LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 19, 2002

¹

1530

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. Jon Litner (Executive Vice-President, Chief Operating Officer, National Hockey League)

¹

1535

The Joint Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

Jon Litner

¹

1540

Mr. Roy Bailey

Jon Litner

Mr. Roy Bailey

Jon Litner

Mr. Roy Bailey

Jon Litner

Mr. Roy Bailey

Jon Litner

Mr. Roy Bailey

Jon Litner

The Joint Chair

Mr. Jon Litner

¹

1545

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jon Litner

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jon Litner

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Pierre Boivin (President, Club de hockey Canadien)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jon Litner

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

¹

1550

Mr. Jon Litner

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. Jon Litner

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

¹

1555

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jon Litner

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Pierre Boivin

º

1600

The Joint Chair

Mr. Jon Litner

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

º

1605

Mr. Jon Litner

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Pierre Boivin

º

1610

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Mr. Gérard Binet

º

1615

Mr. Pierre Boivin

The Joint Chair

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

Jon Litner

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

º

1620

Mr. Jon Litner

º

1625

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

º

1630

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jon Litner

Mr. Pierre Boivin

º

1635

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Jon Litner

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Pierre Boivin

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1640

Mr. Pierre Boivin

The Joint Chair

The Joint Chair

º

1650

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Daniel Gourd (General Manager, French Television, CBC/Radio-Canada)

º

1655

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Daniel Gourd

»

1700

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

»

1705

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Daniel Gourd

»

1710

The Joint Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Michèle Fortin

»

1715

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

»

1720

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

»

1725

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Joint Chair

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Joint Chair

»

1730

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

Ms. Michèle Fortin

The Joint Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 047

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, June 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Welcome everyone. Thank you for being here over these last days of the session when everything is happening at once.

[English]

    I want to thank you, Mr. Litner, for accepting our invitation. We are trying to fathom collectively the situation, which some of us have found rather difficult to accept, if you will. I presume you know about it. You know about the concerns of this committee in terms of official languages and the availability of our national sport on both the English and French versions of our public television. So if you wish to address us, after that we will have questions back and forth.

    I notice, and I would like to point out, that you invited Monsieur Boivin to come along. That's fine. That was your choice and his acceptance. We did not request his presence here, but we welcome him anyhow.

[Translation]

    Mr. Boivin, once again, welcome. Committee members may feel free to ask you any questions they may have.

    Mr. Litner.

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner (Executive Vice-President, Chief Operating Officer, National Hockey League): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Let me begin by thanking the honourable committee members for the opportunity to appear before you today. On behalf of Commissioner Gary Bettman and the National Hockey League, we very much appreciate that this is an important matter and are grateful for the chance to address hopefully all of your concerns.

    I would like to address the committee in English, as my high-school French is quite stale at this point. I know this committee would like to rise on Friday, and if we did this in French, I'm afraid we'd still be here. So if you can bear with me, I'd prefer to do this in English.

    With that in mind, I know the committee has already heard a good deal about this matter from Pierre Boivin, Jerry Frappier, and Robert Rabinovitch, so I would like to make two key points before responding to your questions.

    First, the Montreal Canadiens and the National Hockey League entered into a joint venture four years ago to combine resources and maximize the value of our national and the Canadiens' regional telecast rights, in large degree to support the Canadiens' and the other five Canadian clubs' efforts to remain financially viable and to ice competitive teams each year. While Pierre and I appreciate the committee's concerns, keeping the Montreal Canadiens financially viable meant navigating a challenging marketplace that ultimately led us to our agreement with RDS.

    Second, it was our expectation and our sincere hope that SRC would continue to be a television partner for the Canadiens' French-language broadcasts when we started our negotiations in the fourth quarter, late winter and early January of this past year. Although we were disappointed when SRC told us they were looking to reduce the number of games to broadcast, we were surprised and disappointed that they were only willing to broadcast playoff games if, and only if, the Montreal Canadiens were playing in them. Despite our numerous efforts to persuade SRC's management to commit to playoff games regardless of the Canadiens' participation, SRC refused.

    The simple fact is that we were challenged to sell the complete season of 82 Canadiens games, the all-star weekend, and at least 40 playoff games in order to continue to ensure the Montreal Canadiens' viability and to maximize our revenue from our television properties. SRC made it clear that they were only prepared to commit to a significantly reduced package of games for fewer dollars. In short, SRC left the Canadiens and us with no choice but to look for another television structure.

    Faced with this situation, we are pleased with the agreement we struck with RDS. Not only is RDS going to telecast all 82 regular season Montreal Canadiens games, the league's all-star weekend events, and at least 40 playoff games, regardless of whether the Montreal Canadiens are playing in them, but also the revenue from RDS will help the Canadiens to remain financially viable and able to ice a competitive team each year--we hope; right, Pierre?

    As the exclusive broadcaster, RDS is also prepared to invest significant programming, production, marketing, and promotional resources to produce a first-class television presentation for viewers and advertisers and to build the NHL and Montreal Canadiens brands throughout Canada.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to answer your questions today.

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Litner.

    I would like to tell committee members that this first part of the meeting will end at 4:30 p.m. We will then receive the representatives of Société Radio-Canada.

[English]

    You're first, sir.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    When this came on the agenda I wanted to say it took little persuasion for me to be here. I am here because of personal interest. This is not the committee I normally sit on. When it comes to hockey and French hockey players, I spent some 20 years in the league, which, for the five teams, were French. So the only French I can remember are those words when you hand out a penalty, which I can't repeat here.

    I have thought about this a great deal. Perhaps you can help me out here. On channel 13 on my cable at home is the French channel. And if I want to watch a hockey game on Saturday night, and if I think the hockey going on there is more interesting, I turn there. This isn't a language issue, as I see it. It's an issue with the controller. It's an issue with CBC.

    I can't understand why that cost of producing a program.... When I put my finger on channel 13, 24 hours a day, it's there. So what's deeper than this, than what I read here and here?

    Mr. Jon Litner: We're asking ourselves the same question. It's about choice and opportunity and that question may be better suited for SRC to answer.

    We wanted to make sure that we explored with SRC all opportunities to continue their partnership with the Montreal Canadiens and the National Hockey League. At the end of the day, after exhaustive opportunities, it was clear to us that we had to explore the marketplace and arrive at an alternative such as RDS, which is available, as you point out, through cable and DBS satellite to folks in Quebec. The choice is there.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I live right on the border with the U.S. and occasionally, when I go straight south, I only need to drive for a day to watch a baseball game, and it's on the tube. If I go down one more state and I want to watch a baseball game, I can get it in the two languages, because it...to accommodate the listening audience.

    It appears that somebody hasn't taken into account the number of viewers who will tune in to that particular CBC Canadiens game. Has anyone offered you any statistics on what the percentage of the listening audience is?

    Mr. Jon Litner: I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Radio and television are always doing polls, and what I'm asking is this. Are you aware of a CBC poll that would give them the percentage of people watching that particular program--i.e., the Montreal Canadiens home games?

    Mr. Jon Litner: Yes, there obviously are viewership levels, reported through the Nielsen company, that we have access to.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Do you have those figures?

    Mr. Jon Litner: Yes.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: And they're sufficient to make that broadcast a cultural preference, I would think, a preference of Canadians?

    Mr. Jon Litner: I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you're asking me whether francophones prefer to watch the Montreal Canadiens, the answer is, in large degree, yes.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: And furthermore, I can say that a large number of anglophones prefer to watch them as well. So they have fans in both languages.

    Mr. Jon Litner: I think that's accurate.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Right.

    Okay, thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Litner, you said in your comments that you had entered into a four-year agreement with the Montreal Canadiens to combine your resources and--to use your words--maximize efforts.

    I have some questions to ask you.

    You negotiated a contract with the CBC for the broadcast of certain hockey matches on Saturday evenings. The negotiations with Radio-Canada failed. Now you have a contract with RDS for the hockey games, including those on Saturday evenings. I believe it concerns 124 games. I don't understand why you managed to negotiate an agreement with the CBC for a video feed and an audio feed, whereas you were unable to negotiate one with Radio-Canada. Who controls the television stations at the Molson Centre? Is it the hockey club or the National Hockey League? For example, here we have a camera watching us. Who's controlling that camera?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: I have one quick correction to make. What I said in my opening statement was that, four years ago, the National Hockey League and the Montreal Canadiens entered into a joint venture arrangement. What I did not say was that it was for four years.

    If I understand your question correctly, you are asking who controls the video from the CBC games. The league did enter into an agreement with the CBC for national English-language rights on Saturday nights. That's a package that the CBC produces and telecasts on its own, and distributes nationally throughout Canada. That's an exclusive English-language arrangement. The RDS agreement provides RDS with exclusive Saturday telecast rights in the French language. That's what they purchased. So each is mutually exclusive.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So there are two television cameras: one that belongs to the state, to Radio-Canada, and another that belongs to RDS. There are two cameras filming the hockey match at the same time. Is that correct?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: If understand your question correctly, two distinct games are being televised. For example, the CBC game in the 7 o'clock time slot would typically be the Toronto Maple Leafs versus an opponent. The games that RDS has purchased--let's say in the 7 o'clock time slot on a Saturday night--would be the Montreal Canadiens playing an opponent. In most cases, they are two totally different games, with two totally different opponents. The only time that might not happen is obviously when Montreal plays Toronto. They are two distinct packages, or two distinct--

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Litner, that's not what I wanted to know. Who controls the recording of the video feed that you broadcast? Is it you or Radio-Canada?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: Who controls the video? The broadcaster is responsible for producing the telecast.

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So it's Radio-Canada that has its facilities in the Centre and films the hockey game. RDS has cameras in the Centre to film the same hockey game.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin (President, Club de hockey Canadien): That's entirely correct. It's the broadcaster that controls the production and source of the video feed.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So it's the broadcaster that controls production.

    If the broadcaster, Radio-Canada, is a federal public institution, why can't it take that video, and through modern technology, add the French audio and the English audio for those who want it in English? All we have to add today, with new technology, is what's called SAP, the second audio program, which makes it possible to program and change the sound. It's possible here in the case of CPAC, when you have a modern television less than 10 years old. There's a chip in the set that makes it possible to change the sound.

    Why don't you want to take the video that you've sold, probably under a good contract, and add the French audio?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: You're talking about a secondary audio program. Now I understand your question; I apologize.

    What broadcasters are looking to purchase and what property rights owners such as the National Hockey League and the Montreal Canadiens are selling in large degree is exclusivity. Advertisers are looking for exclusivity to reach a certain audience and to be the only game in town, if you will.

    In the case of the Montreal Canadiens and RDS, what we sold to them and what they purchased were exclusive French-language rights to Saturday night National Hockey League games, essentially comprised of Montreal Canadiens games. In Quebec that's what advertisers are looking for, to get this exclusivity.

    If we were, for example, to bring the CBC English pictures into Quebec with a French voice-over, that would severely dilute the value of what we sold to RDS. Conversely, you could argue that if we brought the Montreal Canadiens feed into the rest of Canada and put an English voice-over on that, you would have the same issue. It would dilute the value of what we're selling.

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So the contract you signed with Radio-Canada is exclusive to Radio-Canada, and the audio is in English only.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: It is exclusive to CBC. The feeds--

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: For the other hockey matches broadcast on Radio-Canada, such as those of the Toronto, Chicago or Detroit clubs, have you sold the French audio rights as well or only the English rights?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: We have sold exclusive French-language national rights to RDS for Saturday.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For all teams?

    Mr. John Litner: For all teams.

    Now, there are six other nights of the week, obviously, and if SRC or any other broadcaster is interested in other games and you folks are aware they may be interested, give them my phone number. I'd be happy to have the conversation this afternoon.

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, senator. Thank you, Mr. Litner.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Someone could buy the French broadcasting rights from you for the other matches.

[English]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Perhaps you could answer that before I switch over. Who could buy the francophone rights from the NHL? Who could buy them? But you've just told us that they're all sold.

    Mr. Jon Litner: No. Let me be very clear. What we've sold are exclusive French-language Saturday rights to National Hockey League games.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): To all games....

    Mr. Jon Litner: On Saturday, correct.

    Now, if, for example, the Ottawa Senators were interested in putting together a national Friday night package and SRC were interested in that, we could have a conversation.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, if you've sold them, I can't see how you could do that.

    Un instant. Before we go on, Mr. Litner, I have one point that I'm rather picky on. When you talk about French rights, you refer to Quebec only. Be aware that around this table, at least, you have four people who don't live in Quebec and who are francophones. They represent maybe a million people outside Quebec who are francophones.

    So be careful. It's a very picky point, but I and a few others....

    Mr. Jon Litner: No, I'm very aware of that--

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Mr. John Litner: --and I didn't mean to imply that francophones live only in Quebec. I'm very aware that they live throughout Canada.

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you, gentlemen. Before asking you any questions, I would like to know whether I correctly understood Senator Gauthier. You would like Radio-Canada to broadcast Don Cherry's remarks translated into French? Perhaps the committee could consider other problems, if that's what you wish.

    Mr. Litner, it may be surprising for you to see that the political sector takes such an interest in hockey. The reason is perhaps that engaging in politics regularly and intensively every four years and watching hockey, mainly on Saturdays, are our two national sports.

    As for other National Hockey League teams, I would like to know whether the National Hockey League or the teams are responsible for the broadcasting rights. For example, I'm thinking of the New York Rangers and the Philadelphia Flyers. I won't reveal everything I know about hockey, but I know those two teams, at least.

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: It's a combination. Each NHL club is responsible for its local television rights in a defined region. Laid on top of that are national rights, whereby each club will, in essence, assign a certain number of games to the National Hockey League, who in turn will go out and bid those rights to a national broadcaster who may be interested. That's the way it works throughout the United States and here in Canada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to understand the situation clearly. Does the Club de hockey Canadien have a particular status with regard to the broadcasting rights for its matches? For the Club de hockey Canadien, and Mr. Boivin could perhaps answer this, are the conditions the same as for all the other teams in the National Hockey League?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: The joint venture we established with the National Hockey League four years ago is a separate arrangement unique to the Club de hockey Canadien. We grouped together the Club's inventories, which are the same as for all the other clubs, that is what we call our local matches and the so-called national matches. When I say national matches, it must be understood that they are the play-offs, since no team holds the rights to the play-offs. They belong to the League, regardless of team, since there is no certainty as to which teams will make the play-offs, even though every team hopes to do so at the start of every season. So that's part of what's called the national inventory.

    For the Montreal Canadiens, the situation is unique in that there is a joint venture. We are the only team in the entire League that sells rights simultaneously; and this is in fact the first time we have sold them to a single network. Previously, there were three, and, before that, there were three as well, one of which was not the same. But the Canadiens sold their games and the League sold its national games. In English Canada, teams such as Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver sell their local matches, but not all of them, incidentally, since, contrary to what they wanted, a number of teams have unsold inventory. So they sell their local matches, and those games are part of the pool of national games that the League has sold, to the CBC, among others, for Saturday nights, and to TSN for the weekday matches. Lastly, the national games are only the Saturday night games.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perfect.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: If we simplify it, we can say that the in-week games are local games and the Saturday night matches and play-offs are national matches, at least for the Canadian teams.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: We do things this way so that we can work together on marketing hockey broadcasting rights in the French Canadian market, which is a unique market. Everywhere else in North America, there's essentially one language associated with hockey, the exception being French, which is mainly found in Quebec and outside Quebec, where a million Francophones live. This is a phenomenon unique to Canada and particularly unique to Quebec.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That unique fact should have been raised in the negotiations. If, for unique reasons, we have created a unique joint venture and are selling unique rights as a result of a unique situation, that uniqueness should have been apparent in the negotiations, it seems to me.

    To understand the situation clearly, I would like to clarify certain points. There is a joint venture; there is the Club de hockey Canadien and the National Hockey League. Who sold the broadcasting rights to RDS? Was it the National Hockey League or the Club de hockey Canadien? If my memory serves me, Radio-Canada told us that it had entered into an oral agreement with the Club de hockey Canadien, but that the National Hockey League had subsequently telephoned it to say that the agreement was no longer valid. I have that piece of information somewhere in my notes, but I can't find it. Ms. Fortin, who will be testifying next, can clarify this point for us.

    Was it the National Hockey League or the Club de hockey canadien that negotiated the 124 games with RDS?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: Let me answer the first part of that, then I'll let Pierre address what you called an agreement for 124 games.

    The joint venture negotiated the agreement with RDS. As Pierre stated, the joint venture was formed to take advantage of the uniqueness of the Quebec marketplace and, as I said in my opening statement, to create some efficiencies and maximize the resources of the league and the Montreal Canadiens. So the joint venture, at all times, was negotiating with all the prospective broadcasters who were interested in bidding on the television package.

    Your second point had to do with an agreement for 124 games with RDS, or with SRC...? Is that what you were asking? I wasn't quite sure.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to know who sold the 124 games to RDS. Was it the National Hockey League that signed the contract or was it the Club de hockey Canadien?

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: I'll answer: it was both. There is the joint venture, a partnership between the League and the Montreal Canadiens, and that company, which is jointly held by both, sold the rights. At all times, it was that company that represented the two partners in the business, the Montreal Canadiens and the National Hockey League, which put their respective inventories of games into a game pool. There may have been calls from me to a broadcaster or someone else and from the League to a broadcaster or someone else, but we always talked to each other. Everyone was present at most meetings. The League and the Montreal Canadiens were at virtually every meeting. There were discussions between Mr. Bettman and Mr. Rabinovitch, for example. There were single conversations, but it was always on behalf of the joint venture because we are partners.

º  (1600)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you. There is something I don't understand. You're going to have to explain it to me again. Someone tried to explain it to me, but I really don't understand. Why doesn't the Club de hockey Canadien, in partnership with the National Hockey League, negotiate with Radio-Canada and CBC, which are nevertheless in the same boat? Why aren't these negotiations concerning French and English broadcasts not conducted at the same time? Why are they separated? It seems to me that the larger the audience you have to offer, the more benefits there are for everyone.

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: The only simple answer I can give you is that they never asked. The CBC, SRC, never asked us, the National Hockey League and the joint venture, to negotiate in concert the English-language national rights and the French-language national rights. It was never asked.

    At the time, CBC English national rights seemed to be more focused on combining resources with TSN, a specialty channel, to try to make a pre-emptive, if you would, bid for the NHL. The question you raise is why weren't these rights combined, English national/ French national. We had a joint venture. There were different management groups on the CBC side and the SRC side. The fact of the matter is, neither I nor anyone else on our negotiating team was ever asked the question by either SRC management or CBC management to see if we were interested in negotiating them at the same time.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: I think it is important to add that they were separate the last time around also. This is not a first event. I don't know before that, because it precedes me and I don't have the history. But the last time the national English rights were sold and the national French rights were sold, they were sold separately to CBC and to SRC in two separate and not sequential negotiations.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you. I'll be back. I'm trying to sort out something in my mind, and I'll come back with the right question.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to welcome you to the committee. Incidentally, I am a French Canadian who does not live in Quebec and I watch hockey.

    In my region, people who don't have cable don't have access to RDS and will now be deprived of La Soirée du hockey. On their behalf, I would like to thank you for taking the hockey matches away from them.

    La Soirée du hockey on Radio-Canada began 50 years ago. It was a historic program. In my mind, it's something that belonged to the Canadians. Société Radio-Canada is a state-owned television network, like the CBC. I find it unfortunate that the negotiations could not lead to an agreement.

    Personally, like the people at home, I'm disappointed by your decision to leave Radio-Canada. I'm disappointed that you were unable to reach an agreement.

    Why are there two different agreements? That's what's hard to understand. Why was the CBC able to reach an agreement that did not require it to broadcast all the hockey games, every day or six days a week? It entered into an agreement under which certain matches will be broadcast on Saturday evenings. Radio-Canada should have broadcast all the games. That's what I was able to understand at the meeting we had with Radio-Canada.

    I don't think it's fair for Canadians. This is a national league, for which people have a great deal of respect. I know that your concern is money, but the National Hockey League must also be concerned about Canadians.

    I don't understand why there were two different agreements. I know that there were two separate negotiations, with CBC on the one hand and Radio-Canada on the other, and that the agreements are not similar.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: Let me respond by saying again that, when we began our negotiations, our intention was to renew our current deal structure with the incumbents--SRC, RDS, and perhaps TQS.

    During the negotiation, SRC decided not to telecast any playoff games, except if the Montreal Canadiens were in the playoffs. By doing that, they were essentially taking the cherry off the cake. Six months prior to that, the CBC had also come to the National Hockey League, wanting to reduce the number of games that they were televising, particularly during the playoffs. After negotiating, they agreed to commit to a minimum level of three playoff games a week, regardless of who was in the playoffs.

    We offered a similar structure to SRC. They rejected it. I personally pleaded with Daniel Asselin to go back to SRC management to try to persuade or convince them to change their direction and to agree to a very similar structure to the one agreed to with their sister broadcaster, CBC. Again, they refused. Because of those decisions, we obviously had to explore the marketplace to arrive at an alternative.

    We understand that there are francophones who live outside of Quebec. We understand that, by going to RDS, it moves the Montreal Canadiens games off over-the-air television to a specialty channel.

    I would like to reiterate that, although RDS may not be available on cable where your constituents are, it is available on satellite. Star Choice and ExpressVu do carry RDS. So it is accessible, for a fee. I assume that this committee is aware that we also offered, at least twice, to simulcast the Montreal Canadiens games on SRC. Again, this offer was rejected.

    On your other question, regarding why the deals were not negotiated together, all I can do is reiterate that the league was never approached by either CBC or SRC to do so. Therefore, the issue never arose.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: So you're saying that the negotiations you had with the CBC you could have had with Radio-Canada if it had agreed to broadcast, for example, three games a week during the play-offs, but Radio-Canada refused to do so.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: To make it quite clear, I will add that we had even agreed that Radio-Canada would broadcast two games on Saturday and one during the week. So we had relaxed our conditions. At the outset, the two networks had the same problem, that is a problem of springtime programming because of the unpredictable play-off schedule. At all the meetings I attended, Radio-Canada very clearly explained the problem that caused it. It's in fact a real problem. The CBC obviously had the same problem, but ultimately, it agreed to broadcast a reduced number of games because it no longer committed to covering all the play-off series. Let's be realistic: there can't be more than four or five games a week, but that would mean there would be back-to-back games on two occasions. Three evenings a week, that's already a lot of hockey. We propose that Radio-Canada broadcast hockey two evenings a week, because we were very sensitive to the fact that this was perhaps even more of a programming problem for it than for the CBC. Radio-Canada declined the offer.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Would those two matches have been broadcast only by Radio-Canada, without RDS advertising?

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: That was during the process, whereas we firmly intended to renew the contract with the three broadcasters. We spent five months trying to place 82 games and 40 play-off games in virtually the same proportions as under the former agreement, for reasonable revenues. That proved to be impossible because there were no takers for the same number of games.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Binet.

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Hello, Mr. Boivin and Mr. Litner.

    My question is one about money. When we met with Radio-Canada, we were told that it was very expensive because prices had increased enormously. From the start of the talks, we did not hear that it was too expensive and that it was definitely difficult to agree on price. It wasn't a money issue? It was just a programming issue?

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: You can't dissociate the number of games from value. The two go together. When we sell 60 games for the price we had obtained for 124 games, it's the same financial agreement, but it's not the same agreement in terms of hockey broadcasting and accessibility for fans. So the first objective was to ensure that all our games would be broadcast. We are one of the few teams in the League that broadcast all games. That was the first part of the equation, the one that was ultimately untouchable. We had that before and we wanted to keep it.

    The second was to sell a minimum of 40 play-off games. That's an average because there are four-game series and seven-game series. There are a few teams, and we cannot predict which teams they will beat. That makes a total of 124 games: 80 Canadiens games, two games on all-star game weekend, which is special programming, and 40 play-off games.

    At first, our money objective was to appreciably increase what we had last season. I don't think any business, in a competitive market, wants to earn less money than in previous years, for its tickets, its broadcasting or beer and hot-dog sales. That's the reality of the market. We wanted to ensure our competitiveness.

    We wound up slightly higher compared to what we had consolidated with the three networks in the last agreement, but I can tell you one thing, and the figures are confidential: particularly in the case of Radio-Canada, we started out under 50% of what we had in the last agreement in terms of guaranteed value per network. We had to make a major effort to increase those values. I repeat that those figures are confidential, but I assure you that, if we had ultimately placed the entire inventory and obtained revenues virtually equivalent to those we had that season on the three networks, that's what we would have done. That's what we wanted to do, but that wasn't to happen.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: So the discussions didn't get hung up over money.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: Of course there were discussions that got hung up over money.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Of course, but there were negotiations, and that's not what created a bridge between the two.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: I can tell you that what created a new dynamic and made one network buy all the games is first and foremost the fact that we had unsold inventory. Unsold inventory means less money. It's inevitable.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Mr. Beaudoin.

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): If it was a simple commercial or private matter, I don't think there would be so many problems for us. What concerns us is that the CBC and Radio-Canada are federal agencies subject to the criteria of the Official Languages Act.

[English]

    And I don't think we can accept discrimination on the part of an organization that comes under the Official Languages Act, an organization that discriminates, in a way, between the French and the English networks. That's the only thing that worries me.

    The rest may be a question of money. It may be a question of private business. This, of course, is another problem; it's not my problem at all. My problem is that if the organization comes under the Official Languages Act, they have to treat the two languages equally, and I don't see how they can discriminate.

[Translation]

    Mr. Boivin, you said that you were prepared to give Radio-Canada two days, but that it had refused that proposal and ultimately got nothing. You were forced to reach an agreement with another network.

    In legal terms, that's clearly discriminatory. If there are two national networks broadcasting a national sport, a federal agency must... I tell you that it's full of legal implications. I can't see how an organization that has two networks, one Francophone, the other Anglophone, can accept discrimination when it comes to a national sport, under section 16 of the Official Languages Act, which provides that the two languages are equal. I believe there is an obligation here that has not been met.

    I don't know what you think, but it seems to me an agreement tending in that direction should have been accepted.

    Mr. Boivin or Mr. Litner, can you answer me?

[English]

    Mr. Jon Litner: Obviously I'm not familiar with the particular provision you cited, and that's probably a question better asked of the SRC and CBC, to the extent that it's not about money, as you suggested, but about fairness, perhaps. I think you used the word “discrimination”.

    I can only say, again, that an offer was made to SRC to simulcast the games on at least two occasions, and on each of those occasions they rejected that offer. So to the extent that the issue is about serving the francophone viewer, an offer was made to do that, and it was rejected.

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I should address my question to the CBC.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Herron, please.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'll take a different approach from my dear colleague from the other place. We recognize the fact that we're talking about a public policy issue, but there are factors that need to be addressed in this, factors that from a holistic perspective are clearly economic. We have a responsibility to address the political issue as well, and because it is such a great game, there is a cultural aspect there as well.

    What I want to frame my questions around is this. In order to maintain their capacity to be competitive, the Montreal Canadiens need to have access to as much revenue as they possibly can, and no one should blame them for that. To offer their constituency a service where all games will be televised is not only a noble initiative from a cultural perspective but one that makes economic sense.

    The NHL is in a competitive business as well in that there are other competing industries or sports pursuing market share. You need to get as much revenue as you possibly can, and no one can blame you for that either.

    The point I am looking at is the fact that the cultural and political aspects are not addressed in this bill as it stands today. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here today. What I'm saying is that there was a reasonable offer made by RDS to SRC to fill that void. It didn't meet SRC's objective of maintaining their branding, but that's okay too. They wanted to have their own commentators, and that didn't meet RDS's long-term branding objectives on this.

    Perhaps the federal government doesn't have the legal right to make a direct intervention here, and perhaps the NHL doesn't have a clear obligation to make a direct intervention either. But clearly if the federal government said that its political will...wanted to exude leadership, to fill the political and cultural void that's been lost, and the NHL wanted to do the same thing. So they went to SRC and RDS and said, “Let's all be grown-ups here as best we can”...and where Radio-Canada has said that they would consider some form of a co-production. It may not necessarily be just their commentators. I think SRC has to be more flexible in that regard. RDS has made an offer before, and they want this issue to go to bed as well.

    To Mr. Litner, is the NHL willing to exude a bit of positive pressure in conjunction with perhaps the federal government? As this committee is likely going to come up with recommendations on what could be done, would it be amenable to trying to be an arbiter, a go-between, in facilitating some kind of response that addresses the political and cultural aspects?

    Francophones in my riding of Fundy--Royal will not have access to hockey free of charge. They won't, in a predominantly francophone region in my riding or anywhere in my province of New Brunswick, have access to the product without a financial investment.

    That's my question, Mr. Litner. Do you see an opportunity for us to do something similar to what ESPN does in conjunction with ABC--although they have the same ownership--to have that kind of co-production? SRC has to give a little, and clearly, RDS may have to put a big hat on to do this. It may not be totally in their interest, but I think they can lift both products and lift the game even better in a very competitive market.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Jon Litner: Let me first address the cultural aspect. Hockey is Canada and Canada is hockey. One of the great institutions culturally of this country, if not the world, is the Montreal Canadiens. All of this, in simplistic terms, is about ensuring the long-term financial viability of the Montreal Canadiens. That is the purpose of the joint venture. That's what it's designed to do. This deal, this agreement, is really not just about financial return, although that's certainly a significant part of it.

    The other part of this is also the significant promotional, programming, marketing and other resources that RDS is going to bring to the Montreal Canadiens and the National Hockey League--in some cases, unprecedented. They're a full-time, 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week sports channel. That's all they do. The NHL and their exclusive package with the Montreal Canadiens will be their crown jewel. That distinguishes them, obviously, from other broadcasters, including SRC.

    This notion of a co-production that you bring up is the first time I've heard of it.To the extent RDS and SRC could not work out a simulcast, I don't have a great degree of confidence that they would be able to work out a co-production.

    I have nine years of experience on the television side and I can tell you how difficult it is to do that every four years for the Olympics. That's a two-week event every four years--every two years with the winter Olympics. To do it 82 nights of the year I think would be a significant challenge.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. John Herron: I'm referring to Saturdays.

    Mr. Jon Litner: I think it would still be a significant challenge even to do it 25 or however many nights of the year.

    Again, I can only tell you from my own experience and from the experience that we had in the early stages of the English-language negotiations with the CBC, when they were discussing in very primitive ways what they wanted to do with TSN, they couldn't agree on it. And that was before an agreement was reached.

    We've reached the agreement. I think it would be very difficult for us to go back and try to broker a deal like that. Obviously, I'd have to think about it, because it's the first time I'm hearing about it, but I think it would be a challenge.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We love challenges, Mr. Litner.

    I have a few questions. First, I inquired of Mr. Rabinovitch about why it was that CBC Radio-Canada, which was one corporation, had not negotiated one agreement with the National Hockey League. The response I had was that the right-holders, the teams and the NHL, did not want it to be that way. They wanted the separate negotiation.

    I subsequently asked Monsieur Boivin, when he appeared, whether or not the Montreal Canadiens hockey club had any objections in the future to there being one negotiation by CBC and Radio-Canada together.

    I wanted to clear up what happened. Was there any objection or preference from the league to have two sets of negotiations for the one that just ended? Was that the league's intended course of action?

    Mr. Jon Litner: Again, the precedent that we were working under was that there were two separate negotiations. In terms of this past negotiation, I can only tell you I'm sure there were numerous conversations going back and forth. Perhaps there was a casual reference, but I don't know. I never was approached by or spoke to Mr. Rabinovitch or anyone else from the CBC or SRC requesting that the league combine the negotiations into one.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You may not wish to answer a hypothetical question, but if they had, would you have agreed to?

    Mr. Jon Litner: I can't answer a hypothetical question.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right.

    Mr. Jon Litner: I will answer it this way. We certainly would have given it strong, good-faith consideration.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Then I will ask a non-hypothetical question.

    In the next round of negotiations, which will come five years hence, will the league accept the notion of negotiating one agreement with Radio-Canada and CBC together?

    Mr. Jon Litner: I learned a long time ago you should never negotiate a deal too far in advance. So five years is a very long time. I would give you the same answer, which is--

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fifty years is an even longer time, sir.

    Mr. Jon Litner: Fifty years is a very long time.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is what we're discarding here.

    Mr. Jon Litner: You are absolutely right. That's why we did everything we possibly could--

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would they even accept--

    Mr. Jon Litner: --to continue the 50-year tradition. The answer is, we gave it good, faithful consideration at that time.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Am I to understand that the National Hockey League has essentially given RDS a blackout for all games in French, for the entire league, for every Saturday night that there is a hockey game? You've sold them that?

    Mr. Jon Litner: What we have sold them is the package that SRC had up until this year, which was full Saturday exclusivity.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For all teams in the entire league?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Jon Litner: In French. SRC had exclusive French-language rights on Saturday. That's what RDS is assuming, the SRC package--the exact same exclusivity provisions--

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They didn't have exclusivity for the Montreal Canadiens, but you say they had exclusivity for all teams?

    Mr. Jon Litner: SRC had exclusive rights to the Canadiens, meaning that no other team could be televised in French on Saturday. They could play, they could be televised in English on CBC, but not in French.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): My question is, could Radio-Canada purchase rights now from the NHL for the other Canadian teams in the NHL for a Saturday night broadcast in French?

    Mr. Jon Litner: In French, no. If they are interested in the other six days or nights of the week, I'll give you my phone number, and you can have them call me, because I would love to have that discussion.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): How many hockey games can RDS broadcast on any given Saturday night?

    Mr. Jon Litner: They will make a decision whether to do one or two, depending on whether they want to regionalize in whatever window they have, the 7 o'clock or 7:30 window, and perhaps a few double-headers.

    What this is about is exclusivity. It's the same arrangement we have on the English-language side with the CBC. They have full exclusivity.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have only two and a half minutes left, that's why I'm rushing you, sir. I keep the time here.

    At the least, there will be three games involving Canadian teams on any given Saturday, if they are all playing, and at the most, six. And yet the network to which you have given all the rights can broadcast at the most only two. So you have effectively blocked out a whole series of possibilities here by selling them all the rights, for all the teams, for every Saturday night.

    Mr. Jon Litner: The marketplace has dictated that francophones in Quebec and throughout Canada prefer to see the Montreal Canadiens. They in essence were the drivers of the national French-language rights, which explains, to a large degree, the logic behind the joint venture.

    What I'm saying is there was no interest in any Canadian team in French other than the Montreal Canadiens.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It might be the Ottawa Senators, for instance.

    The last round of questions is on a different topic here. When Mr. Rabinovitch appeared before us, he said that, in his mind, anyhow, he had a deal. Then, on May 16, he got a call from Bettman of the NHL that there wasn't a deal any more. I don't know if you can comment on that.

    I'm just starting to wonder--and perhaps the question will be best addressed to Radio-Canada, whom we'll see right after--did this potential deal involve the 25 hockey games that the Montreal Canadiens broadcast for Saturday nights, the two speciality, and two games a week during the playoffs? Was that what he might have referred to as a deal?

    In other words, when did the league decide it had to be the whole 124 or nothing? After that? Before that?

    Mr. Jon Litner: I'm going to ask Pierre to answer the question.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: This should hopefully be a very exact repetition of what I said last week.

    I don't know how SRC got the impression that they had a deal. I have also read Mr. Rabinovitch's testimony before this committee. He speaks of a handshake and he speaks of being a minute away from a deal. I am the one who had the conversations with all of the networks in the last couple of weeks of April, so I know what I said to every single one of the networks and I know when I said it. I have very good notes. I was part of every meeting, of every negotiation. I never once spoke to Mr. Rabinovitch in this whole process.

    The conversation I had was with Daniel Asselin, and we had broken discussions two and a half weeks prior to that. Negotiations were off because we were so far apart there was no point in continuing to discuss. SRC was still refusing to broadcast playoff games unless the Montreal Canadiens were playing, which, by the way, is a market example of the fact that there is not a real model out there for francophones, in Quebec or outside of Quebec, being interested in other games but the Montreal Canadiens any night of the week. The proof is that SRC was not interested in playoff games even if there were two other Canadian teams playing--Toronto and Ottawa. They've done that before. Their audiences are just so low that they can't attract the advertising revenues to make it worth their while. If the Canadiens are in, then it's worth it.

    But at that point, negotiations stopped. When I spoke to Mr. Asselin, when we were still desperately trying to put a three-network deal together, what had we been doing? We'd been trying to sell that untaken SRC inventory and make our revenues whole. It's not complicated. We weren't able to do that.

    I told Daniel Asselin, if you get to the following number for the Saturday night games--which was significantly higher than their last, and what was supposed to be final, offer--and if we are able to place the balance of the games, which is a big “if”, because you've given them back to us, and keep our revenues whole, we might be able to re-engage discussions. But if you stay at that level of games and that number of dollars, we never had this conversation.

    That, I believe, is when he thought he had a deal. He was corrected in his impression that night, when we had a game at the Molson Centre. He met one of our vice-presidents who was involved with the broadcast, and he realized he didn't have a deal when he hung up on the phone. He had a range that allowed him to get back into the process and he had a commitment on our part that we would do everything to try to sell the rest of the inventory. He then realized that....

    I then spent an hour face to face with Daniel Asselin in Carolina in the first round of the playoffs, a week later, explaining to him in very clear terms that there was more than one possible scenario, that we were not progressing very well in getting that inventory placed, and that he never had a deal.

    He was disappointed. What he said to Mr. Rabinovitch and what Mr. Rabinovitch may have thought, I don't know, but those are the conversations that took place.

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Two persons have asked to speak on the second round, Messrs. Gauthier and Sauvageau, and I grant them each two or three minutes.

    Senator Gauthier.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm going to come back to my original question, Mr. Litner. Without breaking the contract, is it possible for Radio-Canada, which bought the English rights to the hockey games, to take the video it bought and paid for and put in French audio instead of English? The video and audio are two different signals. It would need only change the audio. A moment ago, you did not seem to understand what I meant. I'm going to explain myself more clearly. Would Radio-Canada be breaking the contract by acting in that manner?

[English]

    Would they break their contract with you, or with the league, if they put French dubbing in their English programming?

    Mr. Jon Litner: The answer is yes. That would be a breach of the exclusivity we sold to RDS.

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Boivin, you sold the broadcasting rights to Astral, in Quebec, if I understand correctly. There is no French radio outside Quebec, as far as I know. I phoned today, and I was told that Astral had bought those rights. Is that true?

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: It was Astral, yes. CKAC had held the rights for five years and renewed for another five years. In English, it's CJAD.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So you have abandoned the Francophone market outside Quebec. There's no more French-language radio in Canada at the present time.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: We didn't abandon it. It's Radio-Canada radio that abandoned it a number of years ago.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You obviously abandoned it if there isn't any anymore. You previously had that market. You had it for nearly 50 years. I listened to hockey on the radio when I was a little guy.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: Yes, but for us to be able to broadcast hockey games, a broadcaster has to want to buy them. No Francophone broadcaster outside Quebec is interested in the Montreal Canadiens' games.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You had one until 1995: it was Radio-Canada.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: Radio-Canada abandoned the broadcast, and we then entered into an agreement with CKAC.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So it was Radio-Canada, not you, that abandoned it.

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: Yes.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Messrs. Boivin and Litner, I want to know whether the statement I'm going to read to you is true or false. It's a statement by Mr. Rabinovitch, who told us in the committee that they ultimately agreed on the final offer in April. He said in English:

Finally in April, we agreed with them to their last offer. [...] this was going to be the deal, and they were going to now proceed to sell the rights to TQS...

    So Mr. Rabinovitch said that they had a final offer in April. On May 16, Gary Bettman phoned to tell him that the National Hockey League had changed his strategy and no longer wanted to sell the hockey rights to the three different stations. Had there been a final agreement?

    With your permission, I'm going to read it to you in English:

º  (1640)  

[English]

On May 16, Gary Bettman phoned me to tell me that the league and les Canadiens, and in particular he said les Canadiens, had changed their strategy and from now on they did not want to sell the rights to three different operators; they wanted to sell it to one operator.

[Translation]

    Was there a deal, and did you change your strategy after the agreement?

    Mr. Pierre Boivin: No, there was no final agreement. There may have been a perception of a final agreement, but, in my mind, a final agreement is a well drafted document, initialed and signed by the parties. There was no handshake either.

    If it can enlighten you, I'll tell you what I think happened. At the time of the last negotiations, in 1995, I was not present, but the joint venture adopted a different approach. First they reached an agreement with Radio-Canada, then they went to see TQS. That was signed: they broadcast the Saturday night games and the play-off games. They took all the play-off games; that wasn't the same agreement. They went to see TQS and they sold so many matches per week; TQS took the second choice. Subsequently, they took the rest of the games, that is 22 or 25 of the 124 games, and they sold them to RDS, as well as the second round of play-offs. They were second behind Radio-Canada. They did it consecutively, successively.

    This year, we said very clearly from the outset that we weren't doing that. All the networks knew that it was out of the question, particularly since most of the networks wanted to change the structure of the deal in terms of the number of games and commitments. Radio-Canada wasn't the only one that wanted to do it. So we told them at the outset that there would be an agreement only once we had put all the elements in place to our satisfaction: selling the entire inventory at price x. We worked simultaneously during that entire time.

    We made a call on May 16 because we had a legal obligation to respect Radio-Canada's right of first refusal. The perception that we had changed our strategy and that we had turned around to force Radio-Canada to take 124 games is completely false. Since Radio-Canada had a right of first refusal under the agreement, and, in view of our 50-year partnership with Radio-Canada, we had a legal and moral obligation to offer Radio-Canada an exclusive agreement for 124 games. Radio-Canada declined our offer. We were not trying to enter a second horse in the race for 124 games. If they didn't want 50, they didn't want 124. We knew that.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much.

[English]

    Mr. Boivin and Mr. Litner, thank you for rearranging whatever schedule you might have had to accommodate ours. My colleagues appreciate your responses.

[Translation]

    If you want to share any other information with us, you can do so now or write to us.

[English]

It's as you wish. If there is anything else that you wish to say, this would be the only opportunity.

    We're fine?

    Mr. Jon Litner: Yes.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fine.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much. We will take a two-minute break.

º  (1643)  

---

º  (1648)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Fortin, welcome back. I thank you and your team for accommodating our schedule, which is a bit rushed in these last few days of the session. Thank you for your patience.

    You know our procedure. Please introduce your colleagues and make your presentation, if you have one, and we will then proceed with the usual exchange.

    Ms. Fortin, you have the floor.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin (Executive Vice-President, French Television, CBC/Radio-Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Distinguished members of the Committee, we are happy to act on your request to appear again before you. Mr. Rabinovitch is currently out of the country and apologizes that he cannot be on hand to continue the discussions.

    My name is Michèle Fortin, Executive Vice-President, French Television. Accompanying me today are Michel Tremblay, Vice-President, Strategy and Business Development, Pierre Nollet, Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, and Daniel Gourd, General Director, Programs, French Television, who is responsible, among other things, for sports.

    During our June 4th appearance we informed you of how we comply with the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. In response to questions from Committee members, we also explained our position regarding La Soirée du hockey, which rightly concerns the Committee members and greatly concerns us as well.

    Because we believed that the facts were clear and had been fully discussed after our appearance and that of RDS and the Canadiens, we deemed that we had no new information to table before the Committee. This is why we chose to answer the Committee in writing, in response to its request of June 13. But, as the Committee is of the opinion that there are still questions to clarify, we are quite willing to participate in a constructive exchange of views.

    In the first place, I would like to reiterate our position that we are still very interested in broadcasting the Canadiens' Saturday night games, as we have for the past 50 years.

    Secondly, we remain ready to negotiate a fair and reasonable agreement in good faith with the holders of the rights to return La Soirée du hockey to our network, with the aim of continuing to reach the maximum number of Francophones and Canadiens fans across Canada.

    Thirdly, I would like to reiterate that we fully share the Committee's concerns regarding the sudden end of this Radio-Canada tradition, and its consequences.

    In the current context of the communications industry, we increasingly must enter into alliances or partnerships with the private sector to achieve our objectives. We have thus developed partnerships with RDS for the Formula 1 races and the Olympic Games. Our business relationship with the Canadiens and the National Hockey League until recently was an ideal example of a lasting partnership.

    In April, we believed we had reached an agreement in principle with the Canadiens to broadcast the Saturday night games, the All Star Game and the final playoff series. A few weeks later, to our great surprise, we were offered all the Canadiens games and the playoffs, approximately 124 games. This is far beyond our capacity for integrating hockey into our schedule, given our generalist public television mandate.

    Finally, we were informed that an exclusive agreement had been made with RDS for all of these games. We attempted, before and after the sale of the exclusive rights to all Canadiens games to RDS, to propose reasonable solutions in the interest of our audiences across Canada.

    Please be assured that Radio-Canada remains open to solutions, and we are now available to answer your questions.

º  (1650)  

[English]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We lost an NHL team in the east--the Nordiques--and we lost an NHL team in Winnipeg. As you know, if you follow this at all, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep professional sports level, because we are competing with a much larger country to the south.

    At the present time, I believe you broadcast during the year on Saturday night. Previously, you were broadcasting the Canadiens' games then. CBC was doing it for eastern Canada--Toronto and Ottawa--and you were doing the west. Were you not doing three telecasts on Saturday night?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: On the French network, we always broadcast the Canadien team on Saturday night, Le Club de hockey Canadien.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Right.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: On the English network, they usually broadcast Toronto, and one game in the west.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay. Thank you.

    It is true that, even with professional sports--be it hockey, football, or whatever--the main source of revenue still relies on how many people go through the turnstile. The tickets are still the main source of revenue. In the case of smaller populations, like my own province, in order to support their football team, they black out coverage for that area, even though it's a CBC game. If you were to cease broadcasting Saturday night games on French television, has anyone come up with an answer as to what that would do to the number of people who come and watch the game live in the stadium? Is it going to increase or decrease?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I don't think it will have a major effect because on Saturday night, even when we broadcast, the Molson Centre--which will become the Bell Centre--is full. The impact is more on the weekly games; Daniel may wish to complement my answer on that.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd (General Manager, French Television, CBC/Radio-Canada): I don't think it has any bearing, as Michèle Fortin said, because the Saturday night game is the best-sold game at the Molson Centre. It was like that before at the Forum. In fact, when you see the quality of the teams that visited Montreal on Wednesday or on Saturday, the best teams were always there on Wednesday, Monday, or Friday, never on Saturday. In fact, we had the worst-ranking teams meeting the Canadiens on Saturday because it was easy to sell the Saturday night games and it was very difficult to sell the other nights. That's why they brought the best teams.

    When we made the quality analysis of the games we'd had for the last 10 years, we were very surprised to find that out. It explained to us that in fact Saturday is much easier to sell to people at the Molson Centre than any other day of the week.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: It's obvious that the deal that was made with the Canadien hockey team was a deal that enriched their income somewhat. Now, as to the cancellation or whatever, the end of the contract, was that because it was costing the television production company too much, or was it because there was an unfair contract for the four or five years?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I think Mr. Boivin explained it quite clearly. If somebody is willing to broadcast 124 games, those games can be bought at a cheaper rate because the total amount of money has gotten bigger. Since we cannot broadcast 124 games, and even if we broadcast fewer games, even if we pay a higher price.... But we're not willing to pay three or four times the price. What is important for a hockey team is the total amount of money they can get. It is really the economics of it all, and of course, what we were interested in was Saturday night and the finals in June.

    As to the fact that we were interested in only broadcasting the playoffs with the Canadiens, the situation is a little bit more nuanced. We said to them, listen, we have a major problem with the playoffs because we have a lot of protest that we were absent from all other types of programming during that period. We said to the Canadiens, we would be willing not to do any playoffs, including with the Canadiens. We said, if it helps you for us to do the Canadiens, we will, but if it helps you to sell the playoffs with the Canadiens elsewhere, we won't put up a fight over it, though we will put up a fight over Saturday night.

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Senator Gauthier.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good afternoon, Ms. Fortin.

    I was told a while ago that it would be impossible for you as owner of the English video feed to add French audio. That would apparently be illegal under the agreement. If I correctly understood your letter, or that of Mr. Rabinovitch, it was the National Hockey League that set the bargaining conditions. It did not want to negotiate with the two at the same time. It separated the French negotiations and the English negotiations. Am I mistaken?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: It's a longstanding tradition. I've been at Radio-Canada for 10 years and I've never known anything else. So it's something automatic.

    Second, this situation has always been beneficial because the Club de hockey Canadien or the new joint venture was negotiating a sharing between us, TQS and RDS which was satisfactory for everyone.

    I want to mention one thing, because I don't have the impression that everyone is aware of it, and that is that Radio-Canada and the CBC do not broadcast the same hockey game on Saturday nights. If a French audio feed was added, you would get the French commentary with a Toronto game because the CBC very rarely broadcasts Canadiens games, except when the Canadiens play against Toronto. In general, they're two separate games. Fans can choose between the two. Their main market prefers Toronto, whereas ours almost exclusively watches Canadiens games. So it wouldn't be the same game.

    We can negotiate together, but we don't negotiate the same games or the same broadcast, which is entirely different in the case of the Olympics, for example.

    Daniel, do you want to add something?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: In fact, for the negotiations of the rights, it must be understood that the last three rounds have been conducted by the Montreal Canadiens and the National Hockey League as a joint venture for all national and regional rights and Francophone cable rights in Canada. Nine years ago, Ronald Corey managed to obtain that when Molson stopped buying rights. Molson had previously bought all national, regional and local rights, as well as the English and French rights, and sold various packages to the various institutions.

    From the moment Molson withdrew from purchasing rights--before Molson, it was McLaren--there has always been someone to take on the rights for the National Hockey League and to resell them in Canada. Mr. Corey managed to become the negotiator and to separate the two markets. The reasons for that decision are quite simple: the two markets operate in an entirely different manner. In the English Canadian market, six teams--there have already been seven and even eight--constituted the pool of teams of interest to Canadians in one region or another, whereas the Montreal Canadiens have always embodied French Canadian hockey for Francophones. It's still true today, despite all the new teams that may exist and the Francophone players that have gone to other teams.

    It must also be understood that there is a star system in the Francophone market. It's as true in sports as it is in music, and it's also true in movies and theatre. So people follow their stars. When Patrick Roy of the Colorado Avalanche visits us, ratings rise. When Mario Lemieux comes to town with the Pittsburgh Penguins, ratings rise, even if he's all alone. When Desjardins, with Philadelphia, comes to play, ratings rise. When the clubs do not belong to the basic tradition, ratings fall. That's also true for the Canadiens.

    So this is a particular market problem. It had always worked until then and caused no problems for anyone.

»  (1700)  

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're using up my time. I don't have much left.

    Radio-Canada lost or, according to Mr. Boivin, abandoned the radio rights. Now you are forced to abandon the television rights. You're no longer involved in French Canadians' national sport, hockey. You've gotten out of that, I think. Is that true?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Until further notice, yes.

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have no further questions.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm going to take his time and mine.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, you are going to take seven minutes, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for accepting our invitation to come and meet with us again.

    Ms. Fortin, was there a final agreement in April between Radio-Canada and the National Hockey League, or was there no agreement between Radio-Canada and the National Hockey League?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Mr. Boivin explained his point of view, and I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. When they called us--I didn't negotiate with Mr. Boivin, but I remember that day very clearly--they came with a much higher budget proposal than the one that had been put on the table and a more generous business agreement than what we had offered.

    Daniel came to see me saying that the Canadiens were offering us this and that it was much more than what we wanted, but that it could lead to an agreement if we accepted.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Did you say yes?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: At the time, we said yes. Mr. Boivin said that he had made the offer to get us back into the negotiations and that he would continue to look around. He also told us that he still had things to tie up with the other broadcasters.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Allow me to interrupt you because we only have seven minutes, as Mr. Gauthier emphasized.

    You've been at Radio-Canada for 10 years and you've negotiated the Olympic Games and all those things, which involve tens of millions of dollars. I imagine you know when an agreement has been reached and when it hasn't. Was there an agreement or not?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: In the case of hockey, I'll tell you that we have often signed contracts once the hockey season has begun and even two years later. When you've been working with someone for 50 years and you come to an oral agreement with them, you send it to Pierre Nollet's office and the lawyers write up the contract. He's right. He said there were loose ends to tie up.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You had interpreted that as an agreement.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Yes, absolutely.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now there's no more agreement; nothing stands now. When you were broadcasting hockey on Saturday evenings, selling advertising, paying hosts, commentators and all those beautiful people, you were doing it at a loss.

    If RDS offers to broadcast its own pictures, with its commentators and so on, depriving you of your advertising rights, but you're no longer operating at a loss, economically speaking, what's the disadvantage?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: It's not only an economic question.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right, it's not just an economic question.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: We're a national network and a public television network. It's very hard for us. Try to imagine the English television representatives in such a situation. The task for us would be to give 75 hours of our air time to a television network that has just negotiated the hockey contract that used to be ours, without our commentators, without our employees. We would thus be contributing to the financing of the deal they had reached, while giving them the opportunity to advertise nationally on our network.

    There must be other ways to come to an agreement without giving up our air time. Otherwise, we'll have to do it for the Olympics, children, documentaries and so on. We'll become the rebroadcast television system for the private networks.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. Mr. Messier from RDS told us, when he came to see us, that RDS had offered Saturday night games produced by RDS for broadcast on Radio-Canada. Mr. Messier told us that they had not even talked about money, that it was a non-starter. Radio-Canada would lose less money with us, he said, than if it did the production itself, and we have a high-quality team.

    When your group came, you said that you would always be prepared to broadcast on Saturday evenings if you managed to negotiate with RDS.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: No, we don't want to broadcast RDS programs.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you say you can negotiate with RDS, but that they say that their proposal to Radio-Canada was a non-starter, how can you start negotiating in that kind of situation?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: After the agreement between the Canadiens and RDS was announced, we had some talks with RDS. RDS told you about part of the talks. We had others.

    We told RDS that we ultimately wanted to be included, after the fact, in the deal it had reached with the Montreal Canadiens, as had been done on the English side.

    As you know, on the English side, TSN, which is the parent company of RDS, and the CBC worked together to reach a comprehensive collective deal. So we asked RDS to include us in the deal after the fact and offered to buy back Saturday evening at a very good starting price. It was a bargaining price, of course, but they demurred.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In our minds, there's a problem.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Mr. Gerry Frappier confirmed that when he came here.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see there's a perception problem. In your perception, you had an agreement with the National Hockey League, but in its perception, it hadn't reached an agreement with you. In your perception, negotiations had begun with RDS, but they say that Radio-Canada demurred.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: No, it's not a matter of perception. We held discussions, and they in fact offered simulcasting, and we offered to buy back the rights. Mr. Frappier moreover confirmed, when he came here, that we initially offered them $2 million to buy back the Saturday night rights. However, they felt that wasn't enough. We felt their offer was not reasonable. We're still prepared to discuss other solutions; we're very open. However, we don't think simulcasting is one, for a number of reasons. First, giving up 75 prime time hours to a private network that will make money on the deal and finance its agreement and so on is unacceptable.

    Second, our people have been producing La Soirée du hockey for 50 years, and we think that's a tradition that's worth defending as such. Our employees and technicians have been working all out for 15 or 20 years producing that series. From one day to the next, not only do they feel deprived by a partner, of an event we were prepared to continue, but that event would also be broadcast live on our network on weekday evenings in prime time. That would simply cause a revolt among our people, not only those assigned to the media, but all employees.

    Mr. Herron asked us whether we were prepared to resume talks and become partners again. We can't ask for anything more than to renegotiate with the National Hockey League, the Club de hockey Canadien, RDS, TSN and Globemedia, which owns all that, and to join the agreement through negotiation. We are prepared to make all kinds of compromises, but we would like it to be negotiated to prevent the only solution adopted being the one they prefer, that is to say theirs.

    So we were ready to talk; they made an initial proposal which we found unacceptable in the circumstances, and we made one they considered unacceptable too, but we're still prepared to conduct these talks quickly. But it's getting late, and we still have to find 75 hours of programming, which is no simple matter. We really believed...

    Allow me to tell you one thing. Mr. Daniel Asselin, who is the sports director, has been negotiating sports rights around the world for 10 years: for tennis, hockey, cycling, the World Cup of Soccer, and he negotiated all the Nordiques' hockey rights for TQS during the years they were there. And Mr. Asselin, who is in good faith, sincerely believed he had reached an agreement. That's a matter of interpretation, but I wanted to mention that.

»  (1710)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Binet.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good afternoon, Ms. Fortin, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Nollet.

    Mr. Gourd, the last time we saw each other, you were negotiating with employees. I don't know whether it was negotiating with Radio-Canada employees in French that led to a failure in the area of sport.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: No. I have to tell you that, with Mr. Boivin, of the Club de hockey Canadien, all the negotiations really went extremely smoothly, including during the strike, when, as you know, the games were broadcast without commentary. But what Mr. Boivin did not tell you, because he forgot it, is that I called him when things were going poorly to ask him whether we could do something and whether it was possible to find a way to come to an agreement. It was after that that Mr. Boivin proposed the Saturday evening games, 25 games, and the big national final. So we nevertheless did some work with Mr. Boivin, who was extremely accommodating during the strike. That's not the cause of the problem.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I don't want to take up your time, but I would like to emphasize that we always forget that there was a third player in the negotiations, and that was TQS. They also wanted to revise their contract downward in financial terms because they were losing money too. So the combined effect of all these renegotiations probably led the Club de hockey Canadien to reconsider various solutions. We always forget them, but they too were in a situation in which they were offered 124 games, an offer to which they answered “no thank you” because their network couldn't handle it.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: For some time, we thought it was a question of money. But that's not the case. The people were prepared to negotiate.

    In your view, Mr. Gourd or Ms. Fortin, is the probability of getting La Soirée du hockey back 10 percent, 50 percent, 90 percent? Is there even a possibility? Is an intermediary necessary? Since Radio-Canada is a Crown corporation, will Ms. Copps have to say that an intermediary is necessary? One, two or three private businesses are definitely involved.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Allow me to say one or two things.

    You say that it's not a question of money, but it is a question of money in the sense that the way for the Canadiens to make the most money is to broadcast 124 games.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: It's definitely a question of money.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: It's definitely a question of money.

    On the matter of the intermediary, I believe you have done enough promotional activities and that, if the League and the Canadiens are approached, they will be at least open to sitting down and negotiating something. I especially don't believe that Ms. Copps must intervene as a conciliator, unless you want to make laws or something similar.

    A door may still be open, in my view. I believe it is still possible to sit down and discuss the situation in which people find themselves after these negotiations and to see how we could solve the problem. Will they be open to that? I don't know. In any case, if they aren't aware of the question, they never will be.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Do you see any hope?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I don't know.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Gourd.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: I would very much like to have Canadiens hockey and all our sports team, and I felt that the National Hockey League representative hesitated before saying yes or no to Mr. Mauril Bélanger's question.

    We're definitely going to contact them soon to see whether there is a chance of reopening the agreement between Bell Globemedia, the Club de hockey Canadien and the National Hockey League. It's definitely something we're going to do when we leave here. If there's a chance, we're going to find it. We're definitely going to find it.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: The true rights holders are now RDS and Bell Globemedia. It's not the League. It's different for the League to say that it's going to reopen the agreement because it has just signed an agreement that it does not have the power to reopen. That doesn't mean it won't exercise pressure.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: I don't doubt your talent. I wish you every success.

    Incidentally, we know the Canadiens are playing golf. So perhaps you can go and play golf with the Club and try to reach an agreement.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Binet.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Hello again and thank you for accepting our invitation.

    If I understood correctly, you said there were agreements between Radio-Canada and RDS for various things, such as Formula 1. I would like you to explain to me what kind of agreements they are. Who pays the sponsors?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: We have agreements for the Olympics and tennis, as well as for Formula 1 and World Cup soccer. In general, we share that. These are the kind of agreements that exist in hockey. For example, they do the entire week of tennis and we do the semi-finals and finals on Saturday and Sunday. We pay for our things and they pay for theirs. We broadcast our things and they broadcast theirs.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: So it's an agreement with RDS, which means that, if the National Hockey League no longer has the power to open up its contract, there's still a chance that the contract with RDS will be reopened, with the consent of the National Hockey League. Second, we know that Bell, which owns RDS, sells satellite dishes.

    Can there be a conflict of interest in all this? What's behind it all? You're not obliged to comment because I'm making my own comments.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: With the concentration of media, there are always cross-interests, perhaps not conflicts, but definitely cross-interests.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Then, if we look at the question once again and are prepared to go back and try to resolve it...

    Last year or in previous years, did Radio-Canada broadcast the finals even if the Canadiens were not in them? And what's the difference between then and now? For 50 years, in its tradition, Radio-Canada broadcast all Saturday evening, and I believe that Radio-Canada has now withdrawn from certain obligations. In my opinion, French Canadians who watch La Soirée du hockey on television like to watch the finals even if the Canadiens aren't playing.

    Isn't it Radio-Canada that withdrew from something that had existed for 50 years?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: You're correct, but allow me to explain something.

    When the tradition began, there were six hockey teams and the finals lasted for a limited period of time. Now the League is taking over the schedules, which it bases on the availability of American arenas. There's no many games that it's absolutely impossible to plan a programming schedule between mid-March and June. We're not the ones doing the network programming for citizens; it's Mr. Bettman or, in other words, the League.

    Over the past five years, we have received a lot of complaints from people saying that they were lost, that Le Téléjournal was not on at the right time, that no one knew what was on television; we received complaints from all the people who are not hockey fans. We said to ourselves, and the CRTC spoke to us about it as well, that we should offer more homogeneous programming year-round. It's impossible to do that and broadcast hockey series in such large volume. For those reasons, we came to the conclusion that La Soirée du hockey was an institution, that the finals undermined all our other mandates and that, consequently, we might leave it to others. It was really public pressure that led us to consider making a change to our supply of hockey games.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Between public pressure regarding the finals and the number of broadcasting hours and the complete loss of La Soirée du hockey on Radio-Canada, which has been a tradition for 50 years, I don't know which of the two carries the most weight. I have no problem foreseeing a time when French Canadians who watch La Soirée du hockey can no longer watch hockey until the end of the games. What I understand from this is that it's really a Radio-Canada decision.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: When we began negotiating with the Club, we said that the series were a major problem for us. All the clients who leave Radio-Canada when the series begin are formal proof of that. We tried to see whether we could reduce the number of games in the series; we were ready to drop them. We told them that, if they wanted us to do the Canadiens, we were prepared to consider the matter and to take the finals. We were very flexible. But you have to maintain a network not just for hockey fans, but for the entire public during the months of March, April, May and June.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

    Senator Beaudoin.

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin: In my opinion, the negotiations have to resume, and the La Soirée du hockey argument stands. We obviously have to keep that. I know there used to be six teams. I remember; those were the good times in a way. Today, there are 26 or more.

    I believe we have to go back to the bargaining table. Hearing you and Messrs. Boivin and Litner today, I think there's a chance. If ever it was a question of money, it would be easy to resolve, in my view.

    I believe that state radio is fundamentally important. The state can intervene. It doesn't intervene as such in our decision, but, in financial terms, no one refuses money for good reasons. So I think, in that respect, the negotiations should resume. You seemed to say that the door was open even with regard to the other broadcasters. For that reason, I feel there is no reason not to return to the bargaining table.

    I always come back to my basic principle. Radio-Canada is a special case. It's not a broadcaster like the others. Indirectly, it is even in our acts and in our Constitution. It's a federal agency.

    Hockey is our national sport. So there are two fundamental reasons to solve this problem. If we have to go back to the bargaining table, let's do it. And if we realize at one point that it may cost a little more, the quality of the networks in a federal state such as ours definitely justifies an additional expenditure. There can be no doubt about that in my view. You said you were prepared to resume negotiations with the other broadcasters, didn't you?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: We're perfectly prepared to do so, but you will understand that we are in a situation of a petitioner.

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But we can help you.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: We don't own the rights, but we are prepared to sit down with all the rights holders and look at how we could be involved in this agreement so as to provide all Canadians with La Soirée du hockey. We are very open to that.

»  (1725)  

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Now, as regards La Soirée du hockey, that's something else. I don't think that's your main role. In my view, a national television network in a bilingual federal state must make every effort to solve problems at the bargaining table. The matter is not closed, in my opinion. I don't get the impression it's closed.

    You said a moment ago that you were prepared to resume negotiations. Well, you will have our blessing if you do.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Thank you.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would also like to ask a few questions.

    There was some question that my colleagues and I would discuss some kind of resolution, but, as we have lost the necessary quorum to adopt resolutions, we won't do that. However, we still have the necessary quorum to hear witnesses.

    I want to reconsider your remarks, Mr. Gourd. You said that sport and Canadiens hockey on the Radio-Canada French-language television network were very important. I want to put a question to anyone who wishes to answer it. Isn't that an additional reason to ensure we have the necessary bargaining tools? How is it that Radio-Canada and the CBC did not insist that the League and they negotiate an agreement together? Why was that not insisted upon? You didn't request it, according to what we heard earlier.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: We had negotiated separately for 15 years, and that was entirely satisfactory.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, but what we see...

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: That's how it happened. As Mr. Boivin said, things have always been done that way.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): When was the CBC contract signed? Do you know?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Before ours because their rights expired a little before ours.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): When Radio-Canada and the CBC compete for the Olympic Games, for example, do they negotiate together?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Yes, for the Olympic Games, but not for all the other sports.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In any case, I admit that I'm perhaps going...

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: With your permission, Mr. Bélanger...

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Of course, but you should be brief because my time is limited.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: You asked me the question, I believe.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: At one point, except at the very end of the negotiations, we felt that we couldn't reach an agreement because the three were negotiating together, at the same time, with the Canadiens. That's the way it's been done for 10 years, and at no time was the perception on the part of the National Hockey League or our own that that was the way to negotiate. It had always been done differently and we simply followed the established pattern.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Earlier today, we heard that the League and the Club de hockey Canadien seemed ready to reduce their requirements to two games a week during the play-offs. Was that offer also rejected by Radio-Canada?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Look, there were a lot of offers and counter-offers, but we never managed to agree on a fixed number of games. When they talked about a certain number of games, it was the games of any club. You must understand that it could have been the Pittsburgh Pirates against the Detroit Red Wings or the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim against another club. We were not at all guaranteeing that the Canadiens would be playing.

»  (1730)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The committee has a very clear responsibility regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act. It is up to us, not to the departments and agencies, to determine whether there is a problem and whether we want to go further. The committee will have to reflect on and consider everything it has heard. English Canadians in the country can watch their national sport on public television right across the country, free of charge, whereas French Canadians do not have that opportunity. Even if French Canadians are prepared to pay, it is at times impossible because there are places where service is not available. For some, that represents an injustice, particularly since La Soirée du hockey and Hockey Night in Canada have been broadcast for 50 years. We'll see.

    Allow me to share one of my impressions, Ms. Fortin. I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues, but I did not perceive a will to go further than the current situation. I will publicly express the wish that Radio-Canada/CBC make a counter-offer or a new offer and try again to reach an agreement with RDS or the League. I know that RDS currently owns the rights.

    Mr. Herron, who was here earlier and who was here when RDS appeared, was eloquent about this possibility of a coproduction which could save the furniture, because it appears we've gotten to that point. There are people on this committee, the Joint Chair and others, who believe there is a flagrant lack here. Is Radio-Canada/CBC prepared to try again to reach some kind of agreement acceptable to all parties so that French Canadians can have access to their public network and watch their national sport on Saturday nights?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I'm sorry you got that impression. I thought we had said the contrary here.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Before today, that was definitely the impression I had.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I'm sorry because we want to keep La Soirée du hockey. We agreed to exceed all our mandates and the amounts we had set aside to keep Canadiens hockey. We made a counter-offer to RDS. We told you the last time and we're telling you today that we are prepared to sit down again and join this agreement. That's really what we want to do. I hope we will correct your perception and that you will no longer have that impression. It's not the right impression. We are aware, as Mr. Herron said, of the importance of this property and La Soirée du hockey and the Canadiens for everyone.

    I've just arrived from Winnipeg. I went to Banff and I met people from across the country, which made me realize that, in all parts of the country, people want to see the Canadiens. One understands that very clearly.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The committee could probably meet around the end of July. We discussed that here, but it's a matter that has not yet been resolved.

    Can we hope that Radio-Canada will go a bit further and try to start something? Can we hope that?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Without any problem.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you had another question.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have two brief questions. Could the agreement you reached with the Canadian Grand Prix constitute a basis for discussion?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: The agreement we reached with the Canadian Grand Prix stipulates that we coproduce a program and rebroadcast the rest at another time on the schedule. The Grands Prix are broadcast live by RDS. It's just one Grand Prix, not 75 hours. We could examine, with RDS, the possibility of the kind of sharing we have for the Grand Prix.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, concerning the complaints you referred to, it seems to me that, after 50 years, people should know that Le Téléjournal is not broadcast at 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, but there may be some who are mixed up.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: It's not Saturdays that cause a problem. On Saturdays, we've always defended it and always wanted it. We even broadcast Le Téléjournal on RDI at 9:00 p.m. for people who don't want to watch hockey.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but it's during the play-offs that there are problems and a certain number of complaints.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: During the play-offs, we can't say that there will be a hockey game on such and such a date, until two days ahead of time.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. I have no other questions.

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: On Saturdays, we resolved the matter by broadcasting hockey at 7:00 p.m. because we wanted more young people to watch hockey. In 90% of cases, everything is over at 10:00 p.m., and people can always go watch it on RDI. So that's settled.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have anything to add, Ms. Fortin, gentlemen?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: Nothing would please me more than to come back here with a solution.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Even without a solution?

    Ms. Michèle Fortin: I would find that a bit more difficult.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So we'll see each other again perhaps in late July.

    Allow me to thank you once again, Ms. Fortin, Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Gourd and Mr. Nollet, for adapting to our schedule. I say and repeat that we are at the end of the session and that things are moving quickly.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to say that we had three meetings this week and that, even though the Senate is not sitting, we have had very good participation by senators. I wish to thank them for taking part and being here today, yesterday and Monday. Thank you, senators. Please thank Senator Léger as well.

    As this is probably our last meeting of this session, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Coulombe for the work she has done over the years as a researcher for the committee. Ms. Coulombe, our sincere thanks for your efforts. Should we meet in July, I hope you will be in the neighbourhood and that we can have a more appropriate party. I would ask you to welcome Marion Ménard, who will be trying to fill Ms. Coulombe's shoes.

    On that note, I thank you all. I don't believe we will be meeting this week. That's not my intention. I wish you all a good summer.

    The meeting is adjourned.