The headlines on Twitter focus on the savings for Canadian cable bills. Starting in September, you will likely see your TV subscription price drop by half a percent, allowing you to get a coffee and a donut once a year thanks to the CRTC getting rid of the 3-year old Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF).
That may be as far as most people read.
However, at 22 paragraphs, the majority decision by the CRTC is actually pretty brief. It gets to be more interesting because there are 3 dissenting opinions and a concurring opinion appended to the end.
Commissioner Elizabeth Duncan dissented on the belief that the LPIF, as originally designed, was not yet properly implemented. She would have liked to see its mandate extended and given an opportunity to function properly.
Commissioner Suzanne Lamarre wrote a 66 paragraph dissent, plus extensive quotes, citing the legislative mandate of the CRTC. She concludes:
I believe that the majority decision has not taken into account the evidence presented therein, as is its inescapable duty in accordance with the obligations and powers of the Commission, and that the decision was made without regard for the Commission’s obligations under the Official Languages Act or the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada. I therefore cannot bring myself to support it.
Commissioner Louise Poirier wrote a dissent as long as the decision itself, concluding “I remain concerned because the evidence submitted in this proceeding has no direct link with the majority decision to discontinue the LPIF.”
Surprisingly, Commissioner Michel Morin wrote a concurring opinion. When the LPIF was originally created in October 2008, Commissioner Morin wrote a 45 page dissent; at the time, he said it was the longest ever written. His concurring opinion today is much more than an “I told you so”. It should be required reading for all observers of the Canadian communications sector. His harshest words are for the beneficiaries of the $300M that was generated over the life of the LPIF, who refused to track the local content of their news programming.
Innovating does not necessarily mean spending more, and what matters in the final analysis, to my mind, is the news and, above all, the local content of the news. This does not mean micromanaging as some interveners claimed, but rather ensuring that the $300 million paid by consumers is used to reach an end (local coverage) and an objective (minimum quantity of Category 1 local news). As for calculating “local segments” in each newscast, with this practice put into place, any production assistant could have done it in less than a minute at the end of the local news report. It isn’t rocket science, it’s not complicated to ensure that there is something for every consumer at the end of each broadcast week.
This is the subject I would have liked to discuss, and one that few participants raised in their final arguments. To them, I simply say, a word to the wise is enough. You do not want any condition in terms of minimum quantities of Category 1 local news, so do not count on me to impose regulatory fees of 1.5% on the bills of 11.3 million Canadian cable and satellite subscribers or their distributors! As a member of a regulatory body, my focus is accountability and transparency. There is no way I am going to give you $300 million on a silver platter for another three years, with no condition requiring you to produce truly local news for the benefit of consumers in each of these markets. Because in most cases it is the consumers who paid this $300 million over three years, I simply wanted to ensure that the content they receive actually does include local news, in the strict sense of the term. Better luck next time, if the opportunity ever arises again.
Slam. He turns his attention to the CBC and its budgets as well.
In his concluding remarks, Commissioner Morin cites the 15 dissenting opinions he has written in the course of his 5 year term.
On the eve of the end of my five-year mandate as a CRTC commissioner, I am leaving on a high note, so to say, by concurring with the majority opinion. This opinion adds to the 15 dissenting opinions I have already issued, the list of which can be found following this concurring opinion. But in this case as in the others, I have always been guided by the same principles.
In my opinion, demonstrating respect for the consumer’s opinion through a transparent public record is at the very core of my obligation.
His concurring opinion is an important piece to read. In many ways, it represents a farewell address. Commissioner Morin’s term comes to an end on August 5 and he says he is leaving on a high note, concurring with the majority opinion. His five years at the CRTC have demonstrated a passionate pursuit of respect for consumers’ interests. When his appointment was announced, I observed that he was starting as Commisioner Stuart Langford (the former regular writer of dissents) was leaving.
When there is a questionable call in baseball, the team manager comes out from the dugout and yells at the umpire. The call doesn’t change, but the umpire is put on notice to watch more carefully. After August 5, who will be the the one to kick up dirt at the plate at the CRTC?
An earlier version of this post erroneously attributed the dissent by Suzanne Lamarre to Elizabeth Duncan. This has been corrected.
