rédacteur en chef, L’Acadie Nouvelle: Monsieur LeBreton me prie de répondre à cette question. C’est sûr, madame Counsell, que cela nous inquiète un peu si on se fie aux études qui se font actuellement sur les habitudes de lecture ou surtout sur les habitudes que la génération montante a en termes de ses sources d’information. Ce qu’on nous dit, c’est que de plus en plus, Internet a beaucoup d’importance, et le Nouveau-Brunswick ne fait pas exception. On est quand même une Province où il y a eu un effort concentré et structuré de la part des gouvernements de permettre aux foyers dans toutes les régions de la Province d’accéder à Internet et je vois que les jeunes du Nouveau-Brunswick ne sont pas différents des autres jeunes canadiens. Ils s’y intéressent énormément, et de plus en plus, on voit cette tendance là.
C’est une préoccupation. Actuellement notre journal peut être consulté sur internet pour les gens, bon, pour les gens à l’extérieur du Nouveau-Brunswick qui peuvent l’avoir en ligne le jour même. Pour les résidents du Nouveau-Brunswick, ils ne peuvent qu’avoir accès à nos archives, c’est-à-dire plus vieux ou plus vieilles que sept jours. Mais oui, c’est une préoccupation. Actuellement, nous préférons nous concentrer sur la copie imprimée parce que c’est de là que ... d’abord, on met beaucoup d’efforts à présenter, je crois, un journal qui soit le plus attrayant possible pour nos lecteurs et nous essayons et nous avons initié dans le passé certaines initiatives avec plus ou moins de succès, justement pour faire circuler le journal et faire intéresser, tenter d’intéresser les jeunes à la lecture et notamment la lecture du journal. Et c’est une ... au moment où on se parle, nous ne sommes pas certains de la tendance que la jeunesse prendra. Est-ce que cet engouement pour la cueillette d’information sur internet sera permanent ou est-ce qu’on reviendra au journal? Vous vous rappelez que lorsque l’informatique s’est répandue dans notre société, on prétendait que ça allait faire disparaître le papier. On n’a jamais produit autant de papier que depuis l’avènement de l’information, alors je crois qu’avec l’internet, ça reste à voir. Il y a différentes thèses, mais il semble que l’humain a encore besoin de ce contact et évidemment, ce contact avec le papier, ce contact physique avec le support, et nous espérons évidemment, étant un journal, que ça va rester ainsi. Mais actuellement, je dois dire que même si ça nous inquiète et qu’on se tient continuellement informés et qu’on essaie de s’ajuster, les dés ne sont pas encore complètement jetés. Je pense que ça tourne encore et on verra où ils s’arrêteront.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Merci. J’ai demandé cette même question partout au pays. Est-ce que vous avez fait comme projet la possibilité d’avoir des copies régulièrement de l’Acadie Nouvelle dans les écoles françaises de la Province?
M. Saint-Cyr: Oui, la réponse courte, c’est oui, mais le succès demeure quand même mitigé et justement, on en discutait ce midi, sur l’expérience qui avait été faite. On avait investi quand même une bonne somme d’argent à produire un guide, si vous voulez, pédagogique, avec des gens qui ont fait carrière en éducation, donc, ce n’était pas un document maison là. C’était vraiment quelque chose dans lequel l’Acadie Nouvelle avait investi et ça n’a pas produit les résultats escomptés, c’est-à-dire que l’intérêt qu’on voulait susciter, y compris la tournée des écoles, rendre nos gens disponibles pour des conférences auprès des étudiants, etcetera, ça n’a pas suscité l’intérêt qu’on pensait que ça aurait, et le document existe toujours. Je crois qu’il est toujours valable en terme d’instrument de sensibilisation à la lecture et dans le contexte de la littéracie également, et peut-être qu’on y reviendra, parce que l’instrument qu’on a créé existe toujours et je crois est toujours valable. Maintenant, est-ce qu’on réinvestira pour le relancer et pour continuer notre mission, si vous voulez, d’éducation par rapport à la lecture, je crois que peut-être notre en dépend de renforcer ce goût de la lecture chez la jeunesse.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Mais premièrement, la chose fondamentale est d’avoir une copie ou des copies des journaux à l’école jour après jour après jour et après ça, pour les enseignants et enseignantes d’offrir des projets d’étude avec lesquels les journaux sont essentiels pour compléter les projets dans la classe, mais est-ce qu’avec le week-end, est-ce que vous avez des sections pour les jeunes? Je pense que vous avez des sections ou sujet d’intérêts. Est-ce que vous avez quelque chose approprié pour les jeunes?
M. Saint-Cyr: Approprié, actuellement, peut-être pas suffisamment, honnêtement, pas suffisamment. Évidemment, il faut, avec les moyens limités dont on dispose, il faut procéder par priorité, mais encore, on en discutait encore ce matin sur la façon de développer davantage le secteur jeunesse, mais avec l’implication des jeunes, c’est-à-dire que ... mais, bon, parce que je n’ai pas l’intention en développant une section plus élaborée et qui s’adresse aux jeunes de faire travailler les jeunes pour rien, donc, ça nous prend des ressources, davantage de ressources. On a beaucoup de projets pour le journal. C’est encore un jeune journal.
On n’a que 20 ans et ça fait pas ... ça fait maintenant 16 ans qu’on est un journal provincial, et c’est un journal qui - puis moi-même, je viens d’arriver, ça fait un peu plus de six mois que je suis au journal - on a beaucoup de projets, mais encore faut-il avoir le moyen financier des ambitions, et ça, ça fait partie des projets, si vous voulez, futurs du journal de développer davantage cette section là, mais ça veut dire développer tout un réseau, le développer et l’entretenir surtout, parce que le développer, dans un premier temps, c’est relativement facile de faire les contacts, avoir des premières réunions, mais d’entretenir le réseau par la suite, le réseau de jeunesse, si vous voulez, et d’avoir une section qui serait opérée et maintenue par des jeunes, ça c’est une autre histoire, et actuellement, comme je dis, on essaie de peaufiner notre journal, de le rendre plus attrayant, parce que pour un journal, ce qui est difficile, c’est que les autres médias, qu’on parle de la télévision et juste au niveau de la télévision, tous les canaux spécialisés pour la jeunesse, de musique, de science et tout ça, c’est un milieu quand même attrayant, parce qu’il s’adresse à plusieurs sens alors que nous, on ne s’adresse qu’à deux sens, alors la concurrence est certainement forte lorsqu’on est un médium écrit, mais c’est évident que nous, on y croit et on espère qu’on va pouvoir séduire les jeunes à l’attrait de la lecture d’un journal quotidien. Mais c’est une question aussi d’habitude.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Et finalement, est-ce que vous avez une bonne relation avec l’Université de Moncton et avec le département du journalisme?
M. Saint-Cyr: Une bonne relation, je crois que oui.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Est-ce que vous vous partagez des projets ou des étudiants de temps en temps?
M. Saint-Cyr: Bien, à tous les étés, on embauche des étudiants qui sont, soit qu’ils viennent de terminer ou qui sont en troisième ou entre la troisième et la quatrième année là. Comme cet été, on a deux étudiants qui vont commencer la semaine prochaine, pour le journal. On va les intégrer à notre équipe, et ça, malgré le fait qu’on a pas réellement ... c’est pas limité à un projet d’étudiant là, c’est-à-dire qu’il y a une partie très marginale, si vous voulez, de ce que ça coûte pour, alors l’Acadie Nouvelle investit dans ces jeunes là pour leur donner la chance d’avoir ... de travailler dans le contexte d’un quotidien et c’est nous qui assumons la très grande majorité des frais. Également, à tous les automnes, le départment d’information/communication de l’Université de Moncton invite des gens du journal à s’adresser à leurs étudiants et au cours de l’année, dépendant de ce qui se passe, on échange sur divers sujets et on essaie d’élaborer des projets ensemble et bon, je crois que la réponse courte à votre question, c’est oui. Il y a une bonne relation peut-être qui mériterait d’être bonifiée et d’être resserrée un peu, mais cette relation là existe, et il y a de la bonne volonté des deux côtés.
M. LeBreton: Aussi, il y a des employés permanents de l’Acadie Nouvelle qui sont des diplômés de cette école.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Ah oui.
M. LeBreton: Certainement. Et aussi, l’Acadie Nouvelle, malgré ses moyens limités, offre des bourses à ces étudiants là, puis qu’on pense évidemment dans le futur d’améliorer, mais moi, je dirais que oui, c’est une bonne relation et on a des chefs de pupitre qui sont gradués de là.
M. Saint-Cyr: Le directeur de l’information, le chef de pupitre, la pupitreuse, celle qui est au pupitre de la nouvelle régionale, sont tous, et quelques-uns de nos journalistes, sont des produits du départment d’info./comm. de l’Université de Moncton.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Mais, en réalité, ce sera une bonne chose pour les étudiants en immersion de la Province d’avoir la chance de lire votre journal, mais probablement, ça ne marche pas.
Le sénateur Munson: C’est la même chose pour moi, c’est très difficile pour moi de parler français.
(Anglais suit – Senator Munson – The most important thing…)
(Following French -- Sénateur Munson -- moi de parler français)
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.
(French follows -- continuing with Senator Munson -- Votre discours sur la page cinq, “l’offensive de Brunswick News sur le territoire francophone passe par l’hebdomadaire.)
(Après anglais -- Senator Munson – and half in French.)
Votre discours sur la page cinq, “l’offensive de Brunswick News sur le territoire francophone passe par l’hebdomadaire. Depuis deux ou trois ans, ils ont acquis de façon systématique la majeure partie des francophones.”
(Anglais suit -- Senator Munson -- I am just wondering here, is Brunswick News deliberately trying to fragment the market?)
(Following French – continuing Senator Munson)
I am just wondering here, is Brunswick News deliberately trying to fragment the market?
(French follows – Mr. Gilles Haché up in full)
(Après anglais – Senator Munson -- trying to fragment the market)
M. Gilles F. Haché, directeur ventes et marketing, L’Acadie Nouvelle: Oui, on pense que oui, parce que c’est systématique. Depuis trois ans, on a l’Étoile de Madawaska, dans le Nord-Ouest, on a dans la même zone, la région Chaleur, on a un hebdo appartenu par Irving qu’ils ont acheté, le Northern Light. Après ça, il y a le Publi-Sac qui font un hebdo gratuit en anglais qui s’appelle le Market Place, puis en troisième lieu, dernièrement, c’est un hebdo francophone dans le même marché. Ça fait qu’ils font des offres combinées au niveau de la publicité puis ça devient de plus en plus difficile. On peut pas embarquer dans une guerre de prix, on a pas les moyens ou les ressources pour ça, ça fait que ça devient de plus en plus difficile pour nous de contrer ces choses là. Puis, ça se fait dans diverses régions aussi, soit dans le Madawaska, dans le sud-est et dans le Nord de la Province.
(Anglais suit -- Senator Munson -- What do you...)
(Following French – continuing with Senator Munson)
Senator Munson: What do you think of it?
(French follows – M. Haché: Bien, dans le futur ...)
(Après anglais – Senator Munson – What do you of it?)
M. Haché: Bien, dans le futur, actuellement, c’est déjà difficile. J’essaie d’imaginer dans cinq ou six ans, est-ce que l’Acadie Nouvelle, sans faire le prophète de malheur, est-ce que l’Acadie Nouvelle va pouvoir suivre ce rythme là ou faire des offres aussi ... on a pas la capacité de faire des offres aussi combinées parce qu’on a pas cette économie d’échelle là nous.
(Anglais suit -- Senator Munson: Have the Irvings...)
(Following French)
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 place. We have too many shareholders. We are not for sale and I think they know it.
(French follows -- continuing Monsieur LeBreton: Si je peux ajouter ...)
(Après anglais - Mr. LeBreton: .... I think they know it.)
Si je peux ajouter, monsieur Munson, c’est pas seulement l’acquisition. Dans le cas de nos compétiteurs dans les hebdos, dans notre compétiteur, ce n’est pas nécessairement juste la question de faire l’acquisition.
Lorsqu’ils ont acheté le Northern Light qui était un journal anglophone du Nord de la Province, c’est que parallèlement à l’achat du Northern Light, ils fondent un hebdomadaire francophone, vous comprenez, et comme je le disais d’entrée de jeu dans ma présentation, notre clientèle est à 80 quelques p. 100rurale avec qu’est-ce que ça suppose comme problème de couverture et l’hebdomadaire évidemment est très attrayant. On peut pas couvrir tous les conseils municipaux de tous ces villages là et de tous les ... vous savez. Or, ils attaquent, si vous voulez, un marché où il y a une demande, mais en même temps, on va être très honnête, comme monsieur Haché le dit, à la longue, ils vont nous faire mal, et la question qui peut suivre, mais pourquoi l’Acadie Nouvelle ne se lance pas dans des hebdos, et bien là, écoutez, nous on essaie d’avoir une couverture quotidienne à la grandeur de la Province, rurale surtout, comme vous le savez, et je crains qu’on va faire tout le tour de nous en essayant de nous étouffer littéralement.
C’est un combat de tous les jours, et comme vous le savez, dans un milieu rural, dans un milieu minoritaire et lorsque tout à l’heure, madame le sénateur Trenholme Counsell demandait à monsieur au niveau de la jeunesse, j’admets d’une façon très honnête avec vous, que nous avons des défis particulièrement dans Moncton urbain et dans la région du Nord-Ouest, Madawaska. C’est nos priorités là plutôt immédiates. Il faut absolument avoir une pénétration beaucoup plus importante dans ces deux régions là en tant que quotidien. On est définitivement pas dans l’hebdo, mais on se sert de cet outil qui est l’hebdo tant anglophone dans le Nord que francophone au niveau marketing par exemple, pour nous serrer la vis.
(Anglais suit -- Senator Munson: Keeping that in mind...)
(Following French)
Senator Munson: Keeping that in mind, in your presentation, you talked about the precarious state of the press for a minority language group. Obviously, this doesn’t 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 in the English language community of New Brunswick.
(French follows – M. Saint-Cyr: Sénateur Munson, c’est un peu ce qui ... dans la conclusion de notre présentation où on parle de la différence qui existe actuellement entre les médias électroniques et la presse écrite.)
(Après anglais)
M. Saint-Cyr: Sénateur Munson, c’est un peu ce qui ... dans la conclusion de notre présentation où on parle de la différence qui existe actuellement entre les médias électroniques et la presse écrite. Les médias électroniques sont quand même réglementés parce qu’ils doivent avoir une licence. Pour partir un journal, vous n’avez pas besoin de licence, mais il reste que sur le plan de l’intérêt public, sur le plan de la diversité de l’opinion, si on veut maintenir au Canada une diversité de point de vue, une diversité d’opinion, des sources d’information diversifiées et distinctes surtout, il nous semble qu’il faut un mécanisme qui va favoriser le maintien d’une propriété diversifiée des journaux comme le CRTC le fait jusqu’à un certain point. Comme le fait jusqu’à un certain point le CRTC dans l’exemple par exemple qu’on a donné, dans le cas de TQS et l’acquisition de TVA par Quebecor qui était déjà propriétaire de TQS. Dans la presse écrite, ça n’existe pas, alors qu’est-ce qui ... qui va se pencher sur la situation que nous vivons nous comme entreprise de communication où on voit, comme on l’a dit et c’est très clair pour nous, une offensive très systématiquement organisée pour nous affaiblir dans l’espoir sans doute que lorsque notre marché sera, tu sais, lorsqu’on aura ... on veut nous forcer à dévaluer le prix de la publicité, et ça, ça veut dire affaiblir nos revenus, ça, ça veut dire qu’au lieu de grandir comme organisme de presse, devoir rationaliser, devoir sortir quotidiennement un journal avec moins de personnes.
Actuellement, ce n’est pas du tout l’orientation que - et le président du conseil d’administration peut en témoigner - j’ai énormément de demandes parce que je veux faire ... je veux avoir un Département de recherche un peu plus étoffé, je veux avoir plus de journalistes en région, je veux plus de chroniques, je veux, bon, je veux, je veux, je veux. Mais qu’est-ce que je peux me permettre comme rédacteur en chef?
Lorsque l’entreprise, représentée par le conseil d’administration, dit oui, mais un instant, on fait à peine nos frais actuellement. D’accord, monsieur Saint-Cyr, on veut bien améliorer la qualité du journal, on veut bien diversifier notre contenu, mais où allons-nous prendre l’argent? Que nous réserve l’avenir? Actuellement, le journal fait ses frais, et je crois que l’achat de la presse fait en sorte que ça a stabilisé cette entreprise là. Ça la rend un petit peu, un petit peu moins fragile, mais on est loin d’être prêts à se mettre, d’être une compagnie publique en bourse là. Si on allait en bourse demain matin, je ne pense pas que ce serait l’engouement sur Bay Street là, alors, on est une entreprise presque, pour ne pas dire artisanale, et de voir un conglomérat comme celui-là qui nous frappe dans les côtés quotidiennement.
Heureusement, il y a une espèce de fierté, si vous voulez, qui vient du peuple Acadien qui se serre les coudes et je crois qu’on bénéficie d’une certaine fidélité à cet égard là. Nos lecteurs, la majeure partie d’entre eux sont très conscients de cette guerre là au niveau de la presse écrite au Nouveau-Brunswick, et nous bénéficions heureusement d’un certain appui et certainement d’une sympathie et d’une empathie de la part des lecteurs Acadiens au Nouveau-Brunswick, et c’est ce qui nous permet de continuer à vivre, mais si le jour où cette fidélité presque idéologique, je ne sais pas si les jeunes vont être aussi ... je l’espère que les jeunes seront aussi patriotiques, je n’aime pas le mot patriotique là depuis George W, mais en tout cas, j’espère que cette fidélité là restera avec la génération montante. Si effectivement on continue à les intéresser à la lecture du journal, plutôt que bon, de s’en aller sur internet et de se perdre sur toutes sortes de sources, là au moins, avec le journal, ils savent qui écrit, où c’est produit, de quoi on parle, etcetera, j’espère que cette fidélité là de nos lecteurs restera, mais il n’y a rien de moins sûr, et enfin, l’avenir nous le dira, mais nous déployons tous les efforts possible pour maintenir cette fidélité et cet intérêt de nos lecteurs pour la communauté Acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Le sénateur Munson: J’ai juste une autre question. Est-ce que la Presse Canadienne est importante pour l’Acadie Nouvelle?
M. Saint-Cyr: Définitivement, puisque pour le moment, et ça, ça fait encore partie de mes projets et je suis en pourparlers préliminaires avec un journaliste qui est maintenant professeur dans la région d’Ottawa et qui pourrait nous servir de correspondant au moins une fois par semaine pour nous donner un petit peu la perspective, si vous voulez, pour analyser ce qui s’est passé durant la semaine qui est d’intérêt pour le Nouveau-Brunswick et pour les Acadiens en particulier. Encore là, c’est des demandes que je dois faire au conseil d’administration de me fournir les ressources pour pouvoir me payer, mais à défaut d’avoir quelqu’un sur place, il est évident qu’on pourrait difficilement avoir une section de la politique nationale et encore moins de la politique internationale si on n’avait pas les textes de la Presse Canadienne et de Associated Press. Sans ça, pour nous, c’est hors d’atteinte en terme strictement monétaire.
C’est parce que la situation actuelle n’est pas celle que moi je souhaite comme rédacteur en chef, c’est-à-dire que je préférerais avoir une personne de l’Acadie Nouvelle qui serait là et qu’on pourrait appeler tous les jours, telle chose ou telle chose, va me cherche ça, interview un tel. C’est sûr que c’est ce qu’on souhaiterait avoir, mais on ne peut pas, en étant un journal indépendant, on ne peut pas se permettre ça pour le moment. On y aspire, et on espère qu’on va continuer à développer notre marché et avoir une pénétration plus grande comme M. LeBreton l’a dit, dans certaines régions du Nouveau-Brunswick, ce qui nous apportera davantage de revenus et qu’on pourra réinvestir par exemple, en ayant notre propre correspondant à Ottawa. On en a déjà un à Fredericton, on a des journalistes un peu partout autour de la Province, mais pour l’instant, on a des correspondants à Montréal pour surtout le secteur culturel, mais pour l’instant, c’est tout ce qu’on peut se permettre. Mais ça fait partie des projets.
Si notre offensive en terme de pénétration dans les marchés au Nouveau-Brunswick où on considère qu’on est encore faible et qu’il y a de la place pour de l’expansion et si on peut résister à la tactique de Brunswick News qui tend à vouloir nous faire baisser les prix de notre publicité, donc baisser nos revenus et qu’on devrait reculer, nous, notre orientation actuellement est plutôt vers l’expansion et vers l’amélioration de nos services plutôt que de couper et de rationaliser. On est un petit peu à contre-courant parce que bon, on est un des seuls journaux indépendants qui reste. On est comme je vous l’ai dit un jeune journal, une jeune organisation de presse, et donc, on est encore sur un élan d’expansion plutôt qu’un élan de compression. Combien de temps on pourra nager contre le courant, ça, peut-être qu’on a des oeillères et qu’on se ferme les yeux et que le mur est plus proche de nous qu’on ne le croit, mais nous sommes d’incorrigibles optimistes.
La présidente: Ce qui est toujours bon à entendre. Vous avez combien de journalistes?
M. Saint-Cyr: Et bien, en tout, la rédaction, j’ai sur ma feuille de paie à peu près 60 personnes, mais des journalistes à temps plein, j’en ai grosso modo une douzaine là, qui comprend journaliste sportif, il y en a deux, j’ai quatre journalistes sportifs plus un ou deux journalistes de nouvelles générales qui font également du sport et arts et culture, et j’ai des journalistes polyvalents. J’ai certain de mes journalistes qui à l’occasion, c’est-à-dire une journée ou deux par semaines, doivent faire également du pupitre, alors, quand je vous dis que j’ai douze journalistes, c’est pas tout ... la douzaine n’est pas nécessairement spécialisée, mais j’ai ...
La présidente: Pour simplifier, à la salle de rédaction ou quand vous dites sur votre liste de paie, ça comprend les pigistes aussi, n’est-ce pas à ce moment là?
M. Saint-Cyr: Ça comprend les pigistes, les 60 personnes, oui.
La présidente: Mais, des employés à plein temps, il y en aurait combien?
M. Saint-Cyr: Employés à plein temps, à la rédaction, j’ai une douzaine de journalistes plus les pupitreurs et deux secrétaires et une, deux, trois maquettistes.
La présidente: Ah, c’est pas mal.
M. Saint-Cyr: Et deux correctrices à temps plein, et deux surnuméraires. Alors, on parle de 20 ou 21 personnes à temps plein ou à temps partiel sur une base régulière.
La présidente: Pour un tirage de 20 000 et des poussières?
M. Saint-Cyr: Oui. Mon budget est d’à peu près 2 millions par année pour la rédaction.
La présidente: Ah, c’est pas mal. Et quel est le prix d’un abonnement?
M. Saint-Cyr: C’est 215 $ par année.
La présidente: Est-ce que vous recevez des subventions? Il y a la fondation, évidemment, qui contribue ou paie entièrement la distribution?
M. LeBreton: Non. Vous savez, nous avons un fonds de fiducie qui a été établi au départ de 6 millions de dollars.
M. Saint-Cyr: Il n’a pas été établi pour nous.
M. LeBreton: Pas pour nous, pour Le Matin, mais il a été transféré à l’Acadie Nouvelle, mais en tout cas, on ne l’a pas dans l’histoire là, 6 millions de dollars, et qui, dans des bonnes années, rapportait ... a déjà rapporté 700 000 $, et là, l’an passé, pour vous donner un exemple, ça été 269 000 $ et notre distribution nous coûte bon an mal an 550 000 $ à 650 000 $ par année. Alors, vous voyez là, les dernières années ont été, il faut le dire, pénible à cet égard.
La présidente: Est-ce que vous recevez des subventions?
M. LeBreton: Non.
La présidente: De quelque gouvernement que ce soit?
M. LeBreton : Non.
La présidente: Non?
M. LeBreton: La seule chose, c’est le fond de fiducie pour des raisons de distribution seulement.
La présidente: Seulement, il n’y a pas de contributions de la communauté, ou je me souviens, par exemple, au Devoir, à un moment donné, on faisait des dîners-bénéfices.
M. LeBreton: Non, pas du tout. M.Saint-Cyr l’a mentionné, lorsqu’on a vu évidemment cette dégringolade au niveau des revenus que la fiducie nous donnait pour la distribution, nous avons pris une décision d’affaire et nous avons acheté notre imprimeur. Étant le principal client de cette imprimerie là qui nous logeait aussi, on en a fait l’acquisition, et parallèlement à l’acquisition, nous avons lancé notre édition de fin de semaine, augmentant si vous voulez, le volume d’activité de cette imprimerie là, et c’est un peu cette gymnastique là qui nous a permis de passer des temps un peu difficile, et par après, évidemment, il faut se le dire que l’édition de fin de semaine était aussi pour essayer de stabiliser notre pénétration dans Moncton.
L’édition de fin de semaine est avant tout un produit un peu plus urbain, et on nous disait, surtout dans la région de Moncton, que ça manquait. Alors, ça, ça été heureux, parce que nous, notre pénétration avec l’édition de fin de semaine a augmenté. Vous savez, c’est le seul centre urbain finalement que nous avons en Acadie. On le partage évidemment, mais on pense que c’est chez nous maintenant.
La présidente: Bien justement, vous aviez un problème, et vous avez réagi en allant à l’offensive, en occupant le terrain, si vous voulez. Votre problème avec les hebdos là, est-ce que vous ne pouvez pas faire la même chose, aller soit acheter soit créer des hebdos nous-mêmes ou en créant des sections qui seraient l’équivalent d’hebdos?
M. LeBreton: Bien, encore une fois, madame, si vous me permettez, dans les quatre dernières années, nous avons lancé une édition de fin de semaine, nous avons acheté Acadie Presse, nous avons donné un fond de pension à nos employés parce que ça n’existait pas, nous avons bâti un entrepôt parce qu’avec la presse, ça prenait évidemment un endroit pour mettre du papier. On mettait le papier dans des wagons.
La présidente: Ce n’était pas une accusation que je vous faisais.
M. LeBreton: La prochaine fois que j’arrive au conseil puis que je dis qu’on achète un hebdo là, moi je perds ma “job” là. Il y a quelque chose qui va arriver. Alors, nous sommes rendus à, je pense, au niveau, dans les médias, comme je le disais tout à l’heure avec monsieur Saint-Cyr, nous sommes à raffermir et à augmenter une pénétration dans le Grand Moncton/Dieppe et dans le Nord-Ouest. Je pense que là est la clé tout de suite. Si nous pouvons augmenter dans le Nord-Ouest, dans le Grand Madawaska assez bien et aussi dans la région du Grand Dieppe/Moncton, je pense que ça va nous permettre de voir plus tard à faire d’autres gestes que vous qualifiez d’offensifs, que je trouve très bien là, mais pour le moment, mes membres du conseil m’ont dit « mets la pédale douce sur l’offensive là, essaie de stabiliser ce que vous avez fait jusqu’à date. »
La présidente: Je comprends. Et il y a combien d’hebdos de langue française au Nouveau-Brunswick?
M. Saint-Cyr: Je pourrais peut-être vous les nommer en commençant par le Nord-Ouest là. Voulez-vous les chiffres exacts?
M. Haché: J’ai pas les chiffres exacts, mais on peut les nommer.
M. Saint-Cyr: Bon, enfin, si on commence le Nord-Ouest, il y a le Cataracte à Grand-Sault, qui a été acheté par Brunswick News. Il y en a deux dans la région d’Edmundston, qui est la République et le Madawaska.
M. Haché: Il y a aussi l’Info Week-end aussi dans le Madawaska.
M. Saint-Cyr: ... l’Info Week-end qui est un produit qui vient du Québec, mais qui tente de desservir le Madawaska. Ensuite, au Restigouche on a l’Aviron, qui est Quebecor, donc, ensuite, on arrive dans le comté d’Acadie-Bathurst où on a, si vous parlez d’hebdomadaires francophones? Le Brunswick News vient d’ouvrir ce printemps l’Hebdo Chaleur, parce qu’il y a eu un hebdomadaire qui était la propriété d’un groupe qui s’appelait les Éditions du Nord Ltée, qui à la fin des années 1970 là avait acheté ou fondé un petit peu partout dans toutes les régions du Nouveau-Brunswick sauf le Nord-Ouest, parce que le Madawaska était trop solide pour qu’ils puissent y toucher, mais ils avaient acheté l’Aviron, ils avaient acheté le Bathurst Tribune qui est devenu après ça un journal francophone, et ils ont acheté le Voilier et ils ont ouvert un journal. Je ne me rappelle plus comment ça s’appelait, excusez-moi, pourtant je travaillais pour ce groupe là à l’époque, mais ils avaient fondé un hebdomadaire dans le Sud-Est.
Dans le Sud-Est maintenant, on a le Moniteur qui reste. C’est un des seuls hebdos indépendants, o.k., qui est le Moniteur, il y a l’Étoile dont le siège social est ici à Dieppe mais qui est distribué dans le comté de Kent et surtout dans le Grand Moncton et qui est la propriété de Brunswick News. Est-ce que j’ai oublié une région?
M. Haché: Le Journal de Dieppe.
M. Saint-Cyr: Le Journal de Dieppe, lui, je le connais moins là, c’est un journal qui est distribué et puis qui appartient à un indépendant.
C’est le portrait actuellement, mais il y a 239 000 personnes sur ce territoire là que nous, nous desservons, et évidemment, pour desservir ces 239 000 personnes là, il n’y a pas de commerces à tout casser là qui veulent acheter de la publicité et qui se disputent l’espace, si vous voulez, publicitaire, qui se disputent l’attention de ces 239 000 consommateurs. C’est très limité comme espace, comme consommateur potentiel pour leur produit, alors forcément, l’assiette publicitaire est très modeste, c’est dans ce contexte là que nous on opère, et c’est sûr qu’il y a beaucoup de petits commerçants qui sont répartis sur le territoire que je viens de vous donner, mais il y en a plusieurs dont la préoccupation de leur clientèle-cible, c’est une clientèle régionale dans peut-être un rayon de 100 kilomètres. Au-delà de ça, ça ne les intéresse pas. Ils savent que les gens ne viendront pas chez-eux.
C’est différent pour la région de Moncton/Dieppe. C’est un centre d’attraction provincial et même à l’échelle des Maritimes. Mais si on parle du commerçant de Bathurst ou du commerçant de Campbellton, lui, ce qui l’intéresse, c’est le comté, c’est pour l’attraction du comté, et c’est à cette clientèle là que Brunswick News s’adresse, à qui ils offrent des ... plusieurs supports publicitaires pour un prix moindre que nous, une annonce va coûter, et c’est là que ça nous pose des problèmes. Monsieur Haché pourrait vous donner plus de détails.
M. Haché: Pour ajouter, c’était, on a fait le compte hier, c’était 32 publications hebdomadaires gratuites. Sur ça, c’était 21 qui étaient appartenues par le groupe Brunswick sur 32 au Nouveau-Brunswick, et il y a une tendance selon nos sources, que ça va continuer, ça fait que c’est majeur.
La présidente: Et au niveau du tirage, est-ce que la proportion est constante là? Les deux-tiers?
M. Haché: Les deux-tiers, oui.
M. LeBreton: Il y a beaucoup de ces supports là qui sont donnés gratuitement, alors là, le tirage, c’est très difficile d’évaluer. Certains sont donnés.
La présidente: Oui, c’est vrai.
M. Haché: Ils sont donnés avec le Publi-sac qui appartient déjà à Irving aussi.
La présidente: C’est normal. De leur point de vue, c’est dans doute normal?
M. Saint-Cyr: C’est normal, oui.
La présidente: On fournit des appuis aux clients.
M. Saint-Cyr: Oui.
La présidente: Pour vous, ça créé des problèmes importants. Justement, en parlant de la compagnie Irving, je lisais avec intérêt votre éditorial de ce matin. Monsieur Rainville est ici?
M. LeBreton: Oui, il est ici, et il va tout à l’heure vous en parler.
La présidente: Alors, je pose juste une question à monsieur Saint-Cyr. Est-ce que vous aviez déjà publié des reportages là-dessus ou est-ce que c’est la première fois que vous en parlez?
M. Saint-Cyr: Qu’on parle de?
La présidente: Du cas de monsieur Mike Parker.
M. Saint-Cyr: À ma connaissance, bien moi, ça fait ... je ne suis arrivé au journal que ... qu’il y a un peu plus de six mois, comme je vous le disais plus tôt. Je pourrais pas vous affirmer que c’est la première fois qu’on en parle. Ce qui est intéressant, cependant est lorsqu’on parle de diversité d’opinion. Monsieur Rainville se présentera lui-même, mais monsieur Rainville fait partie de l’équipe éditoriale mais il n’est pas un employé du journal, c’est un ... mais il fait partie de l’équipe éditoriale. Monsieur Rainville est un professeur de philosophie à la retraite et il s’est occupé du conseil de la Presse Acadienne un bout de temps, et c’est quelqu’un dont je suis très fier qu’il ait accepté de faire partie de notre équipe éditoriale, et il contribue régulièrement à l’éditorial, et il nous fait deux éditoriaux par mois.
La présidente: Et il est justement sur la liste des témoins. C’est donc à lui que je pose des questions là-dessus.
M. Saint-Cyr: C’est ça, mais je peux vous dire que c’est intéressant de voir des gens qui s’intéressent et qui n’ont pas nécessairement, qui ne gagnent pas leur vie avec leur journal mais qui ... et qui pourraient faire autre chose de leur journée, mais qui ont à coeur de maintenir cette diversité là et qui collaborent avec nous pour finalement, sur le plan monétaire, pour pas grand chose là.
La présidente: J’imagine.
M. Saint-Cyr: Je suis très honoré d’avoir parmi notre équipe monsieur Rainville, et je crois qu’il aura beaucoup de commentaires à vous faire sur l’état de la presse au Nouveau-Brunswick
La présidente: Messieurs, ça été extrêmement intéressant. On vous remercie. On a beaucoup de matière là-dedans, et s’il y a d’autres exemplaires, j’aimerais bien les voir. Je vais peut-être même devenir abonnée.
(Anglais suit -- The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will hear next from Mr. John Steeves…)
(Following French – continuing with the Chairman -- … Je vais peut-être même devenir abonnée.)
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 is also going to appear, and then we will go to our gratifying 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 staffs 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 which was originally a personal letter to Senator Day. I do have an abbreviated version of that with me. Some of the comment I have made of a personal nature I would prefer kept confidential to the senators. And also, there is a request to appear -–
The Chairman: Let me just clarify. 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 am not going to try to repeat some of the comments I have heard from previous witnesses today, although I must confess that a lot of the comments I have heard during the day, I have to agree with 90 to 95 per cent of them. But anecdotally, I would like to concentrate on the responsibility to an individual or to 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. And to be honest, it was a terrifying prospect to try to figure out a way to ensure that the diverse opinions of the white majority, the native minority, the miners, the environmentalists, et cetera, 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 think 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 the 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 little thing here as an example. When I was working at the Kings County Record in the fall of 2002, when Jamie Irving when 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 it was 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 the confirmation. Really, we had double-sourced, but it is always nice to get the other side. The confirmation came back as 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 the Irving influences outside the media empire can affect the reporting of the news because we did not run it that week. We ran it 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, without getting into any priorities, the predominant four industries are trucking, lumbering, agriculture and mining. Recently, about a year ago, the Kings County Record introduced a new business section and yet nine times out of 10, 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 many ways, the way the media empire in New Brunswick is established, there is diversity. Today, there is a reporter 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. But if there is diversity about stories that are not necessarily the most important stories, it is a meaningless exercise. That can happen. I will just give as an example in this province of one story that I would love to see done properly, whether by CBC or by newspapers, but I think newspapers actually have the length to be able to expand it. In this province, our prime provincial natural resource, our woodlands, are virtually in total control of the forest companies, which can be the Irvings or the Fraser companies and a variety of 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 saying, “This is wonderful,” and sort of a “he says/she says” story, I think that there is room for something like that to be done in depth. And 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 word “corrupted,” that power corrupts. Do you have a very strong feeling of the appropriateness of that word vis-à-vis the printed 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 really was such an insignificant story that it probably does not really matter that much, except that I felt that our paper, myself and Mr. Irving looked silly not having it in our newspaper, a community newspaper, when everyone on the street knew it. The pink slips had already been handed out. So, that 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, 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 persons 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 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, 10 years ago, whatever? When I say “quality,” I mean in terms of how well it is serving or not serving the people of Kings County and surrounding area.
Mr. Steeves: I think that all I could give is anecdotes and as Mr. Henley said when he was here, he did not want to be expressing sour grapes, or is that a bad word 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 than I think she should have.” I tended to write more political stories. The new editor tends to write more stories about the courts, the church in many cases because, no question, religion is very important in my community. It is the type of thing that I do not feel comfortable saying, “I am right, she is wrong,” or vice versa.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: When I was there, I was never editor. I was only a senior writer. But whether under my leadership, or whatever you want to call it, or that of the present editor, it is a valid criticism to say 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, 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 than just the basic news release from the local MLA on these types of matters. And I think that it does not matter who is running the paper. I think it is the type of thing 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 very good point about the coverage, or lack thereof, of the local industries. I will pass now to colleagues.
Senator Munson: Mr. Steeves, it has been quite a day. I think the name “Irving” was mentioned 150, 200 times and you hear all morning things 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 you can get a job in this province any more.
Mr. Steeves: Since I have left, I have published a book and call myself an author now.
Senator Munson: At this particular point, I am just wondering what we should recommend. 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 this province, it is not good for the people of New Brunswick? This province, it seems to me, is different than what we have seen in other provinces and I have a great deal of pride in this province. I was born and brought up here. But what I am hearing are very few voices except those that are speaking out against this monopoly.
Mr. Steeves: Well, to start with, I think that 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 and 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 reader surrogate to ensure the integrity of the paper. I do mention that and outline that a bit. I think it is a good idea in principle. Since I wrote that, of course, I decided to check The New York Times web site and it seems The New York Times has cleaned up its act since Janson Blair, who had been fabricating and plagiarizing his stories, et cetera, 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. But I do like the concept of a public editor named an ombudsman that would be hired by the Irving press to look at 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. And I could see the very likelihood of advertisers actually paying bonuses to be able to publish their ads on the same page if it was done properly.
The danger is, would be 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 that the way that that could be dealt with by the powers that be within the Irving press would be to use an independent panel to make the hiring recommendations, possibly three or four journalism professors. “This is the best candidate to do this job without fear.” As I understand it, at The New York Times, the person in such a position can be fired, but I suspect it would cause an uproar in the public if the person was fired for the wrong reason.
I happened to have spoken to James C. Irving briefly about this because I have sent him a copy of the letter that I sent to Senator Day and he said that they have toyed with the idea of having an ombudsman. And as I say, I think Mr. Irving is well-intentioned, but I think it is very difficult when you are writing a variety of information organs in a place where your family, your uncles, your grandfather, your father or your cousins, are running everything else as well. But I think it is something that could be explored. I do not think the senate could order something like that, but it might be able to at least recommend something like that.
Senator Munson: I have just one other question. Do freelancers have a chance to write anything in 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 the same material. But the Fredericton Gleaner finally decided to drop me, so that was half of my income, and at the same time, the Moncton Times Transcript dropped the column fee from $50 to $25 and it just did not seem worthwhile, so I stopped. But there are some possibilities for freelancing, but it is very, very 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 more often?
Mr. Steeves: No, it is the one that came to mind when I was appearing here. I do not like to relate any confidential comments because during the years we were together, Mr. Irving and I actually at times were very close.
The Chairman: I am not asking you to break confidences. I am just asking you, was it once or not? 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, but 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, I do not know how green I could possibly be, but my city editor asked me to go to the Red Head area of Saint John because people were complaining that overnight, their white houses had turned brown. And I went out and 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, Bill Cockburn at the time, to the local MLA, Charlie McInerney, I think it was, 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 as badly as I could, but I wrote it 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 named Ken Moore, who is no longer with the paper, and it was delayed for 24 to 48 hours. I forget which. The story came out with great, great lengths 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 from then and I still have the final product as it appeared in the paper. So it does happen.
The Chairman: Is it the Kent County paper?
Mr. Steeves: No, the Kings County.
The Chairman: Kings County.
Mr. Steeves: Yes.
The Chairman: I am so sorry. Why do you think the Kings County paper does not cover the major industries? Is it because they just do not have enough reporters? I mean, I cannot see how the Irving empire would resist coverage of BSE.
Mr. Steeves: Well, in trucking, there are many, many independent truckers around, but two of the largest companies in trucking 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 operations in Sussex is the Irving –-
The Chairman: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Steeves: Yes.
The Chairman: Lots of people have explained to us the importance of the whole Irving economic empire to the economy of this province.
Mr. Steeves: Right.
The Chairman: I am just saying, basically, is it that the newspaper just does not have enough reporters and has, I guess, made an arbitrary decision?
Mr. Steeves: I do no think it is necessarily the number of reporters.
The Chairman: No? But you do not know for sure?
Mr. Steeves: I think that it is a question of interest. The reporters, the editors follow just 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 really 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 a good thing. That would indeed be a very good thing.
Mr. Steeves: All right.
The Chairman: 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, 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, I guess, a bit who I am. I am a past president, honorary life member and founding member of the Atlantic Community Newspapers Associations, 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, editor in New Brunswick for over 30 years. I think I have half-decent credentials to comment about 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 in my father’s tiny newspaper in southwestern Ontario when I was eight. And 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 running around and reading newspapers who were from a type when every word in a newspaper was set one letter at a type. The headlines were still set one letter at a time when I started. Since then, the information, computation and communication explosions have been continual. It has been an exciting time.
But I think to simplify the questions before you, if you perhaps try to consider the state of the media and 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. Technology in my lifetime turned newspapers, especially community newspapers, into very profitable businesses. When I started, a little newspaper operation would sell office supplies, mainly do commercial printing. The newspaper would fill up some time each week and somehow or other, they would struggle by. Even in 1974, when I bought The Dalhousie News, they were producing eight pages a week and could not actually produce eight new ones, so 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, nor did they have ad salespeople. But 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.
But 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, what you always have to do is 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 to match 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. And community newspapers during my lifetime 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. But if the community is gone, so is that monopoly.
Daily newspapers are having to learn to be community newspapers as there are so many more sources of national and international news. And you will see that on the Internet. If you look at the biggest daily papers, their lead stories on their Internet versions are local stories.
Young people 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 and to wait for 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 they feel perhaps some responsibility for the tree.
It is also very difficult for an individual newspaper or small group even to get 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. And so Via, for example, 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. But Via cannot talk about a programme just for my flagship paper, The Miramichi Leader. They do not have time to talk about that one paper at all. So, 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 has 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. When I sold my paper, 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. They 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 like you are buying a building and you can get a 75 per cent mortgage. There is really, in a newspaper, a bit of typesetting equipment, a bit of 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 of the business and even if they had been, I would 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 even 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, compared to society generally 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 and 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 featured in those flyers and in the stores and the flyer itself becomes a profit centre. Later, Canada Post got aggressively into the flyer distribution business and priced newspapers out of the market. They were definitely practising predatory pricing.
More recently, when Canada Post was forced out of deep discount pricing on flyer distribution, what had become one effective Crown corporation monopoly was replaced by what are virtual 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/process full colour pictures and advertisements. However, colour printing requires four times as many press units as black printing. You know, the press does not know, 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 e-mail 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 have a vertical supply control chain.
Unfortunately, this worked strongly against niche publications. Short-run, small-page-count publications are not efficient on huge presses. They are like trying to use a highway construction earth mover to dig a flower bed.
Concentration of media is a worrisome thing, especially in areas like New Brunswick and the Maritimes where one family, the Irvings, control so much of the basic industry and commerce. To be fair, before media concentration, there were some very good newspapers and some very, 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 about that, 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 has 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 to 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 do to make sure that there was not any unfilled product need or advertising opportunity lying around. We did not want any advertising dollars lying around there for somebody else to mop up.
Considering Irving domination of the New Brunswick market, you were still only considering some 750,000 people. If one family dominated the media and industry in one city of that size, would it attract any attention at all?
Concentration of media is not in and of itself not necessarily bad. Chains can be dedicated to editorial excellence. David Black’s Caribou Press and papers in British Columbia are consistent national and international award winners for their efforts, as are many other chains. But what does appear to me to be happening is that along with the profitability, the drive to productivity, growth and profit may well be killing the golden goose. Is it just me or does it seem that 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 that or thinks that?
Must the pressure for revenue and profit growth only find its limits by exceeding them? And to give you an idea about that, local news is more expensive to produce. Local columns cost more than syndicated columns. One-time news costs more than generic news and what you will find is that in all of the papers, the more the MBAs have control of it, the more what we call “canned news” or they used to call “boilerplate” takes up more and more space.
The evidence is that audiences are more and more being pandered to and polarized by popular media that are more and more cheap, base entertainment and less and less informed, reasoned debate. We have not gone nearly as far in that regard as they have in the United States, but you can certainly see it beginning. You know, when you think of it, even the presence of Don Cherry on national hockey league, that is more entertainment than it is 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 bloody well knows that politicians are not saying what they think. They are saying what last night’s polls told them that we want to hear. So, ratings drive media to the lowest common denominator. When people are pursuing only ratings numbers, they start going 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 independence in newspaper publishing. It might have been possible if they had been able to get together into 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 which control the print and electronic media will probably control the Internet and worldwide web media. That seems to be how it is shaping down. They do not have to have the best idea. All they have to do is wait and 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 and featuring local performers and so on? Why 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, has 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 to treat news as an “infotainment” commodity, I firmly believe that government assistance of any kind would not be any kind of 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 is audience and 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, are going to have virtual and practical monopolies on printing and distribution, it is essential that competitors have equal access 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 ensured 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. Now, 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 ensures that the CBC is properly financed. It must be able to fill the gaps left as every 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 financed so that members of parliament are beholden to the electors rather than corporations or unions. That may seem a strange and irrelevant comment on the state of the media, 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 time 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, too, it is hard to imagine the Government of Canada mustering the power or the appetite to tackle the famous fortunes which control the Canadian media. Most of them are thoroughly embedded in the political parties and probably quite capable of fending off any threat to use the tools of power that they use to dominate their markets. Good luck and thank you.
The Chairman: Your presentation was so interesting that I let you go on longer than normally.
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 I think 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, from my point of view, one of the finest and probably the best business case we have heard during these hearings on the media today, particularly as applies, of course, to a smaller province, and as you pointed out, with a population that could be a small city. Having given that business case so clearly and so thoroughly, and since we are addressing the concentration of the media, as 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 the ownership, but I am talking about the diversity of the media, all of the small papers we have plus three English-language dailies. For a province like this, are we well served in terms of the availability of printed news media or not?
Mr. Cadogan: First of all, 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 King’s 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 are going to have the same view. What I do think is that we have got 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 right on top of it, the business is being driven by the potential by ad dollars, not the interests of the readers. What do you think these free subway papers and new free 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 whole lives. But what I am seeing 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, and they 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. So, they were the champions of education and good government and 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 on 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. So, I think that there are lots of publications there, but I do not think that they are existing for the same purpose that they once did.
Senator Munson: So, 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.
Mr. Cadogan: Yes.
Senator Munson: I met Jamie Irving. He is a wonderful young man.
Mr. Cadogan: I believe that he does really 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 Frank McKenna being chosen ambassador. 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 in small-town newspapers in New Brunswick? I will preface it with the fact that the Irvings own so many properties and so much here. Would a small-town editor dare say something about an issue despite what the Irvings own; that is, 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, kind of thing. But during that time, they had me write a column that appeared in all of 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 criticising Jaakko Poyry.
The Chairman: I am from away.
Mr. Cadogan: Oh, I am sorry. The Jaakko Poyry report was a report commissioned by the Government of New Brunswick and the Forest Industries Association, which suggested that the wood production off Crown land should be doubled in the next 50 years. And 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. But in any case, after I wrote critically about it, I do not remember seeing or hearing of anything 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 are you going to work for? So, you know, I am not saying the Irvings have to say, “Do not do it.” I think people might just be afraid to offend them anyway. And again, it is not strictly an Irving issue in my mind. Do you see much critical of the Aspers in CanWest publications or 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 than that 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 possibly news consumption in general, more definitely newspaper readership, and that this is one way the publishers are trying to get them to get the habit, so that as they age, then 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 are going to be satisfied by the print media. I think it is going to be electronic media, the Internet. That is a personal opinion. But if you look at what is in them, 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 is going to be all wire service news. It is generic. So I would just as soon they read Dr. Seuss myself.
The Chairman: Well, thanks very much.
Mr. Cadogan: You are very welcome.
The Chairman: It was very interesting. You covered an awful 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: Find me a journalist who never made a mistake of that nature.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you very much.
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. Well, we had a lot of people in Vancouver, too.
Senator Munson: We are tied with Vancouver right now.
The Chairman: We heard from 17 members of the public in Vancouver. What this means, I have to tell us all, is that we have to be extremely disciplined in terms of time. So 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 quarter to nine this morning. So it is really important that we do it properly. But we are really looking forward to hearing from everybody.
The first name I have on the list is Mr. Jonathan Franklin. Please come forward please. Go for it.
Mr. Jonathan Franklin, As an individual: Thank you very much. I feel like sort of the odd man out today because I have been listening to a lot of stuff 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 and Transcript from 1996 until 2001, and then the Telegraph Journal after that. My background in newspapers is 40 years. I worked with Southam in Vancouver; I worked for Thompson 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 and Transcript, which had fallen on a bit of 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 really have remained the same over the last eight years for all the publishers. They are slightly more descriptive now. Publishers are told, 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. That is exactly the kind of paper, as a professional journalist, 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 stuff 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 to put 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 at 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 to hire 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. So I have really found myself quite nonplussed today to hear some of the observations from the outside.
I do have just two brief comments before my time is up. Dr. Steuter’s presentation today -- I have been with her on a media panel anyway -- her first study -- and I have looked into her studies because I thought they were important - they basically use the technique of deconstruction which was set up by French intellectual called Jacques Derrida, who died recently, and is kind of quite frankly, without being unkind, regarded as a bit of a murky intellectual process these days. I can go into the details of the study, 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 own study, she lumped the three Irving dailies with The Globe and Mail in their coverage of that strike, and that is a pretty good company. So, I am happy with that.
If I can just close, 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 people. 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 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 they were basically ... the Internet was coming in, organizations throughout, not only us, but other organizations had to do the same kind of contracts. Freelance coverage, that was mentioned.
I do not know whether the committee saw the Globe piece, which I will leave with you, which deals actually 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 a bunch more time than I said that I was going to, 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.
Mr. Franklin: No, no, but I have been retired for six months.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you for coming today, Mr. Franklin. It is really hard to know just what question I could ask. I think the question I will ask is: If you were to write a column or an editorial on what has happened here today, what might you say?
Mr. Franklin: I would think 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 just 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 get your opinion, and it is great to have, you know, as a journalist you have to have balance in every report, right?
Just quickly, 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’s, a recent one that I was not there. I have never felt restrained. The only thing that I would say, the key thing was that one could expect that the Irvings should be treated just like the McCains would be treated, or just like any other company.
The Chairman: The admirable statement of principles, instructions, that you quoted from, I would love to have a copy of that, but more pertinently, does anybody other than the publisher and the editor-in-chief know about those? Do the staff know about them? Does the public know about them?
Mr. Franklin: It was more in 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.
(French follows continuing with the Chairman -- Monsieur Bernard ...)
(Après anglais, continuing with the Chairman – Thank you very much, sir.)
Maintenant, nous recevons M. Bernard Robichaud.
M. Bernard Robichaud, agence de presse Atlantique inc., à titre personnel : Madame la présidente, je dois vous dire que c’est contraire à la cour où j’ai passé une demi-journée ce matin à plaider. Donc, j’aimerais vous dire ceci.
Mon père a 90 ans. Il écrit. Mon frère est journaliste à l’Acadie Nouvelle et chargé du pupitre de la culture. J’ai une agence de presse fondée en 1979. Je vends de l’information ou échange de l’information aux médias, c’est-à-dire journaux, radios et télévision. Je vois à aider et à former des journalistes et je travaille beaucoup avec des gens indépendants. Je suis indépendant. Donc, j’ai une grande ambivalence dans le débat d’aujourd’hui, c’est-à-dire que je lis à tous les jours. Le Globe 7 Mail, le Telegraph Journal, le Times Transcript, l’Acadie Nouvelle, le Chronicle Herald puis le Journal de Québec. Les hebdos Miramichi Leader Weekend, Northern Light, l’Étoile du Sud-Est, Kings County Record, Hebdo Chaleur. Je me lève à trois heures le matin et je lis jusqu’à sept heures le matin. Je suis un news junkie. Donc, moi, je vis par les journaux. Mon meilleur journal, en priorité, le Chronicle Herald de Halifax, le deuxième c’est le Globe and Mail, puis tout le restant suit après.
Les Irvings nous donnent de bons journaux au Nouveau-Brunswick, je ne conteste pas. Tout ce que je demande, c’est qu’est-ce qu’on fait avec l’opinion du freelancer, c’est-à-dire de la personne avec une pensée? J’ai une personne ici en particulier qui va suivre, qui s’appelle Bethany Dykstra. C’est quelqu’un depuis un an que je prépare. J’ai tenté de rentrer sa chronique au Moncton Times, et c’est la troisième fois que je l’essaie. Maintenant, ça passe à l’Editorial Board, mais ça ne revient plus. C’est un exemple d’essayer de vendre de l’information qui n’est pas pour raison financière. C’est que c’est gens là ont quelque chose à dire.
Donc, je pense que si j’ai un message, ça serait que l’Ombudsman ou l’Editor là, ça serait une bonne idée. L’idée du New York Times je l’appuie à l’intérieur du journal. Brunswick News nous assure de la survie de tous ces journaux là puis on pourrait en parler des heures. Donc, j’ai rien contre le groupe Brunswick News. Tout ce que je voudrais, c’est qu’ils donneraient plus à l’opinion du lecteur, à l’opinion de la personne, parce que le forum qu’ils ont dans le journal est très bon. Il y a des gens qui écrivent qui sont merveilleux, donc, il faudrait qu’on puisse les lire plus souvent. Donc, moi c’est vraiment ça que j’aimerais passer comme message, que j’espère que les gens qui nous écoutent de Brunswick News, dont certains journalistes que je connais bien du Times and Transcript et du Telegraph, comprennent qu’on est content de voir et de lire tous les jours ce qu’on nous donne, mais on voudrait avoir peut-être plus d’indépendants qui nous donneraient des opinions différentes. Je connais Jamie Irving, je connais Jim Irving, je connais les gens dans cette entreprise, et je suis content pour une petite Province d’avoir un journal à Moncton, à Fredericton, à Saint-Jean, tandis qu’il y a des provinces qui ont juste un journal. Ça fait que moi, je ne suis pas contre le groupe Brunswick News. Ils sont efficients, ils pensent à leur affaire, puis je pense que dans l’ensemble, tout ce que je voudrais, c’est qu’ils s’ouvrent. Donc, j’ai fini.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: C’est correct que vous êtes satisfait avec la situation sauf peut-être un manque de journalisme libre?
M. Robichaud: Je voudrais que le message soit passé parce que je ne crois pas moi non plus dans l’interférence gouvernementale dans le milieu de la presse, donc, l’idée apportée, et encore une fois par David Kanugan que je connais bien et tous ces gens là, c’est qu’il faudrait que le groupe comprenne que tu peux faire bien dans la presse, mais il faut que quelqu’un de l’intérieur, soit quelqu’un de nommé, comme on disait, par un panel de professeurs en journalisme, qui soit là comme le protecteur des opinions, le protecteur des indépendants. Donner plus de place dans leurs journaux à l’opinion du public, parce que ça vaut quelque chose.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Oui. Nous avons écouté la même chose dans les autres provinces, comme un ombudsman ou un conseil de presse, d’avoir la possibilité d’évaluer.
M. Robichaud: C’est ça, et ça protégerait leurs propres journalistes, parce que je parle souvent avec beaucoup de journalistes et certains d’entre eux me disent “c’est difficile,” donc, un protecteur du journaliste et un protecteur de l’indépendance, je crois serait une bonne recommandation.
(Anglais suit – Senator Munson: How do you make a living?)
(Following French)
Senator Munson: How do you make a living?
(French follows – M. Robichaud -- J’ai bien d’autres...)
(Après anglais – Senator Munson: How do you make a living?)
M. Robichaud: J’ai bien d’autres cordes à mon arc, donc à partir de ce moment là, le journalisme est ma passion, j’ouvre un bureau sur la rue Main ici à Moncton, donc j’en suis pas à ma dernière promotion, mais je vous dis seulement ça. J’aimerais avoir plus de place pour des auteurs comme Bethany Dykstra et bien d’autres que j’ai formé, c’est-à-dire, parce qu’ils ont quelque chose à dire. Ils ont des perspectives à présenter. Elle, c’est un freelance rural reporter. Elle voit les choses dans son monde rural. Elle peut tout traduire les événements de la vie dans son monde rural. Donc, je veux qu’elle ait sa chronique. Ça s’appelle Bethany’s World. C’est déjà publié dans des communautaires. Je pensais que je l’avais eu au Moncton Times, puis ça fait trois fois qu’on attend puis la réponse vient pas, puis on essaie. Donc, je veux que le groupe Irving réalise qu’il ferait encore plus d’argent et d’intérêt à impliquer les gens indépendants avec des idées. C’est ça qu’on veut lire dans les journaux.
La présidente: Il faut dire que peu de jeunes journalistes ont des supporters aussi éloquents que vous. Merci beaucoup, monsieur Robichaud.
Je demande au prochain témoins de se présenter, Mme Bethany Thorne-Dykstra.
(Anglais suit – continuing with the Chairman – Welcome to the committee.)
(Following French, continuing with The Chairman)
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 to share some of the experiences that I have been facing. I guess the big question in my mind, since I do appreciate the spoken word and that every person does get a good perspective of issues from all angles, is what criteria is used for freelance writers to get into any kind of paper? I am very confused at this point in my life, I guess. I have had so many people come up to me after writing a number of editorials in newspapers, both in the Times and in the Telegraph, and in our little local newspaper, the Community Digest, and they keep saying “When are you going to put another article in? I can’t wait to hear your story. I can’t wait to hear your perspective on that issue,” and that is why I decided one day that maybe I should have an article there on a regular basis from a rural perspective. I really appreciate Mr. Steeves’ comments a little bit earlier about Sussex because I am also a dairy farmer, and I know the agricultural issue quite well, and I feel that the general public out there need to hear that perspective. I guess from the Times and Transcript or the Telegraph Journal, or any of the major papers in this province, knowing that 50 per cent of the population is rural in New Brunswick, as was mentioned earlier -- there is only 750,000 people in total in the province -- I would think a rural perspective would be something welcomed.
I have had a number of journalists look at my writing because I do not really know what people are looking for and they have critiqued it and 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.
I guess my big question -- and maybe you folks can answer it for me -- is what is the criteria to be able to do freelance writing in this province?
The Chairman: I can tell you, before I give my colleagues a chance to put questions, that no, 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: I guess what I am asking is this: Is there a criteria that newspapers use? Is it a 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, yes, there are certain elementary rules that people follow. Like does it seem to be accurate, is it intelligible, is it grammatical, is it fair, are we going to get sued for liable, is it of interest to a broad swath of our readers, not all of them necessarily, but a swat. However, every single 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. So, 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 has been here. Maybe somebody can recognize the talent that you do have, including all of the newspapers owned by the Irving family, and take a good look at the work that you do and represent, as you say, the 50 per cent people who live in rural New Brunswick. It sounds to me that you are offering a rather 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 at the moment.
I got $20 for an article I wrote for the Edmonton Journal last week. I still have not cashed it yet.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: The interesting thing is when I have approached a few papers now, and a few journalists have approached on my behalf I might add, I have never asked for money because my feeling is it is important for people to understand people in rural areas and how we think and what our perspective is, and I am just very interested in making sure that that side of issues is heard. So, it is not about money for me. It is something that I feel is a view that is not heard often and 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 something. Maybe it cannot be ... well, even in our big national papers. But if you feel there is a subject, be it rural childcare or be it something to do with the mines or whatever, or BSC and our New Brunswick farmers, I think you have the opportunity to get that published not just a two-paragraph letter, but as a maybe eight-paragraph letter. But it is certainly up to the publisher of the paper to decide whether they would hire you as a freelance writer or hire anyone else. I mean that is a hiring decision.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: But you do have the right to put your opinions in the paper, and I have seen them. They get in.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: And 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 either. But, yes, I do take that avenue now, as much as possible.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I know some people who write an awful lot of letters to the editor, they are going to 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 necessarily it is the subject, I think it is the frequency of writing so that they give many people a chance.
The Chairman: I can confirm that. Very few newspapers publish anything like all the letters that they get.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Oh, definitely not.
The Chairman: And so you do try to give a fair shot to as many people as possible, which makes it kind of hard on the keen and frequent writers.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Thorne-Dykstra: Could I just say one last thing? I guess 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 to another?
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Thorne-Dykstra.
I will now call on – is it Mr. Eric Tobin or Monsieur Eric Tobin?
Mr. Eric Tobin, As an individual: Eric Tobin.
The Chairman: Mr. Tobin, would you please come forward?
Mr. Tobin: Yes, no relation to Brian since the 16th century.
The Chairman: None at all?
Mr. Tobin: But we are all agitators.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is it about the cod?
Mr. Tobin: No, it is actually about the media.
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, have gone from being a consultant and another an accountant, and another employed with the Irvings in the transport industry. And 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” where you get hired for 40 hours a week. If you are not prepared to work 60 for the same money, there is somebody waiting for your job and 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 versus 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 to have an election and I have to say one of the places where you found this most prevalent recently is the Moncton Times Transcript and it is becoming the feature, juned (?) out in the air and this is the April 13 edition. And then 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, that is April the 14th, “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 in 1999 changed the whole funding of elections. Between articles like this and Mr. Harper, they have now said “Well, what the heck, we are not going to pay for it anymore. 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, 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 a media you can actually communicate with, and I had the occasion recently to question an editorial in The Globe and Mail about Justice Iacobucci and that 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 bit to the right. The new editorial staff have moved it to right wing. But I will write you a letter.
The Chairman: Thank you. You are going to 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, I will give you, sir, the opportunity. You wanted to go one more thing, so I will not ask the question, if you want to get things off your mind. Those media people, they are something else, aren’t they? They drive me nuts.
Mr. Tobin: Well, actually, I do not mind. I called the National Post a few weeks ago, reading the statements in two or three parts of the National Post, of what Dale Orr of Global whatever had to say.
Senator Munson: You wanted to say something there. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Tobin: But I got a call from Terrence Corcoran wanting to know why I called, and we had a little debate.
But what I want to say is the National Post seems to be determined to wipe out the CBC, and it is the one place where I think you can find objective truth. I will just refer to two comments, one from Sheila Rogers who is a music person, who has pointed out that now, when she talks to the provinces, it is like she is talking to ten different countries, and this has evolved from this 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 the 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 with Bill Bennett, but that is where that came from. And actually, the Council of the Federation removed the position of the Senate as being the mediator between the provinces and the Federal Government, and it was irrelevant then, and it is irrelevant now.
So I think that is enough for now.
I wrote 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 us tomorrow, because there is not a chance for public presentations, if you wrote us tomorrow, or Monday or Tuesday, and tell us what your reaction is to the coverage of these two historic speeches tonight, and they represent two very different points of view, 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.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Let us know what you think.
Mr. Tobin: Okay, because I think the freedom of expression in the Charter is not just what I say, it is what it 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 hundred people outside who want to know what is going on.
I have a point of concern before I start. I made about a month ago, two months ago, I said that I wanted to make a presentation. In the past, I made a presentations in front of standing committees in New Brunswick. They told me yesterday I only have four minutes. I was disallowed 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. We would like to have more; 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 all the long list of 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 B.C. has four minutes, and also New Brunswick. You cannot compare the population of New Brunswick to B.C. I mean there is more media, there are 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 hitchhiked a ride from Fredericton. Sorry, I should take my hat off, but I hitchhiked from Fredericton to be here. So I just want to go on record that I have been, as the Senator from Sackville knows, that I have been very outspoken. I am the most outspoken citizen in this province for this issue. So what I will try to do, I would like to relax so I can concentrate on the issue at hand, but I 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 everything that 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 l’Évangéline, that is a French paper, and I enjoy writing. I enjoy spreading my views with other people. I have a column in the River Valley News. It has not been Irving bought yet, maybe, 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 bi-weekly paper that is now owned by Irving.
During the frigate program, I was very well-known in Saint John to write my letters to the editor. I wrote and got 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, on both sides, I could have went, but I had the right to condemn the Irvings, had the right to praise the Irvings.
Then the Telegraph Journal, then something happened, I was working for a company, then 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 little letter to the editor, but the damage had already been done by Saint Johners to know 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 King’s County Record -- I am talking fast because I only have four minutes, I am trying, there are some many issues -- when I found out that Jamie was the publisher of the King’s County Record, I said “Okay, he is a good kid.” Then I walked by through McAllister Place and then I saw a used picture on the King’s County Record, “J.D. Irving Sawmill record production.” On the front page of the King’s County Record, that should have been in the workplace. What was it doing on the front page of the King’s 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. So I do not know what was going on. There were changes made. I made a complaint to the Atlantic Press Council and what happened, Ken Simms from Halifax was surprised once I told him I wrote 500 letters to the editor. He said “500?” “My God,” he said “there is a procedure here. Then suddenly they stop. We will investigate this.” So Peter Haggard, he is from Ontario, he is the publisher of the Telegraph Journal. He called me and he told me, “We will not print critical letters of the Irvings by former employees.” So I turned around and I said, “Okay, so that means if there are 6,000 people in the shipyard that are former employees, they cannot write letters in the paper.” Then, Rob Link from the Evening Times Globe, I wrote a letter, he told me, “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 year 2003, Peter Haggard from the Telegraph Journal, wrote a column and told the readers, “We will only print one letter by one writer on any issues once a month.” So I was shocked. Now, they are stopping people from writing letters to the paper. Three weeks later they announced that Saint John Ship Building was closed. So, those three regular writers that wrote about the shipyard, they had their say, then they had to wait a whole month. I mean, 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, stopping young kids, five years old, from being forced on these drugs, and 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 that was in a cow field. It was in front of the legislature. The citizens of Fredericton -- I am sorry I am talking so fast, I am just going fast -- the citizens of Fredericton were wondering, “How come we have never seen this in the Gleaner?” It took 50 days. So what happened, suddenly, they stole my tent. To make a long story short, I got good coverage at 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, they knew who I was because l’Acadie Nouvelle covered this story totally. The Moncton Transcript, they never did. The English side. See, this is what I am talking about.
The Chairman: I do not like having to cut anybody off.
Mr. LeBlanc: It is a damn shame.
The Chairman: I do not like it; we do not like it. But you are not the only one that 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, but your main frustration in this case, and I do not want to go back regarding your employment with the Irvings and all those other things. I know you as a person who has taken a very strong and valid and important position on ADHD. Do you feel satisfied in the end? It is like 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 like I said, I had to speak so fast. It had nothing to do if I reached my goal on Ritalin. My goal for freedom of speech, that is the problem. When you have Frank McKenna come to me when I was protesting, I met him in Fredericton, I have known him for a long time, he came to me and he said, “Charles, how come we have not seen any letters from you lately?” It is the freedom of speech. I do not want to compare the Irvings to this province to Germany. We do not go around and execute people. But do not forget, when Hitler took power, he took power of the media.
The media here, they call it Brunswick News, is Irving News. I mean, my issue of Ritalin, okay, did I succeed? I do not know, but this is not the point. The point is to have people, New Brunswickers, be allowed the freedom of speech and they are denied 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.” The Senate, this committee must - see, I am just trying to answer a question and trying to get some more here.
Quickly, 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 go out, they are not going to write critical stories of the Irvings. Look, it is freedom of speech.
The Chairman: Mr. LeBlanc, I am going to give Senator Munson a chance to ask a question if he wants, but I am also going to ask you please, because we are running out of time, but you do a blog so, you know how to do email. Could you 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. I would throw out the easy question for you if you missed one or two things in a minute or so.
Mr. LeBlanc: I really appreciate that. One thing that I was concerned of 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. in his letters to the editor, and I have seen him face to face and trust me, he just looked at me and said, “I own the paper and I will put the damn letter anywhere I want to.” But anyhow, that is his point. But 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 for us here.
Mr. LeBlanc: My blog is Charles LeBlanc, ADHD.
The Chairman: Thanks very much.
(French follows - continuing with The Chairman -- J’invite ...)
(Après anglais – continuing with the Chairman)
J’invite maintenant M. Gilles Haché.
M. Gilles Haché, Le Moniteur Acadien, à titre personnel: Bonjour. Je suis le propriétaire du Moniteur Acadien. Je pense qu’on est une espèce rare au Nouveau-Brunswick, un journal indépendant, ici dans le Sud-Est.
La présidente: Hebdomadaire?
M. Haché: Oui, dans le Sud-Est du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Lorsque j’ai acheté Le Moniteur huit ans passés, j’avais un compétiteur dans la région de Kent, le comté de Kent. Moi, je fais le comté de Westmorland, puis le monsieur a reçu une subvention de 145 000 $ de Ressources Humaines Canada pour partir, agrandir sa couverture puis venir dans ma région. Ça fait qu’il me compétitionnait à 30 000 copies. Moi, j’avais 5 000 copies dans le temps, lorsque j’ai acheté, puis c’est ça, pour vous dire un peu, c’est ça qui a amené Irving à être dans les journaux francophones, c’est que lui, après neuf mois, il a fait faillite, et lorsqu’il n’a plus eu, son 125 000 $ a été écoulé, il a fait faillite, ça fait que Irving a pris contrôle de ce journal, bien pas le journal, le journal a fermé, mais ils ont parti d’autres à 30 000 copies aussi.
Dans le temps, c’était tout le territoire. Ils sont divisés en deux maintenant. C’est l’Étoile du Sud-Est et l’Étoile de Kent. Ils sont deux journal (sic). Je suis comme coincé entre les deux. J’ai une circulation de 5 000 copies vendues. Je fais mes frais. Je pense que ce que je trouve difficile, c’est de travailler avec un journal qui n’est pas un journal. Moi, je dis que c’est pas un journal parce que, ce que ça sert, ça sert à mettre les flyers dans les sacs. Quand tu le reçois, c’est ça qui sert de couverture pour le mettre dans des sacs.
La présidente: Ce qu’on appelle un shopper, en bon français.
M. Haché: Oui, un shopper, oui. Il couvre pas les assemblées municipales, il couvre pas ... c’est juste des features sur certaines personnes qui font telles choses, mais par contre, au niveau de publicité, je pense que c’est pour faire un point, c’est qu’ils veulent aller chercher de la publicité. C’est seulement ça leur intérêt, parce que, pour une preuve de ça, lorsqu’ils ont fait des coupures au niveau du journal, il y avait trois journalistes, ils ont coupé les trois journalistes. Ça fait que tu te dis, “c’est quoi qu’ils veulent? C’est-tu couvrir la nouvelle ou avoir de la publicité?” puis je pense que c’est juste la publicité.
Un autre point, c’est qu’au niveau des prix, c’est pas normal qu’ils ont les mêmes prix que moi lorsqu’ils ont trois fois plus de tirage que moi. Ils devraient avoir un prix beaucoup plus élevé, mais souvent, ils ont plus bas que moi ou même le même prix pour pouvoir compétitionner ou aller chercher de l’argent.
Un autre point aussi, j’avais fait un cahier pour un conseil économique au Nouveau-Brunswick ici, mais je voulais le livrer dans Kent. Eux-autres contrôlent les sacs aussi, les sacs publicitaires, Publi-sac, et j’avais demandé pour le mettre dans le sac, puis ils m’avaient dit “oui, envoie-le chez le Times and Transcript,” qui était Irving. Lorsqu’ils ont ouvert ça, ils ont dit “on ne peut pas le passer, il y a de la publicité dedans.” Bien, j’ai dit “oui, je sais, c’est pour ça que je le passe dans le sac, je le passe pas dans l’Étoile,” qui était le journal de Kent. Ils ont dit “on appartient les deux.” Ça fait que j’ai été obligé de reprendre, de venir chercher mes copies, de tout plier ça, de mettre ça dans la poste, ce qui m’a coûté trois fois le prix.
Je veux dire, ils contrôlent tout là. Ce qui est leur ... leur avantage qu’ils ont eux autres, c’est que ça coûte pas ... ils ne font pas de profits seulement avec le journal, mais ils vendent le papier et ils le distribuent dans le sac. Ils ont tous les profits sur toute la ligne. Ils ont une presse de $20,000,000, plus qu’ils la font rouler, plus que c’est rentable pour eux-autres, ils la font rouler comme ça. C’est un petit peu ça les points qu’ils ont pour arriver à faire ça avec des coûts moindres que nous autres pour qu’ils puissent arriver. Depuis que j’ai acheté, j’ai pas pu vraiment agrandir mon territoire ou améliorer. Je suis obligé de, comment je dirais, naviguer le long de la côte parce que je pouvais pas aller trop dans les grosses vagues, parce que je veux dire, les revenus, eux-autres en prennent une partie à ce niveau là.
Un autre exemple que j’ai, disons, j’ai travaillé pour l’Acadie Nouvelle et l’imprimerie puis Auto Sellers, qui est un magazine pour les autos se faisait imprimer chez nous, et pour pouvoir les mettre dans les dépanneurs Irving, il fallait qu’ils utilisent le papier Irving, ça fait que nous autres, on achetait de Bowater par exemple, mais il fallait acheter du papier Irving pour l’imprimer lui que s’il voulait entrer. C’est toutes des petites choses qu’ils font qui agacent puis qui contrôlent, puis qui te mettent dans une situation qui n’est pas facile.
Un dernier point. Au niveau du Madawaska, il existait le Madawaska et Info Week-End qui étaient deux compétiteurs. Ils ont acheté le Madawaska, ils ont parti la République, un hebdomadaire de fin de semaine, pour fermer l’Info Week-End, c’est ça qu’ils cherchent pour. Info Week-end avait une distribution de sac. Ils ont parti la même chose. Disons qu’ils font une compétition, puis ils veulent faire mourir à petit feu, comme on dit. C’est tout ça. Je pense qu’ils ne laissent pas vivre, ils ne nous laissent pas respirer dans notre domaine, si vous voulez.
La présidente: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Haché.
(Anglais suit -- Senator Munson: Is there anything else you would like to add to that because I know this four minute time seems to be tight for everybody?)
(Following French -- La présidente: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Haché.)
Senator Munson: Is there anything else you would like to add to that because I know this four minute time seems to be tight for everybody?
The Chairman: It is very rough.
M. Haché: No, I am done.
Senator Munson: But you are having a difficult time to compete?
M. Haché: Yes.
Senator Munson: Under the present climate that you work and live in, right?
(French follows – M. Haché: Ce qui arrive ...)
(Après anglais – Senator Munson – live and work, right ?)
M. Haché: Ce qui arrive, si tu ajoutes un autre journal, ça veut pas dire que les gens vont mettre plus de publicité. Il faut que tu divises. Le problème que j’ai, c’est que je demeure, je suis à Shédiac, puis l’été, les gens n’annoncent pas parce que tout est plein, parce qu’il y a beaucoup de touristes, puis l’hiver, ils annoncent pas parce que tout est fermé. Il faut trouver d’autres sources de financement ou d’autres idées pour pouvoir aller chercher de l’argent dans ce domaine.
La présidente: J’ai deux petites questions à vous poser. Vous dites que pour mettre votre journal dans les dépanneurs Irving, c’est-à-dire dans les postes à essence, il faut acheter du papier journal Irving?
M. Haché: Bien, pas moi-même, mais c’est un autre magazine qui voulait faire ça, parce que je travaillais pour l’imprimeur ce temps là, c’est pour ça que je suis au courant de cette chose là. Il fallait utiliser du papier Irving s’ils voulaient le vendre.
La présidente: Et quand vous dites qu’ils veulent tuer ou éliminer les compétiteurs, est-ce que c’est juste que vous déduisez, d’après leurs actions que c’est leur but ou est-ce qu’il y a eu des déclarations quelque part?
M. Haché: J’ai parlé avec un employé, puis même un autre exemple, ce journal là, il y avait une personne qui était en congé de maternité, puis pendant ce temps là, ils ont été chercher un autre employé pour l’affaiblir encore plus. C’est toutes des petites choses que moi je trouve ça agace un petit peu dans ce sens là.
La présidente: Oui, mais vous, vous survivez?
M. Haché: Oui. Ça fait sept ans, puis, je suis pas riche, mais pas pauvre.
La présidente: Merci beaucoup.
Maintenant, c’est au tour de Claude Bourque, bienvenue monsieur Bourque.
M. Claude Bourque, à titre personnel: Madame la président, j’ai été rédacteur en chef et directeur du quotidien l’Évangéline dans les années 1970, j’ai été chef des nouvelles et directeur régional des services français de Radio-Canada aux Provinces de l’Atlantique.
Une observation générale. Je crois qu’il faut considérer pour le journalisme, il ne faut pas oublier l’explosion. Au cours des 30 dernières années, les journalistes étaient les seuls messagers alors que le monde des communications, des agents de communication tant gouvernementaux que pour toutes les industries, compliquent la vie des journalistes et il faudrait en tenir compte. C’est comme complexe et je ne veux pas m’attarder là-dessus.
Je suis d’accord. J’ai écouté toute la journée, et je crois que pour la situation ... on vit au Nouveau-Brunswick une situation vraiment particulière. Pendant 20 ans, à peu près 20, 25 ans après la Commission Davy, il y avait eu une période de tranquillité dans l’empire de presse des Irving, mais au cours des cinq à dix dernières années, on voit vraiment un développement du marché et il y a un phénomène qui se passe et ce qui est le plus inquiétant pour nous, Acadiens, c’est que jusqu’à date, ils n’étaient pas dans le marché francophone de la presse et là, on voit, on vit, et ça c’est mon expression, ils sont en train de tranquillement encercler l’Acadie Nouvelle, le quotidien.
Alors, moi je crois que votre comité, c’est noble et tout ça, mais je pense pas que sur la question de la concentration de la presse et sur le Groupe Irving, que vous ayez beaucoup de champs de manoeuvre. On l’a vu au cours des 30 dernières années. L’important que je veux souligner, c’est que je crois que l’aspect, qu’il faut que vous considériez, vous pouvez pas accepter le laisser-faire. C’est beau de dire que les gouvernements ne doivent jamais s’impliquer, c’est pas vrai. Le bien d’une Province, c’est important, et vous devez considérer le cas du Nouveau-Brunswick comme unique. Ils sont de bons journaux, ils font des belles choses, l’empire, mais il faut regarder tout l’ensemble. Ils sont dans un petit jardin et ils occupent presque toute la place.
Alors moi, j’ai deux recommandations que je crois que vous pouvez faire. D’abord, c’est sur les services de Radio-Canada anglais et français. Il faut que le Gouvernement et la Société Radio-Canada considèrent le Nouveau-Brunswick comme un cas d’exception et qu’ils renforcent les effectifs journalistiques tant au plan de la nouvelle, des actualités et des affaires publiques afin d’assurer qu’il y ait une diversité d’opinion, mais aussi un effet d’entraînement, qu’il y ait pour les autres médias, que ça force les gens, qu’il y ait un effet multiplicateur qu’on peut pas cacher des informations.
Le deuxième, c’est la question de la fiducie qui peut en inquiéter la fiducie pour l’Acadie Nouvelle pour la distribution. Quant à moi, ça a été un exemple de comment un Gouvernement peut agir pour le bien d’une communauté en finançant la question de la distribution, en s’impliquant et en créant une fiducie indépendante et des fonds. C’est peut-être problématique à cause des taux d’intérêt, mais je crois que ça, c’est un exemple de comment des Gouvernements peuvent agir pour corriger les forces du marché et c’est très important.
Et l’autre point que j’espère, c’est pas à moi de vous donner des conseils, mais j’espère que vous poserez demain matin beaucoup de questions à madame Marie-Linda Lord sur la gestion de la Chaire d’Étude Irving et du programme Irving vis-à-vis les journaux, parce que moi, ça m’a laissé beaucoup perplexe qu’à ce stage-ci, lorsqu’on est en train d’acheter et de créer des journaux francophones et en train d’encercler le quotidien francophone, qu’on s’attache à vouloir aller dans le journalisme et à l’Université, et je comprends le dilemme de l’Université, et c’est là les implications d’un groupe riche comme les Irving, le mécénat peut servir aussi les intérêts de la famille et du commerce. C’est des gens qui sont très bien en affaire mais il faut regarder la concentration de la presse, que ce soit ... ça serait CanWest, ce serait beaucoup moins problématique au Nouveau-Brunswick, parce que c’est la famille, le Groupe Irving qui à cause de son emprise économique au Nouveau-Brunswick, et je dois vous dire que ça ne devrait pas être seulement le Sénat que ça préoccupe, ça devrait préoccuper beaucoup le Gouvernement et l’Assemblée Législative du Nouveau-Brunswick. Merci.
La présidente: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Bourque.
(French follows -- Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am going to speak in English because I do not want to be incorrect in what I say.)
(Following French)
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am going to speak in English because I do not want to be incorrect in what I say. I think from you and two or three others, there is a fear for the future of French language media, written media, in New Brunswick at this moment?
(French follows – continuing with Senator Trenholme Counsell -- Est-ce que c’est une peur en ce moment?) (Anglais suit – continuing with Senator Trenholme Counsell -- … at this moment?)
Est-ce que c’est une peur en ce moment?
M. Bourque: C’est pas une peur, c’est une appréhension que les Acadiens ne contrôleront plus, ils ne contrôlent presque plus leurs hebdomadaire et que bientôt, qu’éventuellement pourraient contrôler le quotidien, soit en fonder un pour faire concurrence, ou éventuellement, on ne sait pas. Parce que pour les Acadiens, l’histoire nous enseigne que ça été à partir de la Renaissance Acadienne, après le collège, trois ans après, ça été un journal, et la presse a toujours joué dans le développement du peuple Acadien et dans la défense de ses intérêts un grand rôle, et c’est pour ça que l’on doit tenir compte de ce fait unique, que nous avons besoin de contrôler nos instruments de communication. Pas nécessairement tous, mais un quotidien est d’une grande importance, et même les hebdomadaires et c’est pour ça que c’est préoccupant de voir le Groupe Irving et moi, ce que je comprends pas dans le monde, on sait tous que dans les plans stratégiques, il y a une analyse des menaces et comment se fait-il qu’on n’analyse pas la question de la menace que lorsqu’on est dans une aussi petite Province, que c’est pas possible que ça puisse continuer à tout contrôler. À un moment donné, il n’y aura plus rien d’autre que le Groupe Irving au Nouveau-Brunswick.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Et il n’est pas possible d’avoir la force financière des Irving avec la voix des Acadiennes et Acadiens. Il n’est pas possible d’avoir les deux ensemble. C’est correct?
M. Bourque: C’est que je comprends pas exactement si vous voulez dire, est-ce que les Irving pourraient contrôler le quotidien qu’on serait heureux, moi, je ne pense pas que ça va ensemble.
(Anglais suit – Senator Trenholme Counsell : You would not have the Acadian voice…)
(Following French)
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You would not have the Acadian voice if the money was coming from that group?
(French follows – M. Bourque: Non, c’est qu’il faut ...)
(Après anglais)
M. Bourque: Non, c’est qu’il faut, pour nous Acadiens, il faut contrôler nos propres moyens de communication. Il n’y a pas de société qui voudrait laisser à d’autres. Je sais comment les journaux Irving dans les questions d’importance francophone, même à Moncton, souvent, il y a du dérapage qu’ils ne comprennent même pas, après ça, à se côtoyer dans une communauté comme Moncton, souvent ne comprennent pas les intérêts supérieurs du peuple Acadien dans leurs couvertures et dans leurs positions éditoriales.
La présidente: Et ça ne vous intéresserait pas non plus d’aller chercher des alliés francophones au Québec?
M. Bourque: Je crois que notre préoccupation, ou dans une certaine mesure, s’il y avait d’autres groupes de presse, mais je crois que ce que nous voulons aussi, c’est que nous voulons être, d’une certaine façon avoir une autonomie, être capable de prendre les responsabilités en tant que groupement Acadien, d’avoir des instruments à notre disposition et ne pas être dépendants d’autres personnes. On a lutté pendant 150 ans pour se doter d’instruments pour notre développement et pour notre liberté.
Le sénateur Trenholme Counsell: Est-ce que c’est vrai que la famille Irving a offert un très grand niveau de support aux choses culturelles Acadiennes au Nouveau-Brunswick?
M. Bourque: Oui, je ne nie pas l’importance de ce que fait la famille Irving. Ils le font très bien, ils le font maintenant, on s’inquiétait pendant un certain temps qu’ils n’étaient pas beaucoup mécènes, ils ont commencé à faire le mécénat. Le problème, c’est que la Province est trop petite. C’est qu’ils sont trop ... que ça serait uniquement les Irving qui contrôleraient les journaux serait moins problématique sur le plan de la liberté de la presse, mais aussi de la démocratie du Nouveau-Brunswick s’ils ne contrôlaient pas autant de l’industrie et de l’économie du Nouveau-Brunswick. Il faut tenir compte aussi de toutes les autres industries qui collaborent et qui financent avec le Groupe Irving. Je crois que c’est pas une préoccupation immédiate, mais c’est une préoccupation. Donc, aussi, moi, je crois que c’est aussi important au Groupe Irving de comprendre qu’ils ne peuvent pas occuper toute la place, qu’ils devraient se discipliner eux-mêmes et peut-être comme le Groupe McCain qui a peut-être été heureux et malheureux dans une querelle de famille, qu’ils aillent s’installer dans une autre Province plutôt que d’essayer de vouloir uniquement grandir au Nouveau-Brunswick.
La présidente: Merci, monsieur Bourque. Je suis désolée de vous couper.
M. Bourque: C’est correct. Merci.
La présidente: J’essaie de faire un peu de justice avec tout le monde.
(Anglais suit -- I will now ask Mr. Kevin Matthews to come forward, please.)
(Following French -- continuing with the Chairman)
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 film-maker and I 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 Brunswick people 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, control much of the local and important resources in the province and essentially hold 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 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 the print media is in any manner independent, open, unbiased, fair or even objective. This is the fox in charge of the hen house, and control of the media is the fox having the key to the front door, who can choose when and how much that door will be open to actually shed light on the conditions under which the chickens must live.
My direct experience with the Irving media is through a launch of a documentary film titled Forbidden Forest, a film 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 Nature of Things and it was released 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 to help with the launch, but it was also the 25th Anniversary of the program, The Nature of Things, a double-billed event.
The venue for the event was the Fredericton Playhouse and was sold out to the point that 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 the French New Brunswick media, there was no coverage of the event in any of the New Brunswick English major Irving daily newspapers. With 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, at that moment, one of Canada’s Top Ten most popular Canadians, Dr. David Suzuki, there was essentially nothing better than dead silence coming from the Irving media. And even for weeks following, Forbidden Forest toured the province in community screenings, there was no coverage in the Irving media.
So, here you have an issue, forestry, an important New Brunswick industry upon which a good part of the Irving empire is based, owning two large pulp and paper mills, two tissue production plants and eight sawmills spread throughout the province, and holds a significant interest in who knows how many other forest-related businesses, and 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, then I ask, does anyone in their right mind truly believe that with 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 to 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 this that now exists in this province in the French print media, and that is the daily French newspaper, L’Acadie Nouvelle. L’Acadie Nouvelle operates under an $8 million trust fund established by the Federal and Provincial Governments. The trust fund guarantees pretty much the survival of an unbiased, objective, independent voice in the French print media. To create at least one independent English newspaper in New Brunswick will give the English-speaking, and French-speaking people for that matter, the trust that at least they have the possibility of getting the whole story or at least 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 only expect to continue to live in a level of 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: Well, I know that.
The Chairman: No, but 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: Well, the way the trust fund, as I understand it, is set up with L’Acadie Nouvelle, it is invested in stocks and they draw from the interest from that. Then they pay for their operating expenses on top of that, outside of that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We were told that that money is only used for distribution purposes. We asked about it.
Mr. Matthews: Well, yes, distribution costs, whatever.
The Chairman: I think the point there is that L’Acadie Nouvelle cannot go just on the basis of the trust fund. It also has to have readers, advertisers, subscribers, the whole thing. The model that they outlined to us was one where they specifically separated out, if you will, the subsidy element of it from journalism.
Mr. Matthews: Sure, sure, I understand that, but then, in reality, I believe that if you had an English newspaper, in effect, 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 for an independent paper. People are tired of not getting the news.
Any other questions?
The Chairman: You have another 30 seconds to give your opinion.
Mr. Matthews: Yes, well, 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 something that, basically, we live in a “futilist” state effectively, the way things are set up at this moment. I mean 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. And the problem is that we are not hearing about it, we are not getting the full story. Two issues of late, the LNG and the tax-break that they got on that, I do not know how much you know about that.
The Chairman: We are learning.
Mr. Matthews: And Lepreau, for example. There is no investigative reporting at all as to what is actually behind that. When you talk about the Assessment Act in this province, you are talking about Louis Robichaud, who fought for ten years against K.C. Irving to bring in fair taxation in this province and it is being destroyed in one stroke, and you do not get any background information on what the Assessment Act is. If you actually look at the Assessment Act you can see, in fact if any reporter cared to look at the Assessment Act, you can see that, in fact, the Irvings get huge exemptions as it is now in anything to do with their petroleum. So, we do not get the news, period. What we get is basically regurgitation. We do not get investigative reporting, even in the slightest sense of investigative reporting.
The Chairman: Mr. Matthews, thank you so much.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chairman: I appreciate your frustration.
Mr. Matthews: I am not frustrated. I am just trying to get my point across with 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, and we thank you very much for it. It will be on the record.
Mr. Matthews: You are welcome.
(French follows -- La présidente: Monsieur Maurice Rainville de qui on parlait tout à l’heure. Bienvenue chez nous.)
(Après anglais)
La présidente: Monsieur Maurice Rainville de qui on parlait tout à l’heure. Bienvenue chez nous.
M. Maurice Rainville, à titre personnel: Merci madame la présidente, j’ai été professeur de philosophie à l’Université de Moncton depuis 1963. De 1983 à ma retraite en 1996, j’ai été professeur d’éthique de l’information. J’ai été Ombudsman de la Presse Acadienne durant les deux dernières, premières, les deux années qui ont suivi sa création par l’Association Acadienne des journalistes et il m’arrive maintenant deux fois par mois, d’écrire des éditoriaux dans l’Acadie Nouvelle dont un ce matin auquel je vais faire beaucoup allusion parce qu’il y a quelques petites choses que le nombre réduit de mots ne permet pas de dire dans un éditorial et qu’il faut quand même savoir.
Je suis très inquiet. À mon avis, la situation de la presse au Nouveau-Brunswick exige une intervention du Gouvernement Fédéral, et je pense bien au Nouveau-Brunswick, et pas seulement à la population Acadienne, bien que, étant francophone, celle-là me touche de façon particulière. Ici, la démocratie et les droits qu’elle reconnaît à toutes les personnes, en particulier le droit de parole, ont un urgent de protection. Le cas Parker illustre avec une évidence particulière cette inquiétude.
Jusqu’à tout récemment, Mike Parker était employé par l’hebdomadaire Here de Saint-Jean. Il y a publié un texte où il dénonçait les privilèges exorbitants accordés à la famille Irving par le conseil municipal de cette ville. Qu’est-ce que dit Parker? En substance, Irving a obtenu que les taxes payables pour son terminal de gaz naturel liquéfié soit gelé à 500 000 $ par année pour les 25 prochaines années. Si le conseil municipal n’avait pas statué sur le cas, c’est entre 3,000,000 $ et 5,000,000 $, estime Parker qu’Irving devrait verser à la ville. La décision a été prise par le conseil municipal peu de temps après l’imposition aux citoyens d’une nouvelle taxe destinée au financement des services municipaux. “Or Saint-Jean”, estime l’auteur, « a un taux de pauvreté de 25 %. Ce sont donc les citoyens, conclut-il, qui devront compenser les exonérations de taxes dont profitera Irving durant un quart-de siècle.”
Du point de vue des critères de l’éthique de l’information, je ne trouve là absolument rien de scandaleux. Ça m’apparaît être d’une honnêteté ou je ne trouve pas de faille vraiment particulière. Or, l’hebdomadaire que Parker a contribué à mettre sur pied, l’hebdomadaire Here et où il travaillait, est devenu, il y a quelques mois, la propriété du Groupe Brunswick News, et après la publication de son article des derniers jours, le journaliste a été congédié.
Je tiens l’information de la presse francophone locale. J’ai essayé de rejoindre, de confirmer cette information auprès de monsieur Parker lui-même. À son bureau, il n’y a que le répondeur, à sa maison, le téléphone a été débranché.
La mesure, donc sous réserve de confirmation encore de cette ... de ce que cette mesure a bien été prise, engendre de graves inquiétudes. On se demande par exemple s’il est encore possible à des individus d’utiliser sans crainte leur liberté d’expression pour dénoncer les injustices et le faire sans être victimes de représailles. On pourrait toujours rétorquer “bien, que Parker et ses semblables aillent dire ailleurs ce qu’ils pensent,” mais, ce que vous avez entendu au cours de l’après-midi vous suggère déjà une réponse, je suppose. Vous le savez, tous les quotidiens et presque tous les hebdos anglophones du Nouveau-Brunswick sont la propriété de Brunswick News.
Du côté francophone, de nombreux hebdos le sont aussi, dont le Madawaska, l’Hebdo Chaleur, d’autres luttent à armes inégales contre un concurrent d’Irving. C’est le cas du Moniteur de Shédiac dont monsieur Haché vous a parlé tout à l’heure qui doit lui composer avec la distribution gratuite de l’Étoile du Sud-Est.
Madame la présidente, je vous serais gré de vous intéresser au problème, permettez-moi de le dire avec autant de simplicité que de franchise, c’est le message que je veux porter ici, le comité doit comprendre que les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick n’ont pas besoin seulement d’une autre étude après celle de Kent, de Davy, de Caplan-Sauvageau, de Godfrey, de Juneau qui révélerait du point de vue du problème que j’aborde ce que tout le monde sait très bien. Ils ont besoin que l’État prenne les mesures nécessaires à la protection de leurs droits et de la démocratie ici.
La présidente: Merci beaucoup. Vous êtes très éloquent, mais je dois noter que vous n’avez pas pu confirmer pourquoi M. Parker n’est plus à l’emploi de Brunswick News?
M. Rainville: En effet.
La présidente: Parce qu’il pourrait y avoir plusieurs explications?
M. Rainville: C’est juste.
La présidente: Donc, pour nous, on peut noter avec beaucoup d’intérêt ce que vous nous racontez, parce que c’est effectivement extrêmement intéressant, mais pour l’instant, personne ne sait exactement au juste pourquoi il n’est plus à l’emploi du journal.
M. Rainville: C’est juste madame la présidente.
La présidente: Ça nous pose un problème, mais on va recevoir des représentants de Brunswick News demain et peut-être qu’on aura des nouvelles à ce moment là.
M. Rainville: Je voudrais faire une nuance. Il est tout à fait juste que je n’ai pas la confirmation de ce que la presse locale a rapporté au sujet de ce que j’appelle le congédiement -- monsieur a été viré de son poste, dit-on exactement dans les textes -- pas de confirmation de ça. Cet “événement” -- parce que je présume que c’en est un et ce n’est pas confirmé -- est l’occasion de dire une autre chose que nous pouvons tout à fait confirmer par ailleurs et qui reste vraie et qui fonde aussi l’inquiétude que j’ai, c’est que la quasi-totalité des quotidiens sont du groupe Brunswick News, une grande quantité des hebdos et maintenant du côté francophone, c’est le cas.
Comme le disait Claude Bourque, j’aurais signé ce que Claude Bourque a dit tout à l’heure, surtout le joint qu’il y a entre l’entreprise de presse comme entreprise et l’entreprise de presse comme presse. Les deux. Alors, cette situation là et le monopole de la concentration demeurent, et c’est elles surtout qui fondent mon inquiétude.
L’occasion m’a été donnée par cette nouvelle au sujet de monsieur Parker, qui n’est qu’une occasion.
La présidente: Non, mais comme on l’a déjà dit, les sujets sont d’une très grande importance, mais les faits d’un cas particulier, les détails, il faut être sûr de quoi on parle.
(Anglais suit – Senator Munson : At the end of your article, you say that…)
(Following French, La présidente: ... de quoi on parle.)
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.
(French follows - Monsieur Rainville: Oui, j’essaie ... une chose à laquelle on peut penser de façon très immédiate, c’est qu’il y a des lois qui concernent…)
(Après anglais)
M. Rainville: Oui, j’essaie. Uune chose à laquelle on peut penser de façon très immédiate, c’est qu’il y a des lois qui concernent la concentration de la presse au Canada. Et bien, on pourrait utiliser ces lois et les appliquer ici. La Commission Kent, d’ancienne mémoire vraiment, avait fait allusion à cette loi là, mais la situation a seulement empiré depuis.
On pourrait donc intervenir sous cet angle là, mais je ne voulais pas dicter au Gouvernement Canadien selon quel angle intervenir. Il y a peut–être d’autres moyens. On peut intervenir sur la base de la liberté de parole, donc de la Charte aussi, parce qu’il y a aussi la liberté de la presse dans la Charte. Je ne veux pas supprimer la liberté de parole ni la liberté de la presse au groupe Irving, parce que c’est un citoyen ça aussi. Seulement, il faut pouvoir la partager.
La présidente: Merci infiniment. Je suis désolée. Le temps pour votre présentation est écoulé.
M. Rainville: Merci d’avoir écouté.
La présidente: C’est nous qui vous remercions.
Il paraît que nous avons deux membres du public qui demandent de paraître ensemble. Il s’agit de monsieur Jean-Marie Nadeau et de monsieur John Murphy.
M. Jean-Marie Nadeau, Fédération des travailleuses et travailleurs du Nouveau-Brunswick, à titre personnel: Madame la présidente, je connais le sénateur Munson depuis 40 ans. On ne sera pas très long, parce qu’on est dans une période un peu intense. On est en train d’organiser notre congrès biennal du 1er au 4 de mai de la Fédération des travailleuses et travailleurs du Nouveau-Brunswick qui représente 35 000 membres, 260 sections locales dans les secteurs privés et publics. En fait, et moi-même, je suis adjoint exécutif à cette fédération, et je suis aussi coordonnateur provincial du Front Commun pour la justice sociale qui est un groupe qui essaie d’encourager les gens vivant en difficulté et en pauvreté à essayer de se prendre en main pour essayer aussi d’atteindre un petit peu plus de dignité et tout ça, et une des raisons pourquoi on ... même si on avait pas le temps de préparer un mémoire, on voulait venir plaider. C’est parce qu’en fait, ce qu’on demande aux journaux Irving, c’est pas de nous aimer, ce qu’on demande aux journaux Irving, c’est de rapporter qui nous sommes et qu’est-ce qu’on essaie de faire. Pas moi comme individu qui est au service des gens syndiqués et des gens qui vivent dans la pauvreté, mais pour que ces gens là aussi aient le sentiment de participer au débat public et au débat démocratique.
La question, et un beau mot anglais, c’est l’empowerment. Quand les gens prennent la peine d’oser, d’aller devant les médias et qui le lendemain s’attendent au moins de se reconnaître dans leur journal, surtout ici à Moncton. Je sais que le directeur est là et je lui dirais la même chose dans la face, même si c’est lui qui est dans mon dos actuellement, c’est un manque de décence élémentaire quant à moi. C’est juste une question de respect. On ne demande pas, comme je l’ai dit au début, aux gens d’aimer les syndicats parce qu’on sait qu’ils ne les aiment pas en partant, et on ne demande pas d’aimer les groupes sociaux. Tout ce qu’on demande, c’est d’au moins rapporter ce qui se passe pour que la société elle-même soit en mesure de pouvoir se faire une idée.
Donc, notre plaidoyer, c’est principalement pour cette question. C’est une question de démocratie, et le Nouveau-Brunswick, à ce niveau là, comme Acadien aussi, mais nécessairement, j’apporte mon soutien aux propos de monsieur Bourque et monsieur Rainville ou etcetera où on se sent excessivement inquiets face à ce qui pourrait s’en venir, la main mise de Irving aussi sur les journaux francophones, et je vais laisser mon collègue continuer et de donner des exemples un peu plus concret peut-être sur ce qui s’est passé.
(Anglais suit – Mr. John Murphy: Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I heard you earlier talk about …)
(Following French Mr. Nadeau: ... sur ce qui s’est passé. )
Mr. John Murphy, New Brunswick Federation of Labour, As an individual: Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I heard you earlier talk about, in terms of the media in your inquiry or your hearings, the key buzz word “quality” and whether media, particularly the print media, is serving the people of the community. And I think a lot of people here this afternoon they are not, particularly in terms of the Irving print media. I would ask you to ask yourselves, the Irving reporter for the Times & Transcript, the local newspaper is now gone. A lot of the prominent people, retired some of them, 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 and recorded by yourselves and dwelled on by yourselves, but they will not be reported in tomorrow’s media Times & Transcript for sure. They are gone.
I looked for coverage of these hearings, the fact you were going to be 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 in the back page.
Yes, changes are due, and I am going to 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, the time of the Davey commission, the time of the Kent royal commission, and we need less media print concentration in this province, more so than ever before, and there must be forced diversification of some of the holdings of the Irvings. Must be, and hopefully, you will take that into account. And why not? Why not a print CBC funded by the taxpayers of this country? I have absolutely no qualms about that, and I know a lot of our members would have no qualms about that. We do it in the electronic side of the 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 very serious consideration. And in additional to the national, there would naturally be community spin-outs and that would allow organizations like the Moncton local newspaper, le Masquaret, struggling to survive like the Acadian Monitor. And, if nothing else, if we cannot have a publicly owned print CBC, then certainly the Irving media should be forced, because they do control the distribution, you have heard about that from the earlier speakers in terms of these types of publications which do give out an alternate perspective on issues critical to society.
I will end because I know I am getting out of time. But I myself, after 33 years this summer in the trade union movement, and I have had a working relationship with the Times & Transcript and the other Irving media over those years, and naturally, I do not have time to talk about the better years versus the current years since new publishers came to town over the last decade or the last ... This past Labour Day, the 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. Bad enough, it quoted only, front page story Labour Day weekend, only the author of that research document. No commentary from anybody else in terms of what they thought of that particular research item. And then three days later, for whatever reasons, they finally decided to have another version of events. It went to what we call the right wing think tank, the Atlantic Institute for Management Studies, AIMS, if I have the name correct, and they had an extensive exhaustive commentary by the head of that and one other commentary by the Minister of Business New Brunswick who took issue with this story. But 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.” It is only short, two sentences. “Why is that it that the Times & Transcript refuses to give fair coverage to organized labour and other social action organizations, what you call special interests 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: So that was not a deadline thing?
I just want to go over very briefly the concept of a French CBC print. 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 a CBC. I think we can find the ways and means to structure and run, independently of Government mind you, insofar as possible, and we do not want to go there in terms of how you can do that, but it is possible.
Senator Munson: Well, it is not happening now. What do you predict in the future in the next 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, is it the lay of the land, the communications land of New Brunswick just staying the same?
Mr. Murphy: No, no. It is gradually but surely, and more speedily getting worse, not better. You have heard that from people who work in the industry, not myself, very much so, the time I have been sitting here for two hours and it is going to get worse. They are buying up. And he is a member of the Francophone community and he can speak to it for himself. But I very much fear, and so do a lot of Acadians, that the next one being taken over by the Irving print media is l’Acadie Nouvelle. It is a matter of time, or squeezed out of business totally. Same difference.
(French follows: Monsieur Nadeau: Deux commentaires ...)
(Après anglais)
M. Nadeau: Deux commentaires. On pourrait aussi ajouter à la version internet de Radio-Canada dans celle de CTV aussi parce que plus d’information, mieux ce serait, même la version écrite, moi je n’aurais pas de problème aussi avec Global, et je dois même aussi avouer que je suis depuis le mois de février à nouveau chroniqueur à l’Acadie Nouvelle. Heureusement que je suis francophone, parce que je ne crois pas que j’aurais ce plaisir d’être dans un journal d’Irving avec le genre de pensées que je peux avoir actuellement.
La présidente: Les représentants de l’Acadie Nouvelle qui étaient ici tout à l’heure nous ont dit que ce serait à peu près impossible que quelqu’un les achète, si ça peut vous rassurer, à cause de leur structure, mais ...
M. Nadeau: Impossible n’est pas français et impossible n’est pas Irving non plus. C’est ça.
(Anglais suit -- The Chairman: Well, there are lots of lines about impossibility and I will not take up your time with them.)
(Following French)
The Chairman: Well, there are lots of lines about impossibility and I will not take up your time with them.
A print CBC, the justification for the broadcast CBC was initially and still is essentially that there is a limit to the number of broadcast frequencies available and that 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 to the number of newspapers and that is why most of the journalists and the people who are actually connected with the press who have appeared before us, not all, but most, have said, “Whatever you do, do not even think about it, do not even think about a print CBC because the price you pay in terms of potential Government control is too great.” Now, what do you say to that?
Mr. Murphy: Well, it is just the reverse, Madam Chair. What is the potential, the ability, the capacity of somebody who has the desire and the skills and the interest to establish a print newspaper in this province? I have listened to them. The fellow from the l’Acadie Monitor, like it is a virtual, and you said “Where can we go with impossibilities?” This is a virtual impossibility in this day in age to successfully establish a community newspaper or provincial newspaper and competition with the Irvings, and I would suggest it is so difficult to do it that that is why a lot of the other big corporate players in terms of 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 day, a very lively day, many, many points made that bear serious thoughts and examination and we are going to 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.
6 comments:
Well done on a nice blog Blogger. I was searching for information on hire car uk and ran across your post TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE HEARING FOR IRVING'S MONOPOLY! APRIL 21ST, 2005 - not exactly what I was looking for related to hire car uk but a very interesting read all the same!
Hi Blogger,
Thank you very much for TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE HEARING FOR IRVING'S MONOPOLY! APRIL 21ST, 2005, it was an informative post, very useful.
I'm currently researching information for child with adhd , would that be a topic that you are familiar with?
If you could help point me to the right direction it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Warmest regards,
Hoe Bing
Hi Blogger,
I was browsing for information on teenager with adhd when I came across your site and boy am I glad I did.
Although not totally the same, I believe that the work we are doing has some synergy to it.
I am researching information on adhd in general and am trying to make as many connections as possible so that my subscribers can have the maximum chance of controlling their adhd.
Are there any resources on teenager with adhd that you recommend I visit?
Would very much appreciate your input on the subject.
Thank you for your blog post.
Warmest regards,
Hoe Bing
Hi Blogger,
After much heavy reading your blog provided just the right amount of fun. Thank you :)
Hi Blogger,
I've seen this post before but important things are always worth reminding. After all, repetition is the mother of learning.
Hello Blogger,
Thank you for your informative blog, it is good to see that people are still sharing their knowledge and experience.
I am currently working on finding the latest information on when I came across your site. My passion is in the area of and after finding your blog, I believe we have a real synergy and that my subsrcibers would benefit from your perspective on the topic.
I would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to have a look at my adhdpodcaster blog. If you think that we do have a common goal (which I think we do), then please feel free to post any relevant information to the blog.
Whatever area that ties into adhd would be fine, even if it is with relation to personal development (especially time management), you know how notoriously hard it is to keep track of time especially for us :)
Anyways, really looking forward to your post.
Thank you for the blog, keep up the good work
Warmest regards,
Hoe Bing
Post a Comment