Date: 20110228
Docket: A-113-10
Citation: 2011 FCA 64
CORAM: NADON
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON
J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF
THE BROADCASTING ACT, S.C. 1991, C. 11;
AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S BROADCASTING REGULATORY POLICY CRTC
2010-167 AND BROADCASTING ORDER CRTC 2010-168;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
WAY OF A REFERENCE
TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL PURSUANT
TO SECTIONS 18.3(1) AND 28(2)
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT,
R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
In
Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168, the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission referred the following question to this Court
pursuant to subsections 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal Courts Act:
Is the Commission
empowered, pursuant to its mandate under the Broadcasting Act,
to establish a regime to enable private local television stations to choose
to negotiate with broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in
exchange for the distribution of the programming services broadcast by those
local television stations?
|
Le Conseil a-t-il la
compétence, en vertu du mandat que lui confère la Loi sur la
radiodiffusion, pour établir un régime permettant aux stations privées de
télévision locale de choisir de négocier avec les entreprises de distribution
de radiodiffusion une juste valeur en échange de la distribution des services
de programmation diffusée par ces stations de télévision locales?
|
Background
[2]
The regime
to which this question refers is sometimes called the “value for signal”
regime. In general terms, a value for signal regime would permit a private
local television station to negotiate with cable television service providers
(referred to as “broadcast distribution undertakings” or “BDUs”) for an
arrangement under which the BDUs provide consideration to the television
station for the right to retransmit its signals.
[3]
The
operators of private local television stations generally favour the proposed
value for signal regime. A number of them, namely CTVglobemedia Inc., V
Interactions Inc., Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd. and Canwest Television
Limited Partnership, submitted at the hearing of this reference that the
Commission has the statutory authority to implement such a regime.
[4]
BDUs
generally do not favour the proposed value for signal regime. A number of BDUs,
namely Bell Canada, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Cogeco Cable Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc. and Telus Communications
Co., submitted at the hearing of this reference that the Commission does not
have the statutory authority to implement a value for signal regime.
[5]
Under the
current regime, BDUs pick up the over-the-air signals of private local
television stations and retransmit them to their subscribers for a fee. The
Commission requires BDUs to provide the following benefits to private local
television stations for those signals:
(a)
Mandatory
carriage: A
BDU must distribute a local station’s signals to the BDU’s subscribers in that
station’s local market.
(b)
Preferential
channel placement:
A BDU must put the local station’s signal on a channel more likely to be
selected by subscribers.
(c)
Simultaneous
distribution:
If a BDU is retransmitting a program from a local station at the same time as
it is retransmitting the same program from an American station on a different
channel, the BDU must substitute the local station’s advertisements in place of
those appearing on the American station.
(d)
Local
programming improvement fund: Pursuant to a 2008 initiative of the Commission, a BDU
must contribute 1.5% of its gross revenues to a local programming improvement
fund accessible by local stations in non-metropolitan markets.
(e)
Payments
for carriage of distant signals: Pursuant to another 2008 initiative of the Commission,
effective August 31, 2011, a BDU wishing to distribute a local television
station’s signal outside of that station’s local market must obtain, through a
free market negotiation that may involve the payment of compensation, the
consent of the station. For example, a BDU would require the consent of a
Toronto local station to transmit that station’s signal to BDU subscribers in Halifax.
[6]
The
Commission has concluded that the existing regulatory model does not adequately
deal with recent changes to the broadcasting business environment. Among the
changes noted by the Commission are the development of direct-to-home satellite
television services, the development of speciality television channels that are
permitted to receive fees directly from BDUs that carry them, and the
widespread adoption of alternative media platforms. These changes have caused
advertising revenues for private local television stations to fall while the
revenues of BDUs have increased, resulting in a significant shift in their
relative market positions and a financial crisis for the private local
television stations. The Commission has concluded that this financial crisis
may be averted by adopting a value for signal regime that invokes market
forces.
[7]
The
proposed value for signal regime is fully described in Broadcasting Regulatory
Policy CRTC 2010-167 entitled “A group-based approach to the licensing of
private television services”, issued on March 22, 2010 (which I refer to
for convenience as the “2010 Policy” or la « Politique 2010 »).
[8]
The
relevant portions of the 2010 Policy are quoted below, but at this point it is
useful to summarize the main features of the proposed value for signal regime:
·
A private
local television station would have the right to choose to negotiate with BDUs
for compensation for the right to retransmit the station’s signals. If no
agreement is reached, the station could prevent the BDUs from retransmitting
its signals.
·
A private
local television station that chooses to participate in the value for signal
regime would forego all existing regulatory protections, including mandatory
distribution, priority channel placement and simultaneous substitution.
·
The regulatory
protections (as in place from time to time) would continue to benefit any
private local television station that chooses not to participate in the value
for signal regime.
·
The
Commission would be involved in the negotiation of agreements under the value
for signal regime only if the parties do not negotiate in good faith or if the
parties ask the Commission to arbitrate.
[9]
Simply
stated, the BDUs’ legal objection to the proposed value for signal regime is
based on the following reasoning. The Copyright Act is the only statute
that can govern the right of a broadcaster to control the retransmission of its
signals. The Copyright Act precludes a private local television station
from demanding that a BDU pay a royalty for the right to retransmit the station’s
signals. Therefore, BDUs have a statutory user right to retransmit the signals
of a private local television station without paying a royalty. It necessarily
follows that the statutory authority of the Commission under the Broadcasting
Act should not be interpreted in a manner that would permit a private local
television station to block retransmission by a BDU that refuses to pay
compensation for a retransmission right.
[10]
The
private local television stations argue that this legal argument has no merit
and that the Copyright Act does not preclude the Commission from
implementing a value for signal regime.
Procedural history
[11]
The legal
debate now before this Court arose in the context of proceedings before the
Commission that resulted in its adoption of the 2010 Policy. In the 2010
Policy, the Commission makes a number of policy decisions relating to the
licensing of private local television services.
[12]
In the
2010 Policy, the Commission determined among other things that a value for
signal regime is necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the policy objectives
set out in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act. The 2010 Policy also
states the main elements of the value for signal regime that the Commission
proposes to implement if it is found to have the statutory authority to do so.
[13]
Paragraphs
151 to 168 of the 2010 Policy contain the analysis and conclusions of the
Commission that are relevant to the value for signal issue. Those paragraphs
read as follows (footnotes omitted):
151. In Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100, the
Commission considered whether or not to grant a fee for carriage to
conventional television broadcasters, and elected not to do so. However, the
question considered in the current proceeding is a substantially different
one. In exploring the issue of a negotiated fair value for signals, the
Commission is considering whether market forces can be invoked to resolve
what has now become a long standing area of tension between conventional
television broadcasters and BDUs.
|
151. Dans l'avis public de
radiodiffusion 2008-100, le Conseil s'est penché sur le bien-fondé d'accorder
un tarif de distribution aux télédiffuseurs traditionnels et a décidé de ne
pas le faire. Cependant, la question à considérer dans le cadre de la
présente instance est considérablement différente. Le Conseil, examinant la
question de la juste valeur négociée, s'interroge sur la possibilité de
recourir aux forces du marché pour résoudre ce qui est devenu une source
permanente de friction entre les télédiffuseurs traditionnels et les EDR.
|
152. In approaching the
issue, the Commission has been guided by specific provisions of the Act.
Section 3(1)(e) states that "each element of the Canadian
broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation
and presentation of Canadian programming," while section 3(1)(f)
states that "each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and
in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian ... resources ...."
|
152. Le Conseil s'est
inspiré, dans son approche de la question, de certaines dispositions précises
de la Loi. L'article 3(1)e) stipule que « tous les éléments du
système doivent contribuer, de la manière qui convient, à la création et la
présentation d'une programmation canadienne »; l'article 3(1)f),
que « toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion sont tenues de faire
appel au maximum, et dans tous les cas au moins de manière prédominante, aux
ressources […] canadiennes [...] ».
|
153. With respect to the public broadcaster, the
Commission notes that section 3(1)(m)(vii) of the Act states that
the programming provided by the CBC should "be made available throughout
Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become
available for the purpose." As explained further below, the regime
foreseen by the Commission would allow broadcasters to require program
deletion when negotiating for a fair value for the distribution of their
programming services. In light of the objective above, the Commission
considers that it would be inconsistent to permit the CBC to require deletion
of its programming from a BDU and hence prevent the public from receiving its
programming. Moreover, during its appearance at the hearing, the CBC
indicated that it fully understands the importance of its mandate and clearly
agrees with the Commission's position in that regard, as it spontaneously
stated that it would not "play with threatening to pull our signal or
having our signal not negotiated or not carried by the BDU."
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the market-based regime set
out below will apply only to private local television stations. The
distinctive situation and needs of the CBC will be addressed in the context
of the public broadcaster's next licence renewal.
|
153. En ce qui a trait au télédiffuseur
public, le Conseil note que l'article 3(1)m)(vii) de la Loi prévoit
que la programmation de la SRC devrait « être offerte partout au
Canada de la manière la plus adéquate et efficace, au fur et à mesure de la
disponibilité des moyens. » Tel qu'expliqué ci-dessous, le régime
envisagé par le Conseil permettrait aux télédiffuseurs d'exiger la
suppression d'émissions lors de leurs négociations pour la valeur juste de la
distribution de leurs services de programmation. Le Conseil estime que de
permettre à la SRC d'exiger d'une EDR la suppression de sa programmation, et
d'ainsi empêcher le public de recevoir sa programmation, n'irait pas dans le
sens de l'objectif ci-dessus. De plus, lors de sa comparution à l'audience,
la SRC a indiqué qu'elle comprend tout à fait l'importance de son mandat et
qu'elle est entièrement d'accord avec l'opinion du Conseil a cet égard, en
affirmant spontanément qu'elle [traduction] « ne menacerait pas de
retirer son signal ou de laisser son signal non négocié ou non distribué par
l'EDR ». Par conséquent, le Conseil conclut que le régime par marchés
énoncé ci-dessous ne s'appliquera qu'aux stations privées de télévision
locale. La question de la situation et des besoins uniques de la SRC sera
traitée dans le cadre du prochain renouvellement de la licence du
télédiffuseur public.
|
154. The Commission
reiterated in Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100 that where regulation is
necessary it should be as targeted as possible and impose the least
burdensome constraints; that industry solutions should be preferred to
regulatory intervention; and that the broadcasting system, as a whole, should
be calibrated such that no single player or group of players can exercise
undue influence.
|
154. Dans l'avis public de
radiodiffusion 2008-100, le Conseil a rappelé que la réglementation,
lorsqu'elle était nécessaire, devrait être aussi ciblée que possible et
imposer les restrictions les moins contraignantes, qu'il faudrait préférer à
une intervention réglementaire les solutions de l'industrie, et enfin calibrer
l'ensemble du système de radiodiffusion de telle sorte qu'aucun joueur ou
groupe de joueurs ne puisse exercer une influence indue.
|
155. The portion of this
regulatory policy that has dealt with group-based licensing has focused on
the effective continuation of vibrant and effective Canadian programming in
the context of the larger groups that now make up the Canadian broadcasting
landscape. It now remains to determine whether each element of the
broadcasting system is contributing in an appropriate way, and whether, in
light of the enormous and accelerating changes in the system, it is
appropriate to view the relationship between BDUs and broadcasters in a way
that differs from that which has become established.
|
155. La partie de la
politique réglementaire qui traite de l'attribution de licences par groupe
s'est concentrée sur le maintien efficace d'une programmation canadienne
vibrante et efficace dans le contexte des grands groupes qui forment
aujourd'hui le paysage de la radiodiffusion canadienne. Reste à voir si tous
les éléments du système de radiodiffusion contribuent à celui-ci de façon
appropriée et si, compte tenu des changements gigantesques et accélérés du
système, il vaut la peine de voir la relation entre les EDR et les
télédiffuseurs avec un recul qui offrirait une autre vision de ce qui a été
établi.
|
156. In 1971 the Commission published its Policy Statement
on Cable Television, entitled, appropriately, "Canadian
broadcasting – ‘A single system'." A key policy principle set out
in that report was that "television stations are the suppliers, and
cable television systems are the users. Thus the basic principle involved is:
one should pay for what he uses to operate his business." While this
policy was not implemented for conventional television in 1971 or in the
years following, the principle remains valid today.
|
156. En 1971, le Conseil a publié un
énoncé de politique sur la télévision par câble intitulé à juste titre
« La radiodiffusion canadienne, "un système unique" ». Un
des principes politiques les plus importants parmi ceux énoncés dans ce
rapport indique que « les stations de télévision sont les fournisseurs
et les systèmes de télévision par câble sont les usagers. Le principe
fondamental en jeu ici est le suivant : chacun doit payer pour ce qu'il
utilise dans l'exploitation de son entreprise ». Bien que cette
politique n'ait pas été mise en œuvre à l'égard de la télévision
traditionnelle en 1971 ou au cours des années suivantes, ce principe demeure
valide aujourd'hui.
|
157. The other policies
adopted in the 1971 report and implemented in the context of the technology
and industrial structure that then existed have formed the basis of the
relationship between BDUs and broadcasters from that time forward. Forty
years is a very long time in the broadcasting world. The concepts of
mandatory carriage, preferential channel placement, community access, and
simultaneous substitution were articulated in that statement and have been
developed and modified thereafter.
|
157. Les politiques adoptées
dans le rapport de 1971 et mises en oeuvre dans le contexte de la structure
technologique et industrielle de l'époque ont inspiré depuis et nourri la
relation entre les EDR et les télédiffuseurs. Quarante ans sont une éternité
dans le monde de la radiodiffusion. Les concepts de distribution obligatoire,
d'attribution de canaux préférentielle, d'accès communautaire et de
substitution de signaux identiques ont tout d'abord été formulés dans cet
énoncé, puis retravaillés et modifiés par la suite.
|
158. But while some features
have remained, enormous changes have also occurred, and continue to occur.
Direct-to-home (DTH) satellite services were licensed in 1995 and 1996, with
operations beginning in 1997. Specialty services were first licensed in 1984
and digital Category 1 specialty services in 2000. To protect and
promote the growth of these nascent specialty services, they were licensed
with "genre protection," which ensured that they had their own
space, essentially free of direct competition, in which to grow. They were
also given guaranteed carriage by BDUs. Very significantly, they were granted
the right to receive wholesale fees from the BDUs that carried them. The
system thus moved into the multi-channel universe with different rules
applying to different programming services depending, to a considerable
degree, on when they had begun broadcasting. Category 2 specialty
services, it is to be noted, were provided limited genre protection and were
not given guaranteed carriage by BDUs, but were given the right to receive
wholesale fees.
|
158. Bien que certains
éléments de cet énoncé demeurent valides, plusieurs changements radicaux sont
survenus depuis et continuent à survenir. Les services par satellite de
radiodiffusion directe (SRD) autorisés en 1995 et en 1996 ont commencé leurs
activités en 1997. Les premiers services spécialisés ont été autorisés en
1984 et les services spécialisés numériques de catégorie 1, en 2000. Pour
protéger et promouvoir la croissance de ces services spécialisés
embryonnaires, ceux-ci ont eu droit à une « protection de genre »
qui leur assurait leur propre espace de développement, essentiellement libre
de toute concurrence directe, et à une distribution garantie par les EDR.
Fait très révélateur, ils ont obtenu le droit de recevoir des tarifs de gros
des EDR qui les distribuaient. Ainsi le système a-t-il évolué vers un univers
multicanal où différentes règles s'appliquaient à différents services de
programmation surtout en fonction de la date de leur mise en exploitation. Il
convient de noter que les services spécialisés de catégorie 2 ont eu droit à
une protection de genre limitée, mais pas à une distribution garantie par les
EDR, et qu'ils ont eu le droit de recevoir des tarifs de gros.
|
159. Many specialty services
have enjoyed large popularity with Canadian audiences. As noted above,
increasing fragmentation has had the obvious negative effect of reducing the
profitability of conventional television broadcasters. Further, very large
fragmentation continues as alternative new media platforms become widely
adopted. Consequently, there has been a reduction in the ability of
conventional television broadcasters to meet their obligations effectively,
under the Act, to contribute to the creation and presentation of
Canadian programming of a high standard.
|
159. Plusieurs services
spécialisés ont été très appréciés des auditoires canadiens. Tel que noté
plus haut, l'accroissement de la fragmentation a malheureusement entraîné une
baisse évidente du rendement des télédiffuseurs traditionnels. De plus, cette
très grande fragmentation se poursuit alors que d'autres nouvelles
plateformes médiatiques font fureur. Les télédiffuseurs en direct ont donc
moins réussi à respecter efficacement les obligations qui leur avaient été
fixées en vertu de la Loi de « contribuer à la création et à la
présentation d'une programmation canadienne » de qualité.
|
160. While the recent
economic climate, in which advertising revenues have suffered, has not been
favourable for private conventional television broadcasters, BDU revenues
have, since 1971, continued to grow at a far greater rate than those of
television stations. In that year, private television revenues were
$115.8 million, which compared very favourably with cable revenues of
$66.6 million. In 2009, the positions had become reversed. Cable BDU
basic and non-basic revenues were $5.1 billion, and DTH and multipoint
distribution system basic and non-basic revenues were a further
$2.2 billion, for a total of $7.3 billion. Private television
revenues trailed far behind at $2.2 billion. Revenue figures do not tell
the complete story, but the dramatic change in proportions indicates a
significant shift in market positions.
|
160. Alors que la récente
situation économique et les baisses des recettes publicitaires ont affaibli
les télédiffuseurs traditionnels privés, les revenus des EDR ont continué de
croître beaucoup plus rapidement que ceux des stations de télévision depuis
1971. Au cours de cette année, les revenus de la télévision privée ont
totalisé 115,8 millions de dollars, une somme qui se compare très
avantageusement avec les revenus du câble qui se sont établis à
66,6 millions de dollars. En 2009, ces chiffres étaient inversés :
les revenus de base et supplémentaires des EDR par câble ont totalisé 5,1 milliards
de dollars et ceux des services par SRD et des systèmes de distribution
multipoint ont augmenté de 2,2 milliards de dollars supplémentaires,
atteignant un total de 7,3 milliards de dollars. Les revenus de la
télévision privée faisaient piètre figure avec 2,2 milliards de dollars. Ces
chiffres ne présentent pas l'historique complet, mais la remarquable
évolution des proportions trahit un changement marqué des forces du marché.
|
161. A large piece of the
puzzle is that private conventional television broadcasters, unlike
specialties, are not paid for their signals by the BDUs that carry those
signals. At the hearing, a frequently repeated position by BDUs was that,
since they could now receive and disseminate those services for free, they
had no intention of negotiating a fair value or paying for those services,
notwithstanding that they constitute part of the single Canadian broadcasting
system, as provided in section 3(2) of the Act. And, as noted earlier,
private conventional television broadcasters pay large amounts, not just for
Canadian programs, but for foreign programs as well. The Commission has
repeatedly been told that broadcasting such foreign programs is essential to
the financial viability of conventional television broadcasters, and has
accepted that position.
|
161. L'une des pièces
importantes de ce casse-tête est que les EDR ne paient pas les signaux des
télédiffuseurs traditionnels privés qu'elles distribuent alors qu'elles
paient ceux des services spécialisés. À l'audience, les EDR ont souvent répété
que même si elles font partie du système canadien unique de radiodiffusion
tel que précisé à l'article 3(2) de la Loi, elles n'avaient pas l'intention
de payer ces services ou de négocier leur juste valeur puisqu'elles pouvaient
maintenant les recevoir et les diffuser gratuitement. Or, comme noté plus
haut, les télédiffuseurs traditionnels privés consacrent de fortes sommes à
l'acquisition d'émissions tant canadiennes qu'étrangères. Le Conseil a
toujours entendu dire que la diffusion d'émissions étrangères était vitale
pour les télédiffuseurs traditionnels, et il a fait sienne cette position.
|
162. When broadcasters
acquire program rights, those rights are, almost invariably, territorial.
That is, a broadcaster pays for the exclusive right to broadcast a specific
program in a defined territory for a defined period of time. Of course, the
terms of such agreements are the focus of strong commercial attention, and
there is no uniformity of result. But whatever the terms negotiated by the
broadcaster, BDUs are currently permitted to carry the broadcasters'
programming services without paying for the right to distribute them. BDUs,
however, are obligated to provide broadcasters with benefits such as priority
carriage and simultaneous substitution. Nevertheless, the system is not
working well in 2010 in ensuring that conventional television broadcasters
have the means to continue to meet their obligations under the Act.
|
162. Les droits de diffusion
qu'acquièrent les télédiffuseurs sont presque toujours des droits territoriaux.
Autrement dit, le télédiffuseur paie les droits exclusifs de diffuser une
émission donnée, dans un territoire donné, pour une période de temps donnée.
Certes, les modalités de ces ententes font l'objet d'une grande attention
commerciale, et les résultats ne sont pas uniformes. Toutefois, quelles que
soient les conditions négociées, les EDR ont actuellement le droit de
distribuer les services de programmation des télédiffuseurs sans payer de
droits de diffusion. Les EDR, cependant, sont obligées de fournir aux
télédiffuseurs des avantages comme la distribution prioritaire et la
substitution simultanée. Néanmoins, en 2010, ce système ne contribue guère à
s'assurer que les télédiffuseurs traditionnels aient les moyens de continuer
à respecter leurs obligations en vertu de la Loi.
|
163. As noted above, as set out in
Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100, the Commission was not prepared to
impose a fee for carriage. However, the Commission finds that, in order to
fulfil the policy objectives set out in section 3(1) of the Act, the
system needs revision so as to permit privately-owned television broadcasters
to negotiate with BDUs to establish the fair value of the product provided by
those broadcasters to BDUs. The system should be such that privately-owned
broadcasters that own programs or have paid for the exclusive right to
disseminate programs can negotiate for payment with BDUs, which, in turn,
further disseminate those programs. By establishing a regime in which market
forces can function effectively, the broadcasting system will benefit through
the recognition of the fair value of programming services. This approach is
consistent with the market-based negotiations that increasingly prevail on
all other platforms, including discretionary services, VOD, and online and
mobile platforms.
|
163. Tel que note plus haut
et énoncé dans l'avis public de radiodiffusion 2008-100, le Conseil n'était
pas prêt à imposer un tarif de distribution. Le Conseil conclut néanmoins
qu'afin d'atteindre les objectifs de politique énoncés à l'article 3(1) de la
Loi, il faut corriger ce système pour permettre aux télédiffuseurs privés de
négocier avec les EDR une juste valeur pour le produit qu'ils offrent aux
EDR. Il faudrait un système où les télédiffuseurs privés qui détiennent des
émissions ou ont payé des droits exclusifs de diffusion doivent pouvoir
négocier des ententes de paiement avec les EDR qui pourront, à leur tour,
distribuer ces émissions. Le système de radiodiffusion a tout à gagner d'un
système qui permettrait aux forces du marché de fonctionner efficacement en
reconnaissant la juste valeur des services de programmation. Cette approche
est compatible avec les ententes commerciales qui prévalent de plus en plus
sur toutes les autres plateformes, y compris les services facultatifs, les
services de VSD et les plateformes en ligne et mobiles.
|
164. The regime that the
Commission would propose to implement is set out below.
|
164. Le système que le Conseil propose
de mettre en œuvre est décrit ci-dessous.
|
1. Licensees of private local television stations would
choose whether i) they will negotiate with BDUs for the value of the
distribution of their programming services, failing which they will be able
to require deletion of the programming they own, or for which they have the
exhibition rights, from all signals distributed in their market, or
ii) they will continue to benefit from existing regulatory protections.
|
1. Les titulaires des stations privées de télévision
locale pourront choisir soit i) de négocier avec les EDR la valeur de la
distribution de leurs services de programmation, faute de quoi elles pourront
exiger de retirer les émissions qu'elles détiennent, ou dont elles ont acquis
les droits de diffusion, de tous les signaux distribués dans leur marché,
soit ii) de continuer à bénéficier des protections réglementaires actuelles.
|
2. Licensees of private local television stations would
make their choice by a date set by the Commission, and this choice would be
valid for a fixed term of three years.
|
2. Les titulaires des stations privées de télévision
locale prendront leur décision à une date choisie par le Conseil, et leur
choix sera valide pour une période de trois ans.
|
3. If a licensee of a private local television station
chose option i):
a) It would forego all existing regulatory protections
related to the distribution of local television signals by BDUs, whether
imposed by regulation or by condition of licence, including mandatory
distribution and priority channel placement on analog basic, and simultaneous
substitution.
b) BDUs would be required, at the request of private local
television stations, to delete any program owned by the licensee of that
local television station or for which it has acquired exclusive contractual
exhibition rights.
c) Deletions would be exercised against the signal of any
programming undertaking distributed by the BDU, whether foreign or domestic,
affiliated or not, including that of the private local television station
making the request.
d) It could negotiate with a BDU for a
fair value in exchange for the distribution of its programming service in
lieu of the deletion rights set out in b) and c). This compensation could be
monetary, non-monetary (e.g., simultaneous or non-simultaneous
substitution, carriage arrangements, marketing and promotion), or both, and
could be negotiated on an individual station basis or as part of a broader
negotiation with entire ownership groups.
e) Parties to the negotiation would be given a fixed
period after the date on which the licensee of a private local television
station chose option i) to conclude negotiations, during which the
existing regulatory protections would continue to apply. This period could be
shortened or extended by agreement between the parties.
f) The Commission would minimize its
involvement in the terms and conditions of the resulting agreements,
intervening only in cases where there is evidence parties are not negotiating
in good faith, and would consider acting as arbitrator only where both
parties make a request.
|
3. Si la titulaire d'une station privée de télévision
locale opte pour l'option i) :
a) Elle renonce à toutes les protections réglementaires
actuelles à l'égard de la distribution des signaux de télévision locale par
les EDR, qu'elles soient imposées par voie réglementaire ou par conditions de
licence, y compris à la distribution obligatoire et l'alignement des canaux
prioritaires au service de base analogique, ainsi quela substitution
simultanée.
b) Les EDR doivent, à la demande des stations privées de
télévision locale, retirer toute émission détenue par la titulaire d'une
station de télévision locale ou pour laquelle elle aurait acquis les droits
contractuels exclusifs de diffusion.
c) Les retraits visent le signal de toute entreprise de
programmation, canadienne ou étrangère, affiliée ou non, distribué par l'EDR,
y compris celui de la station privée de la télévision locale à l'origine de
la demande.
d) La titulaire peut négocier avec une EDR la juste valeur
d'échange pour la distribution de son service de programmation au lieu des
droits de retrait énoncés en b) et c). Cette compensation peut être
financière, ou non (p. ex., la substitution simultanée ou non, les ententes
de distribution, le marketing et la promotion), ou les deux, et peut être
négociée soit sur une base individuelle, par station, soit lors de
négociations élargies avec tous les groupes de propriété.
e) Lors de négociations, les parties disposent d'une
période de temps fixe après la date à laquelle une station privée de
télévision locale a choisi l'option i) pour conclure une entente. Au cours de
cette période, les protections existantes de réglementation continuent à
s'appliquer. Cette période peut être abrégée ou prolongée après entente entre
les parties.
f) Le Conseil réduit sa participation dans l'élaboration
des modalités et des conditions des ententes ainsi négociées. Il n'intervient
que s'il existe une preuve de mauvaise foi dans les négociations, et peut
alors jouer un rôle d'arbitrage, mais uniquement à la demande des deux
parties.
|
4. If the licensee of a private local television station
chose option ii), all regulatory protections for private local
television stations in force at the time the choice is made, and as amended
during the term in which that choice is valid, would remain in force. These
would include, where provided by regulation or by condition of licence:
mandatory carriage, priority channel placement on analog basic, program
deletion, simultaneous or non-simultaneous substitution, and any payments to
individual stations or funds approved by the Commission in lieu of these
obligations, including payments for carriage of distant signals as provided
for in Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-100.
|
4. Si la titulaire d'une station privée de télévision
locale opte pour l'option ii), toutes les protections réglementaires des
stations privées de télévision locale en vigueur au moment où elle fait ce
choix, et modifiées pendant la durée de leur décision, demeurent en vigueur.
Lorsqu'elles sont assurées par voie réglementaire ou par condition de
licence, ces protections comprennent notamment la distribution obligatoire,
l'alignement des canaux prioritaires au service de base analogique, le
retrait d'émissions, la substitution simultanée ou non et toute somme versée
à des stations individuelles ou à des fonds approuvés par le Conseil en
remplacement de ces obligations, y compris des paiements pour la distribution
de signaux éloignés tel que prévu dans l'avis public de radiodiffusion
2008-100.
|
165. There is, however, a
significant potential impediment to the implementation by the Commission of
this market-based resolution. In response to Broadcasting Notice of
Consultation 2009-411, the Commission was presented with two legal opinions,
both worthy of consideration. One submitted that the Commission had the
requisite authority to introduce a regime of broadcast regulation that would
have the effect of requiring appropriate negotiation, such as those described
above, between broadcasters and BDUs; the other took the position that BDUs
have a continuing right to disseminate the broadcaster's over-the-air signal
without negotiation or remuneration by virtue of the provisions of the Copyright Act.
|
165. Un obstacle de taille
risque cependant d'entraver la mise en œuvre par le Conseil de cette décision
basée sur les forces du marché. En réponse à l'avis de consultation de
radiodiffusion 2009-411, le Conseil a reçu deux avis juridiques qui valaient
tous deux la peine d'être étudiés. L'un soutenait que le Conseil avait la
compétence nécessaire pour mettre en oeuvre un système de réglementation de
radiodiffusion ayant pour effet d'obliger les télédiffuseurs et les
EDR à négocier des ententes appropriées, telles que celles décrites
précédemment; l'autre, que les EDR avaient des droits continus de diffusion
des signaux des télédiffuseurs en direct sans négociation ou contrepartie
financière, en vertu des dispositions de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.
|
166. While the Commission
has found that it is necessary to provide the licensees of private local
television stations with the right to negotiate a fair value for the
distribution of their programming services by BDUs, it recognizes that there
is a valid dispute between parties over the Commission's legal authority to
impose such a regime. Therefore, given the importance of the question to the
ability of the Commission to ensure that the objectives of the Act are
met, and given the continuing need for certainty in dealing with the
approaching group licensing renewals, the Commission has decided to refer the
question of its jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Appeal (the Court).
The Commission will request disposition of the issue on an expedited basis.
|
166. Bien que le Conseil ait
conclu qu'il y avait lieu d'accorder aux titulaires de stations privées de
télévision traditionnelle locale le droit de négocier une juste valeur pour
la distribution de leurs services par les EDR, il reconnaît qu'il existe un
différend valide entre les parties quant à sa compétence légale d'imposer un
tel système. Par conséquent, compte tenu de l'importance de la question de la
compétence du Conseil à s'assurer que les objectifs de la Loi sont atteints,
et compte tenu du besoin constant de certitude à l'avènement du traitement
des renouvellements de licences selon une approche par groupe, le Conseil a
décidé de référer de la question de sa compétence légale à la Cour d'appel
fédérale (la Cour). Le Conseil demandera de traiter de la question dans des
délais aussi brefs que possible.
|
167. The question to be put
to the Court, in general terms, will be the following:
|
167. En termes généraux, la
question soumise à la Cour sera la suivante :
|
Is the Commission empowered, pursuant
to its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, to establish a regime to
enable private local television stations to choose to negotiate with
broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in exchange for the
distribution of the programming services broadcast by those local television
stations?
|
Le Conseil a-t-il la compétence, en
vertu de son mandat énoncé dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, de
mettre en œuvre un système permettant aux stations privées de télévision
locale d'opter pour la négociation avec les entreprises de distribution de
radiodiffusion d'une juste valeur en retour de la distribution des services
de programmation diffusés par ces stations de television locale?
|
168. In Broadcasting Order 2010-168,
also issued today, the Commission refers this question to the Court for
expedited hearing and determination.
|
168. Dans l'ordonnance de
radiodiffusion 2010-168, également publiée aujourd'hui, le Conseil renvoie
cette question à la Cour pour audition et jugement dans des délais aussi
brefs que possible.
|
[14]
Broadcasting
Order 2010-168, referred to in paragraph 168 of the 2010 Policy, provides the
following additional information:
Introduction
1. Section 3(2) of the Broadcasting Act (the Act)
states that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system that
is to be regulated by a single independent public authority, the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Section 5(1) of the
Act requires the Commission to "regulate and supervise all aspects of
the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting
policy set out in subsection 3(1) of the Act."
|
Introduction
1. En vertu de l'article 3(2) de la Loi
sur la radiodiffusion (la Loi), le système canadien de radiodiffusion
constitue un système unique dont la réglementation doit être confiée à un
seul organisme public autonome, le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes. L'article 5(1) de la Loi enjoint au Conseil
de « réglemente[r] et surveille[r] tous les aspects du système canadien
de radiodiffusion en vue de mettre en œuvre la politique canadienne de
radiodiffusion. »
|
2. The Commission is given broad
powers under the Act to fulfill its mandate, including the power to issue
broadcasting licences on such conditions as it deems appropriate for the
implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in section 3(1) of the
Act and to require broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) to carry, on
such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, programming services
specified by the Commission. The Commission is also given the power by
section 10 of the Act to make regulations respecting a number of subjects
including: the carriage of any foreign or other programming services by
distribution undertakings; the resolution, by way of mediation or otherwise,
of any disputes arising between programming undertakings and distribution
undertakings concerning the carriage of programming originated by the
programming undertaking; and such other matters as it
deems necessary for the
furtherance of its objects.
|
2. En vertu de la Loi, le
Conseil est investi de pouvoirs étendus pour remplir son mandat, y compris le
pouvoir d'attribuer des licences de radiodiffusion sous des conditions qui
semblent appropriées en vue de mettre en œuvre la politique canadienne de
radiodiffusion énoncée à l'article 3(1) de la Loi et d'obliger les
entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion (EDR) à offrir, selon des
modalités et conditions qu'il juge appropriées, les services de programmation
précisés par le Conseil. L'article 10 de la Loi permet également au Conseil
d'adopter des règlements sur divers sujets, dont la fourniture par les
entreprises de distribution des signaux étrangers et autres services de
programmation, la résolution par la médiation ou autrement de différends
concernant la fourniture de programmation et survenant entre les entreprises
de programmation qui la transmettent et les
entreprises de distribution,
ainsi que toute autre question qu'il estime nécessaire à l'exécution de sa
mission.
|
3. In fulfilling this mandate, the
Commission has created a comprehensive regulatory regime to ensure that each
part of the broadcasting industry contributes to the fulfillment of the
policy objectives in the Act. For example, the Commission has:
|
3. Pour remplir ce mandat, le Conseil a
créé un régime de réglementation global afin de s'assurer que chaque secteur
de l'industrie de la radiodiffusion contribue à l'atteinte des objectifs de
politique énoncés dans la Loi. Par exemple, le Conseil a :
|
·
imposed
a series of obligations on programming undertakings, including quotas for the
exhibition of, or expenditure on, Canadian programming;
|
·
imposé
une série d'obligations aux entreprises de programmation, dont des quotas
pour la diffusion, ou les dépenses, à l'égard de la programmation canadienne;
|
·
constructed
rules regarding what programming services BDUs are required or permitted to
distribute, including a requirement that certain BDUs distribute local
television stations and other services as part of the basic package provided
to all customers (i.e., mandatory carriage);
|
·
élaboré
des règles pour définir quels services de programmation les EDR ont
l'obligation ou l'autorisation de distribuer, y compris l'obligation pour
certaines EDR de distribuer des stations de télévision locales et d'autres
services dans le service de base qu'elles offrent à tous les consommateurs
(soit la distribution obligatoire);
|
·
mandated
wholesale fees for the distribution of particular specialty services, with a
rate that is, in some cases, set by the Commission or, in other cases,
negotiated between the parties; and
|
·
imposé
un tarif de gros pour la distribution de certains services spécialisés, dont
le taux est fixé par le Conseil, dans certains cas, ou négocié entre les
parties, dans d'autres cas;
|
·
created
a system to protect the exclusive broadcast rights of local television
stations in their markets by requiring a BDU to delete a programming service
it distributes that is comparable to that of the local television station
(i.e., program deletion) and, in some circumstances, substitute the
comparable programming of the local television station being broadcast simultaneously
over the deleted signal (i.e., simultaneous substitution).
|
·
créé un
système pour protéger les droits exclusifs de radiodiffusion des stations de
télévision locales dans leurs marchés en exigeant d’une EDR la suppression de
tout service de programmation qu’elle distribue qui est comparablee à celui
d’une station locale de télévision (soit la suppression d’émissions) et, dans
certains cas, la substitution de la programmation comparable de la télévision
locale diffusée simultanément sur le signal supprimé (soit la substitution
simultanée).
|
4. The Commission applies
these existing regulatory obligations to a different extent in different
circumstances in a manner that is fluid and continues to adapt to changing
circumstances. For example, the Commission has permitted parties, by
conditions of licence, to negotiate alternative solutions to the program
deletion obligations, which have been incorporated into the regulatory
regime.
|
4. Le Conseil applique ces
obligations réglementaires actuelles avec souplesse, à des degrés divers
selon les cas, en s'ajustant aux circonstances particulières. Par exemple, le
Conseil a permis aux parties, par condition de licence, de négocier d'autres
solutions relatives aux obligations de suppression d'émissions qui ont été
intégrées au régime de réglementation.
|
The Proceeding
|
L'instance
|
5. In Policy proceeding
on a group-based approach to the licensing of television services and on
certain issues relating to conventional television, Broadcasting Notice
of Consultation CRTC 2009-411, 6 July 2009 (as revised by Broadcasting
Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-411-3, 11 August 2009), the Commission
initiated a proceeding to examine a group-based approach to the licensing of
television services, including an examination of whether or not a negotiated
solution for the compensation for the fair value of local conventional
television signals is appropriate. In the course of the proceeding, the
Commission received 289 comments addressing these issues. The Commission
also received approximately 12,000 comments as part of a campaign
organized by Rogers Communications Inc.
|
5. Dans Instance de
politique portant sur une approche par groupe de propriété à l'égard de
l'attribution de licences à des services de télévision et sur certaines
questions relatives à la télévision traditionnelle, avis de consultation
de radiodiffusion CRTC 2009-411, 6 juillet 2009 (avis de consultation de
radiodiffusion 2009-411), tel que révisé par l'avis de consultation de
radiodiffusion 2009-411-3, 11 août 2009, le Conseil a entrepris une instance
en vue d'étudier une approche par groupe à l'égard de l'attribution de
licences à des services de télévision, y compris un examen sur la pertinence
de mettre en œuvre ou non une solution négociée pour la compensation de la
juste valeur des signaux locaux de télévision traditionnelle privée. Dans le
cadre de ce processus, le Conseil a reçu 289 observations qui traitaient
de ces questions. Le Conseil a également reçu environ
12 000 observations dans le cadre
de la campagne organisée
par Rogers Communications Inc.
|
6. Among the issues raised
during the proceeding was whether the Commission has the jurisdiction under
the Act to implement a negotiated solution for compensation for the fair
value of private local conventional television signals. BDUs presented a
legal opinion that such a regime would establish a new copyright in the
signals of private local television stations and is therefore ultra vires
the powers of the Commission. Local television stations presented legal
opinions that such a regime falls within the Commission's jurisdiction under
the Act to supervise and regulate the broadcasting system.
|
6. Parmi les questions
soulevées lors de l'instance, l'une consiste à savoir si le Conseil a la
compétence en vertu de la Loi de mettre en oeuvre une solution négociée pour
la compensation de la juste valeur des signaux locaux de télévision
traditionnelle privée. Les EDR ont présenté un avis juridique qui indique que
ce régime établira un nouveau droit d'auteur sur les signaux des stations
locales de télévision privée et sera donc ultra vires relativement aux
pouvoirs du Conseil. D'après les opinions juridiques déposées par les
stations de télévision locales, un tel régime relève de la compétence légale
du Conseil de superviser et de réglementer le système de radiodiffusion.
|
Paragraph 7 omitted; it repeats
paragraph 164 of the 2010 Policy
|
[Paragraphe 7 omis; une répétition du
paragraphe 164 de la Politique 2010.]
|
8. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy
2010-167, the Commission did not determine the legal issue as to whether or
not it has the jurisdiction under the Act to implement such a regime. Rather,
the Commission stated that it would refer the matter to the Federal Court of
Appeal for determination. Consequently, the decision to implement the regime
will only be concluded after the Court has ruled on this reference.
|
8. Dans la politique
réglementaire de radiodiffusion 2010-167, le Conseil n'a pas statué sur la
question de savoir s'il a la compétence en vertu de la Loi d'instaurer un tel
régime. En revanche, le Conseil a déclaré qu'il porterait cette affaire
devant la Cour d'appel fédérale pour jugement. Par conséquent, la décision
d'instaurer le régime ne pourra être prise avant que la Cour ne se soit
prononcée.
|
Statutory mandate of the
Commission
[15]
Parliament
has given the Commission the mandate to regulate and supervise all aspects of
the Canadian broadcasting system. That mandate is set out in subsection 5(1) of
the Broadcasting Act, which reads as follows:
5. (1) Subject to this Act
and the Radiocommunication Act and to any directions to the Commission
issued by the Governor in Council under this Act, the Commission shall
regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a
view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) and,
in so doing, shall have regard to the regulatory policy set out in subsection
(2).
|
5. (1) Sous réserve des autres
dispositions de la présente loi, ainsi que de la Loi sur la
radiocommunication et des instructions qui lui sont données par le
gouverneur en conseil sous le régime de la présente loi, le Conseil
réglemente et surveille tous les aspects du système canadien de
radiodiffusion en vue de mettre en oeuvre la politique canadienne de
radiodiffusion.
|
[16]
The phrase “Canadian
broadcasting system” is not defined in the Broadcasting Act, but its
meaning can be inferred from terms that are given a statutory definition.
“Broadcasting” and “program” are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting
Act as follows:
“broadcasting”
means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves
or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of
broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission
of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place.
|
« radiodiffusion » Transmission, à l’aide
d’ondes radioélectriques ou de tout autre moyen de télécommunication,
d’émissions encodées ou non et destinées à être reçues par le public à l’aide
d’un récepteur, à l’exception de celle qui est destinée à la présentation
dans un lieu public seulement.
|
“program” means sounds or visual images,
or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform,
enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not
combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text.
|
« émission » Les sons ou les
images — ou leur combinaison — destinés à informer ou divertir, à l’exception
des images, muettes ou non, consistant essentiellement en des lettres ou des
chiffres.
|
[17]
“Radio
waves” and “other means of telecommunication” are defined in subsections 2(1)
and (2) of the Broadcasting Act as follows:
2.(1)...
“radio waves” means electromagnetic
waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz that are propagated in space
without artificial guide.
....
2.
(2) For
the purposes of this Act, “other means of telecommunication” means any wire,
cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or any similar
technical system.
|
2.(1)[...]
« ondes radioélectriques » Ondes
électromagnétiques de fréquences inférieures à 3 000 GHz transmises dans
l’espace sans guide artificiel.
[....]
2. (2) Pour l’application de la
présente loi, sont inclus dans les moyens de télécommunication les systèmes
électromagnétiques — notamment les fils, les câbles et les systèmes radio ou
optiques —, ainsi que les autres procédés techniques semblables.
|
[18]
Programs
are broadcast in Canada by “broadcasting undertakings”. According to
subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act, a broadcasting undertaking may
be a “distribution undertaking”, a “programming undertaking”, or a “network”.
Those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act as
follows:
“distribution undertaking”
means an undertaking for the reception of broadcasting and the retransmission
thereof by radio waves or other means of telecommunication to more than one
permanent or temporary residence or
dwelling unit or to another such
undertaking.
|
« entreprise de distribution » Entreprise de réception
de radiodiffusion pour retransmission, à l’aide d’ondes radioélectriques ou
d’un autre moyen de télécommunication, en vue de sa réception dans plusieurs
résidences permanentes ou
temporaires ou locaux d’habitation, ou en
vue de sa réception par une
autre entreprise semblable.
|
“programming undertaking” means an
undertaking for the transmission of programs, either directly by radio waves
or other means of telecommunication or indirectly through a distribution
undertaking, for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving
apparatus.
|
« entreprise de
programmation » Entreprise de transmission d’émissions soit directement
à l’aide d’ondes radioélectriques ou d’un autre moyen de télécommunication,
soit par l’intermédiaire d’une entreprise de distribution, en vue de leur
réception par le public à l’aide d’un récepteur.
|
“network” includes any
operation where control over all or any part of the programs or program
schedules of one or more broadcasting undertakings is delegated to another
undertaking or person.
|
« réseau » Est assimilée à un réseau toute
exploitation où le contrôle de tout ou partie des émissions ou de la
programmation d’une ou plusieurs entreprises de radiodiffusion est délégué à
une autre entreprise ou personne.
|
|
|
|
[19]
Reading these statutory
definitions together, I infer that any broadcasting activity in Canada by a
distribution undertaking, a programming undertaking, or a network is part of
the Canadian broadcasting system and therefore is subject to the regulation and
supervision of the Commission pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Broadcasting
Act. There is no doubt that this would include the broadcasting activities
in Canada of any private local television station (programming undertaking) and
any BDU (distribution undertaking) that would be subject to the proposed value
for signal regime if it is adopted.
[20]
Although the
statutory mandate of the Commission as stated in subsection 5(1) of the Broadcasting
Act is broad and comprehensive, it is expressly limited in a number of
respects. First,
subsection 5(1) requires the Commission to act in accordance with the Broadcasting
Act, the Radiocommunication Act, and any directions to the
Commission issued by the Governor in Council under the Broadcasting Act.
(There are no provisions of the Radiocommunication Act and no Governor
in Council directions that are relevant to this reference.)
[21]
Second,
subsection 5(1) requires the Commission to act with a view to implementing the
broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act,
which reads as follows:
3. (1) It is hereby declared as the
broadcasting policy for Canada that
|
3.
(1) Il est déclaré que, dans le cadre de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion :
|
(a)
the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by
Canadians;
|
a) le système canadien de radiodiffusion
doit être, effectivement, la propriété des Canadiens et sous leur contrôle;
|
(b)
the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and
French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes
use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its
programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of
national identity and cultural sovereignty;
|
b) le système canadien de
radiodiffusion, composé d’éléments publics, privés et communautaires, utilise
des fréquences qui sont du domaine public et offre, par sa programmation
essentiellement en français et en anglais, un service public essentiel pour
le maintien et la valorisation de l’identité nationale et de la souveraineté
culturelle;
|
(c)
English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects,
operate under different conditions and may have different requirements;
|
c) les radiodiffusions de langues française
et anglaise, malgré certains points communs, diffèrent quant à leurs
conditions d’exploitation et, éventuellement, quant à leurs besoins;
|
(d)
the Canadian broadcasting system should
|
d) le système canadien de radiodiffusion
devrait :
|
(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the
cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,
|
(i)
servir à sauvegarder, enrichir et renforcer la structure culturelle,
politique, sociale et économique du Canada,
|
(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by
providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes,
opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian
talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis
concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,
|
(ii)
favoriser l’épanouissement de l’expression canadienne en proposant une très
large programmation qui traduise des attitudes, des opinions, des idées, des
valeurs et une créativité artistique canadiennes, qui mette en valeur des
divertissements faisant appel à des artistes canadiens et qui fournisse de
l’information et de l’analyse concernant le Canada et l’étranger considérés
d’un point de vue canadien,
|
(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities
arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the
circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including
equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature
of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that
society, and
|
(iii)
par sa programmation et par les chances que son fonctionnement offre en
matière d’emploi, répondre aux besoins et aux intérêts, et refléter la
condition et les aspirations, des hommes, des femmes et des enfants
canadiens, notamment l’égalité sur le plan des droits, la dualité
linguistique et le caractère multiculturel et multiracial de la société
canadienne ainsi que la place particulière qu’y occupent les peuples autochtones,
|
(iv)
be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change;
|
(iv)
demeurer aisément adaptable aux progrès scientifiques et techniques;
|
(e)
each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an
appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;
|
e) tous les éléments du système doivent
contribuer, de la manière qui convient, à la création et la présentation
d’une programmation canadienne;
|
(f)
each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less
than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the
creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service
provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use
of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable,
in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of
those resources;
|
f) toutes les entreprises de
radiodiffusion sont tenues de faire appel au maximum, et dans tous les cas au
moins de manière prédominante, aux ressources — créatrices et autres —
canadiennes pour la création et la présentation de leur programmation à moins
qu’une telle pratique ne s’avère difficilement réalisable en raison de la
nature du service — notamment, son contenu ou format spécialisé ou
l’utilisation qui y est faite de langues autres que le français ou l’anglais
— qu’elles fournissent, auquel cas elles devront faire appel aux ressources
en question dans toute la mesure du possible;
|
(g)
the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high
standard;
|
g) la programmation offerte par les
entreprises de radiodiffusion devrait être de haute qualité;
|
(h)
all persons who are licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a
responsibility for the programs they broadcast;
|
h) les titulaires de licences
d’exploitation d’entreprises de radiodiffusion assument la responsabilité de
leurs émissions;
|
(i)
the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i)
be varied and
comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and
entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes,
(ii)
be drawn from
local, regional, national and international sources,
(iii)
include educational and community programs,
(iv)
provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the
expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and
(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian
independent production sector;
|
i) la programmation offerte par le système
canadien de radiodiffusion devrait à la fois :
(i)
être variée et aussi large que possible en offrant à l’intention des hommes,
femmes et enfants de tous âges, intérêts et goûts une programmation
équilibrée qui renseigne, éclaire et divertit,
(ii) puiser aux sources locales, régionales, nationales et
internationales,
(iii) renfermer des émissions éducatives et
communautaires,
(iv) dans la mesure du possible, offrir au public
l’occasion de prendre connaissance d’opinions divergentes sur des sujets qui
l’intéressent,
(v)
faire appel de façon notable aux producteurs canadiens indépendants;
|
(j)
educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities
of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian
broadcasting system;
|
j) la programmation éducative, notamment
celle qui est fournie au moyen d’installations d’un organisme éducatif
indépendant, fait partie intégrante du système canadien de radiodiffusion;
|
(k) a
range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to
all Canadians as resources become available;
|
k) une gamme de services de
radiodiffusion en français et en anglais doit être progressivement offerte à
tous les Canadiens, au fur et à mesure de la disponibilité des moyens;
|
(l)
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster,
should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of
programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;
|
l) la Société Radio-Canada, à titre de
radiodiffuseur public national, devrait offrir des services de radio et de
télévision qui comportent une très large programmation qui renseigne, éclaire
et divertit;
|
(m)
the programming provided by the Corporation should
(i)
be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while
serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii)
actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
(iv)
be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances
of each official language community, including the particular needs and
circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
(v)
strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,
(vi)
contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as
resources become available for the purpose, and
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of
Canada;
|
m) la programmation de la Société
devrait à la fois :
(i) être principalement et typiquement canadienne,
(ii) refléter la globalité canadienne et rendre compte de
la diversité régionale du pays, tant au plan national qu’au niveau régional,
tout en répondant aux besoins particuliers des régions,
(iii) contribuer activement à l’expression culturelle et à
l’échange des diverses formes qu’elle peut prendre,
(iv) être offerte en français et en anglais, de manière à
refléter la situation et les besoins particuliers des deux collectivités de
langue officielle, y compris ceux des minorités de l’une ou l’autre langue,
(v) chercher à être de qualité équivalente en français et
en anglais,
(vi) contribuer au partage d’une conscience et d’une
identité nationales,
(vii) être offerte partout au Canada de
la manière la plus adéquate et efficace, au fur et à mesure de la
disponibilité des moyens,
(viii)
refléter le caractère multiculturel et multiracial du Canada;
|
(n)
where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out
in paragraphs (l)
and (m)
and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian
broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where
the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in
favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in
paragraphs (l)
and (m);
|
n) les conflits entre les objectifs de
la Société énumérés aux alinéas l) et m) et les intérêts de
toute autre entreprise de radiodiffusion du système canadien de radiodiffusion
doivent être résolus dans le sens de l’intérêt public ou, si l’intérêt public
est également assuré, en faveur des objectifs énumérés aux alinéas l) et
m);
|
(o)
programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian
broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;
|
o) le système canadien de radiodiffusion
devrait offrir une programmation qui reflète les cultures autochtones du
Canada, au fur et à mesure de la disponibilité des moyens;
|
(p)
programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the
Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;
|
p) le système devrait offrir une
programmation adaptée aux besoins des personnes atteintes d’une déficience,
au fur et à mesure de la disponibilité des moyens;
|
(q)
without limiting any obligation of a broadcasting undertaking to provide the
programming contemplated by paragraph (i), alternative
television programming services in English and in French should be provided
where necessary to ensure that the full range of programming contemplated by
that paragraph is made available through the Canadian broadcasting system;
|
q) sans qu’il soit porté atteinte à
l’obligation qu’ont les entreprises de radiodiffusion de fournir la
programmation visée à l’alinéa i), des services de programmation télévisée
complémentaires, en anglais et en français, devraient au besoin être offerts
afin que le système canadien de radiodiffusion puisse se conformer à cet
alinéa;
|
(r)
the programming provided by alternative television programming services
should
(i)
be innovative and be complementary to the programming provided for mass
audiences,
(ii)
cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming
provided for mass audiences, and include programming devoted to culture and
the arts,
(iii)
reflect Canada’s regions and multicultural nature,
(iv)
as far as possible, be acquired rather than produced by those services, and
(v) be made available throughout Canada by the most cost-efficient means;
|
r) la programmation offerte par ces
services devrait à la fois :
(i) être innovatrice et compléter celle qui est offerte au
grand public,
(ii) répondre aux intérêts et goûts de ceux que la
programmation offerte au grand public laisse insatisfaits et comprendre des
émissions consacrées aux arts et à la culture,
(iii) refléter le caractère multiculturel du Canada et
rendre compte de sa diversité régionale,
(iv) comporter, autant que possible, des acquisitions
plutôt que des productions propres,
(v) être offerte partout au Canada de la manière la plus
rentable, compte tenu de la qualité;
|
(s)
private networks and programming undertakings should, to an extent consistent
with the financial and other resources available to them,
(i)
contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian
programming, and
(ii) be responsive to the evolving demands of the public;
and
|
s) les réseaux et les entreprises de
programmation privés devraient, dans la mesure où leurs ressources financières
et autres le leur permettent, contribuer de façon notable à la création et à
la présentation d’une programmation canadienne tout en demeurant réceptifs à
l’évolution de la demande du public;
|
(t)
distribution undertakings
(i)
should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in
particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations,
(ii)
should provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using
the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost,
(iii)
should, where programming services are supplied to them by broadcasting
undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements, provide reasonable terms
for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services, and
(iv) may, where the Commission
considers it appropriate, originate programming, including local programming,
on such terms as are conducive to the achievement of the objectives of the
broadcasting policy set out in this subsection, and in particular provide
access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.
|
t) les entreprises de distribution :
(i) devraient donner priorité à la fourniture des services
de programmation canadienne, et ce en particulier par les stations locales
canadiennes,
(ii) devraient assurer efficacement, à l’aide des
techniques les plus efficientes, la fourniture de la programmation à des
tarifs abordables,
(iii) devraient offrir des conditions acceptables
relativement à la fourniture, la combinaison et la vente des services de
programmation qui leur sont fournis, aux termes d’un contrat, par les
entreprises de radiodiffusion,
(iv)
peuvent, si le Conseil le juge opportun, créer une programmation — locale ou
autre — de nature à favoriser la réalisation des objectifs de la politique
canadienne de radiodiffusion, et en particulier à permettre aux minorités
linguistiques et culturelles mal desservies d’avoir accès aux services de
radiodiffusion.
|
[22]
The
statement of Canadian broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting
Act must be read with subsection 3(2) which reads as follows:
3. (2) It is further declared that the
Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the
objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection (1) can best be
achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian
broadcasting system by a single independent public authority.
|
3. (2) Il est déclaré en outre que le
système canadien de radiodiffusion constitue un système unique et que la
meilleure façon d’atteindre les objectifs de la politique canadienne de
radiodiffusion consiste à confier la réglementation et la surveillance du
système canadien de radiodiffusion à un seul organisme public autonome.
|
[23]
Subsection
5(1) of the Broadcasting Act also requires the Commission to have regard
to the regulatory policy set out in subsection 5(2) of the Broadcasting Act,
which reads as follows:
5. (2) The Canadian broadcasting system
should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that
(a) is readily adaptable
to the different characteristics of English and French language broadcasting
and to the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that
provide English or French language programming operate;
(b) takes into account
regional needs and concerns;
(c) is readily adaptable
to scientific and technological change;
(d) facilitates the
provision of broadcasting to Canadians;
(e) facilitates the
provision of Canadian programs to Canadians;
(f) does not inhibit the
development of information technologies and their application or the delivery
of resultant services to Canadians; and
(g) is sensitive to the
administrative burden that, as a consequence of such regulation and
supervision, may be imposed on persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings.
|
5. (2) La réglementation et la
surveillance du système devraient être souples et à la fois :
a) tenir compte des
caractéristiques de la radiodiffusion dans les langues française et anglaise
et des conditions différentes d’exploitation auxquelles sont soumises les
entreprises de radiodiffusion qui diffusent la programmation dans l’une ou
l’autre langue;
b) tenir compte des
préoccupations et des besoins régionaux;
c) pouvoir aisément s’adapter
aux progrès scientifiques et techniques;
d) favoriser la radiodiffusion à
l’intention des Canadiens;
e) favoriser la présentation
d’émissions canadiennes aux Canadiens;
f) permettre la mise au point de
techniques d’information et leur application ainsi que la fourniture aux
Canadiens des services qui en découlent;
g) tenir compte du fardeau
administratif qu’elles sont susceptibles d’imposer aux exploitants
d’entreprises de radiodiffusion.
|
[24]
In the
event of a conflict between the broadcasting policy in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting
Act and the regulatory policy in subsection 5(2), the broadcasting policy
prevails. That is the result of subsection 5(3) which reads as follows:
5. (3) The Commission shall give primary
consideration to the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in
subsection 3(1) if, in any particular matter before the Commission, a
conflict arises between those objectives and the objectives of the regulatory
policy set out in subsection (2).
|
5. (3) Le Conseil privilégie, dans
les affaires dont il connaît, les objectifs de la politique canadienne de
radiodiffusion en cas de conflit avec ceux prévus au paragraphe (2).
|
[25]
Generally, the
Commission exercises its statutory authority by enacting regulations pursuant
to section 10 of the Broadcasting Act, and by imposing conditions on
broadcasting licences it issues pursuant to section 9 of the Broadcasting
Act. According to paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act,
a condition imposed on a licence must be one that is deemed by the Commission
to be appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy stated in
subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act.
[26]
As stated
above, the Commission determined in the 2010 Policy that a value for signal
regime is necessary to fulfil the objectives of the broadcasting policy stated
in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act. According to paragraph 152
of the 2010 Policy, that determination relies specifically on paragraphs 3(1)(e)
and 3(1)(f) of the Broadcasting Act. Those paragraphs are
reproduced here for ease of reference, with the specific portions quoted by the
Commission italicized:
3.
(1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
|
3.
(1) Il est déclaré que, dans le cadre de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion :
|
…
|
[…]
|
(e) each element of the
Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the
creation and presentation of Canadian programming;
|
e) tous les éléments du
système doivent contribuer, de la manière qui convient, à la création et la
présentation d’une programmation canadienne;
|
(f) each broadcasting
undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use,
of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and
presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the
undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages
other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case
the
undertaking shall make the
greatest practicable use of those resources ….
|
f) toutes les entreprises de
radiodiffusion sont tenues de faire appel au maximum, et dans tous les cas au
moins de manière prédominante, aux ressources — créatrices et autres —
canadiennes pour la création et la présentation de leur programmation à moins
qu’une telle pratique ne s’avère difficilement réalisable en raison de la
nature du service — notamment, son contenu ou format spécialisé ou
l’utilisation qui y est
faite de langues autres que le
français ou l’anglais — qu’elles fournissent, auquel cas elles devront faire
appel aux ressources en question dans toute la mesure du possible […].
|
[27]
The BDUs
have not challenged the soundness of the Commission’s policy analysis, its
understanding of the relevant facts, its conclusion that a value for signal
regime is justified on the basis of the policy objectives set out in subsection
3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, or the reasonableness of the proposed
value for signal regime (assuming the Commission has the statutory authority to
implement it).
[28]
Based on
the Commission’s analysis in the 2010 Policy and the statutory provisions
referred to above, I conclude that the implementation of the proposed value for
signal regime is within the statutory authority of the Commission, subject only
to the legal objections raised by the BDUs in this reference based on the Copyright
Act and its legislative history. I turn now to those arguments.
The copyright objection
[29]
Both the Copyright
Act and the Broadcasting Act are components of Canadian cultural
policy. They may be viewed as sharing some territory, in the sense that both
deal to some extent with the interest of the originators of television signals
in benefiting economically from their work, and the interest of the public in
having television signals made available to them. Both statutes are intended to
ensure these competing interests are properly balanced. The two statutes now
operate together harmoniously, but I am prepared to assume without deciding
that there may be a theoretical possibility of a conflict in their operation.
[30]
The
question raised in this reference is whether, as the BDUs argue, the proposed
value for signal regime necessarily conflicts with the Copyright Act in
such a way that this Court should conclude that even if the Broadcasting Act
on its face authorizes the Commission to adopt the proposed value for signal
regime, it should be interpreted in a way that precludes that possibility.
[31]
Part of
the BDUs’ legal argument is not controversial. I agree with them that the
principles of statutory interpretation require a harmonious, coherent and
consistent interpretation of all statutes dealing with the legal rights and
obligations relating to the retransmission of television signals.
[32]
The
question, however, is whether there is merit to the argument of the BDUs that
the implementation of the proposed value for signal regime necessarily conflicts
with the rights of the BDUs under the Copyright Act, in so far as it
would give each private local television station the right to block a BDU from
retransmitting that station’s signals in the absence of a concluded contract
for compensation flowing from the BDU to the station.
[33]
The BDUs
rely principally on subsection 21(1) and section 31 of the Copyright Act.
It is common ground
that subsection 21(1), and in particular paragraph 21(1)(c), gives a
private local television station a copyright in the signals it broadcasts, and
that this copyright includes the sole right to authorize a BDU to retransmit
those signals to the public simultaneously with its broadcast. Subsection 21
reads as follows:
21. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a
broadcaster has a copyright in the communication signals that it broadcasts,
consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the
communication signal or any substantial part thereof:
(a)
to fix it,
(b)
to reproduce any fixation of it that was made without the broadcaster’s
consent,
(c)
to authorize another broadcaster to retransmit it to the public
simultaneously with its broadcast, and
(d)
in the case of a television communication signal, to perform it in a place
open to the public on payment of an entrance fee,
and to authorize any act described in
paragraph (a), (b) or (d).
|
21. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le
radiodiffuseur a un droit d’auteur qui comporte le droit exclusif, à l’égard
du signal de communication qu’il émet ou de toute partie importante de
celui-ci :
a) de le fixer;
b) d’en reproduire toute
fixation faite sans son autorisation;
c) d’autoriser un autre
radiodiffuseur à le retransmettre au public simultanément à son émission;
d) d’exécuter en public un
signal de communication télévisuel en un lieu accessible au public moyennant
droit d’entrée.
Il a aussi le droit d’autoriser les
actes visés aux alinéas a), b) et d).
|
[34]
The section 21 rights
of broadcasters are significantly affected by section 31 of the Copyright
Act, which reads in relevant part as follows:
31. (2) It is not an infringement of
copyright for a retransmitter to communicate to the public by
telecommunication any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work if
(a)
the communication is a retransmission of a local or distant signal;
(b)
the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting Act;
(c)
the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and without alteration, except as
otherwise required or permitted by or under the laws of Canada;
(d)
in the case of the retransmission of a distant signal, the retransmitter has
paid any royalties, and complied with any terms and conditions, fixed under
this Act; and
(e)
the retransmitter complies with the applicable conditions, if any, referred
to in paragraph (3)(b).
|
31. (2) Ne constitue pas une violation du
droit d’auteur le fait, pour le retransmetteur, de communiquer une oeuvre au
public par télécommunication si, à la fois :
a) la communication consiste en
la retransmission d’un signal local ou éloigné, selon le cas;
b) la retransmission est licite
en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion;
c) le signal est retransmis,
sauf obligation ou permission légale ou réglementaire, simultanément et sans
modification;
d) dans le cas de la
retransmission d’un signal éloigné, le retransmetteur a acquitté les redevances
et respecté les modalités fixées sous le régime de la présente loi;
e) le retransmetteur respecte
les conditions applicables, le cas échéant, visées à l’alinéa (3) b).
|
(3) The Governor in Council may make
regulations
(a)
defining “local signal” and “distant signal” for the purposes of subsection
(2); and
(b)
prescribing conditions for the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), and
specifying whether any such condition applies to all retransmitters or only
to a class of retransmitter.
|
(3) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par
règlement :
a) définir « signal
local » et « signal éloigné » pour l’application du paragraphe
(2);
b) fixer des conditions pour
l’application de l’alinéa (2) e) et, le cas échéant, prévoir si elles
s’appliquent à l’ensemble des retransmetteurs ou à une catégorie de ceux-ci.
|
[35]
Regulations
have been made under paragraph 31(3)(a) of the Copyright Act to
define “local signal” and “distant signal” (see Local Signal and Distant
Signal Regulations, SOR/89-254), but no conditions have been prescribed
under paragraph 31(3)(b). Generally, the signals of a private local
television station are “local signals” and not “distant signals” under the Local
Signal and Distant Signal Regulations.
[36]
The BDUs
that would be affected by the proposed value for signal regime are
“retransmitters” and thus entitled to the benefit of subsection 31(2) of the Copyright
Act. The effect of subsection 31(2) is that a BDU does not infringe the
section 21 copyright of a private local television station when it retransmits
the station’s local signals, if the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting
Act and complies with any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 31(3)(b)
of the Copyright Act, and the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and
without alteration except as required or permitted by law.
[37]
Because
subsection 31(2) contemplates a royalty only for the retransmission of distant
signals (which by definition would not include the signal of a private local
television station), a private local television station has no right under the Copyright
Act to demand a royalty from a BDU for retransmitting its signals. On that
basis, the BDUs argue that subsection 31(2) gives them a statutory right, akin
to the user right under the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act
(see CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13,
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, at paragraph 48), to retransmit the local signal of a
private local television station without paying a royalty. I agree, provided
the retransmission meets the conditions stated in subsection 31(2).
[38]
However,
the subsection 31(2) conditions are significant. In particular, paragraph
31(2)(b) requires any retransmission of a local signal to be lawful
under the Broadcasting Act. That necessarily means that a BDU wishing to
take advantage of the user right in subsection 31(2) of the Copyright Act
must do so in compliance with the Broadcasting Act, any regulations made
under the Broadcasting Act, and any conditions the Commission has
attached to the retransmitter’s broadcasting licence.
[39]
Paragraph
31(2)(b) of the Copyright Act marks an intersection of the two
statutory schemes – one implementing Canada’s broadcasting policy and the other
implementing Canada’s copyright policy. In paragraph 31(2)(b) of the Copyright
Act, Parliament has permitted the Commission to limit the transmission
rights under subsection 31(2) by imposing any regulatory or licensing condition
consistent with the Commission’s statutory mandate as stated in the Broadcasting
Act.
[40]
Put
another way, by making the BDUs’ statutory retransmission rights in subsection
31(2) of the Copyright Act subject to paragraph 31(2)(b),
Parliament has ranked the objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy ahead of
those statutory retransmission rights. I see nothing in the Copyright Act that
would justify a reversal of that ranking if the Commission determines that the
objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy require the imposition of a
regulation or licensing condition that would permit a private local television
station to demand cash or other consideration from a BDU for the right to
retransmit its signals.
[41]
For
substantially the same reasons, I conclude that it is open to the Commission to
adopt a regulation or a licensing condition that would oblige a BDU to pay
money to a private local television station for the right to retransmit its
signals, provided the Commission determines that the imposition of such an
obligation is required to meet the objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy
as stated in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act.
[42]
In my
view, it is irrelevant that such an obligation might be characterized as an
obligation to pay a royalty. Even now, the Commission requires BDUs to
compensate private local television stations in respect of the retransmission
of their signals, and it is not suggested that those requirements are not
properly imposed. Some of the required compensation is not monetary (mandatory
carriage, preferential channel placement, and simultaneous distribution), but
it nevertheless represents something of value passing from a BDU to a
television station. Some of the required compensation is monetary (the
contribution of 1.5% of gross revenues to the local programming improvement
fund and potentially (starting in August of 2011), contractual consideration
for any retransmission of a local television signal outside of that station’s
local market). It seems to me that the proposed value for signal regime is
different only in degree, not in kind, substance or function.
[43]
The BDUs
present a further argument based on the lengthy and complex history of various
proposals made and rejected to amend the Copyright Act to grant
television stations a statutory right to a royalty or similar retransmission
fee. The argument is that this history should be understood to have resulted in
a deliberate legislative policy adopted by Parliament that would be defeated by
the proposed value for signal regime. I do not accept this argument.
[44]
It may
well be that Parliament has determined for any number of reasons relating to
Canada’s copyright policy that the Copyright Act should not be amended
to provide private local televisions stations with a right to a royalty for the
retransmission of local signals. However, it does not follow that the same
determination necessarily indicates any intention on the part of Parliament to
preclude the Commission from adopting the proposed value for signal regime in
the interests of Canada’s broadcasting policy.
Indeed, the possibility that the Commission might adopt a value for signal
regime has been under consideration for some time, but the record discloses no
hint that Parliament or the Government of Canada would consider such a regime
to be an improper or undesirable intrusion into copyright policy.
[45]
Nor am I
persuaded that there is merit to the suggestion of the BDUs that the proposed
value for signal regime would undermine Canada’s stated position in relation to recent
proceedings of the 2001 World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”)
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Certainly Canada has taken no such position
before the Commission or in this reference. Indeed, Canada has chosen not to participate in this
reference at all.
[46]
Finally, I
note that the BDUs rely on past statements of the Commission (in 1993, 1999,
2001 and 2003) to the effect that the matter of compensation for local
retransmission rights should be a matter of copyright policy, not broadcasting
policy. I place no weight on those statements, particularly since the
Commission has brought this reference to have the scope of its statutory
authority determined as a matter of law.
[47]
I conclude
that nothing in the Copyright Act or its legislative history precludes
the Commission from adopting the proposed value for signal regime.
Conclusion
[48]
I would
answer the reference question as follows:
The Broadcasting Act empowers
the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to establish a regime to
enable private local television stations to choose to negotiate with
broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in exchange for the
distribution of the programming services broadcast by those local television
stations.
|
La Loi sur la radiodiffusion
confie au Conseil
de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes le pouvoir d’établir un
régime permettant aux stations privées de télévision locale de choisir de
négocier avec les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion une juste
valeur en échange de la distribution des services de programmation diffusée
par ces stations de télévision locales.
|
“K. Sharlow”
“I
agree
Carolyn Layden-Stevenson J.A.”
NADON J.A. DISSENTING
[49]
I
have had the benefit of reading the Reasons of my colleague Sharlow J.A., but I
must respectfully disagree with her disposition of this matter. In my opinion,
the value for signal regime (the “VFS regime”) proposed in Broadcasting Order
CRTC 2010-168 (the “Order”) is ultra vires the powers of the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”). I so conclude
because the VFS regime conflicts with Parliament’s clear statement in paragraph
31(2)(d) of the Copyright Act that royalties must be paid only
for the retransmission of distant signals and not for the retransmission of
local signals.
[50]
I
need not repeat the facts or submissions of the parties which Sharlow J.A. has
thoroughly reviewed in her Reasons.
[51]
It
is first necessary to note, as Sharlow J.A. does at paragraph 35 of her
Reasons, that the signals at issue in this reference are “local signals” as
defined in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Local and Distant Signal
Regulations, SOR/89-254 (the “Regulations”). Local broadcasters, such as
CTVglobemedia Inc. and Canwest Television Limited Partnership, want
broadcasting distribution undertakings (“BDUs”), such as Bell Canada and Rogers
Communications Inc., to pay them a fee for the right to collect and retransmit
their local broadcast signals to BDUs subscribers.
[52]
The
BDUs’ main claim is that subsection 31(2) of the Act prevents the CRTC from
enacting the VFS regime. Under subsection 31(2), a retransmitter does not
infringe copyright if it meets five conditions. The BDUs need this protection
because the local signals they retransmit contain copyrighted material. It is
likely that the local broadcasters have copyright in or a license to use the
works they broadcast, due to agreements they have with the original creators of
the works. Such agreements are typical in the industry (Bell ExpressVu v.
Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, at para.51 [Bell ExpressVu]).
[53]
The
conditions set out at subsection 31(2) of the Copyright Act are as
follows:
(a) the communication is a retransmission
of a local or distant signal;
(b) the retransmission is lawful under the Broadcasting Act;
(c) the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and without
alteration, except as otherwise required or permitted by or under the laws of
Canada;
(d) in
the case of the retransmission of a distant signal, the retransmitter has
paid any royalties, and complied with any terms and conditions, fixed under
this Act; and
(e) the
retransmitter complies with the applicable conditions, if any, [imposed by
the Governor in Council]
|
a) la
communication consiste en la retransmission d’un signal local ou éloigné,
selon le cas;
b) la
retransmission est licite en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion;
c) le signal
est retransmis, sauf obligation ou permission légale ou réglementaire,
simultanément et sans modification;
d) dans le
cas de la retransmission d’un signal éloigné, le retransmetteur a acquitté
les redevances et respecté les modalités fixées sous le régime de la présente
loi;
e) le
retransmetteur respecte les conditions applicables, le cas échéant, fixer par
le gouverneur en conseil
|
[54]
The
BDUs do not, in their Memorandum of Fact and Law, directly address the meaning
of the word “lawful” found in paragraph 31(2)(b) of the Copyright Act.
However, the local broadcasters provide a cogent analysis of the BDUs’
regulatory situation at paragraph 69 of their Joint Memorandum. Therein,
the local broadcasters describe how BDUs operate subject to two different
statutory schemes that apply to two different aspects of the same activity.
[55]
First,
there is the copyright regime wherein compulsory licenses are granted under
subsection 31(2) of the Copyright Act, allowing the BDUs to use the
copyrighted works carried in the local broadcasters’ signals without the
permission of the copyright holders.
[56]
Second,
there is the broadcasting licensing and regulation regime wherein the CRTC
determines the conditions the BDUs must satisfy before they have lawful access
to the local broadcasters’ signals which contain the copyrighted works.
[57]
In
short, to have lawful access to retransmit the local broadcasters’ programming,
the BDUs must have both a license to access the airwaves that carry that
programming and a license to access the copyrighted works contained in
that programming.
[58]
What
does it mean to have “lawful” access to local signals under the Broadcasting
Act? The term “lawful” is not defined in either the Copyright Act or
the Broadcasting Act. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bell
ExpressVu helps to define this term. There, the Court considered the term
“lawful right” in the context of section 2 of the Radiocommunication Act
which reads as follows:
"lawful distributor" , in relation to an
encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed, means a
person
who has the lawful right in Canada to
transmit
it and authorize its decoding;
|
«distributeur légitime », la personne légitimement
autorisée, au Canada, à transmettre un signal d’abonnement ou une
alimentation réseau, en situation d’encodage, et à en permettre le décodage
|
[59]
The
Court was asked to determine whether a company which sold decoding systems that
read encrypted satellite signals was a “lawful distributor”. To make this determination,
the Court had to interpret the words “lawful right”. At paragraph 42, the Court
affirmed the interpretation of Létourneau J.A. of this Court, who wrote as
follows:
[t]he concept of "lawful right" refers to the
person who possesses the regulatory rights through proper licensing under the
Act, the authorization of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission as well as the contractual and copyrights necessarily pertaining to
the content involved in the transmission of the encrypted subscription
programming signal or encrypted network feed.
[60]
That
is, to have a “lawful right” in a particular piece of broadcast property, a
person must have four things: proper licensing under the relevant Act, proper
authorization by the relevant agency, a contractual right of some kind to use
the property and sufficient copyright to use the property.
[61]
In
my view, the language and the context in the two cases are sufficiently
analogous to allow an application of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
word “lawful” in Bell ExpressVu to paragraph 31(2)(b) of the Copyright
Act.
[62]
Applying
Bell ExpressVu’s interpretation of the word “lawful” to paragraph 31(2)(b)
of the Copyright Act suggests that the BDUs must comply with CRTC
regulations or conditions imposed under the Broadcasting Act to be able
to assert a subsection 31(2) exception to copyright infringement.
[63]
At
this point, I believe it helpful to note several features of the Copyright
Act. Parliament expressly says in paragraph 31(2)(a) that an exception
to copyright infringement can apply to a “local or distant signal”. Paragraph
31(3)(a) gives Cabinet the power of “defining ‘local signal’ and
‘distant signal’ for the purposes of subsection (2)”. The two types of signals
are, as noted above, given different definitions in the Regulations.
[64]
Moreover,
in paragraph 31(2)(d), Parliament has specified that “in the case of the
retransmission of a distant signal”, the retransmitter must pay the royalties
fixed under the Copyright Act and must comply with any terms and
conditions fixed under the Copyright Act. The Act does not impose any
such obligations on persons retransmitting local signals.
[65]
From
these features I infer two things. First, Parliament intended that local
signals and distant signals be treated differently. Second, one aspect of this
different treatment is that royalties can be imposed on persons retransmitting
distant signals but cannot be imposed on persons retransmitting local signals.
[66]
In
my view, this is a correct interpretation of the Act for four reasons. First,
the Supreme Court said in Bell ExpressVu at
paragraph 52 that subsection 31(2) comprises two different regimes. There, the
Court said that section 21 of the Copyright Act gives local broadcasters
copyright in their signals “subject to the exceptions in s.31(2)”
[emphasis added]. The French version of the judgment also uses the plural: “des
exceptions”.
[67]
All
elements in subsection 31(2) of the Copyright Act must be met before an
exception to copyright infringement is available because a conjunctive “and” is
used to link the paragraphs. Thus, the only way the Supreme Court could have
concluded that there was more than one exception in subsection 31(2) was if it
thought local and distant signals were to be treated differently.
[68]
Second,
failing to interpret paragraph (d) as applying to distant signals only
would render the disjunctive “or” used in paragraph (a) redundant.
Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) do not
distinguish between local and distant signals. The only difference between the
two types of signals in subsection 31(2) is expressed in paragraph (d).
Thus, it must be that Parliament distinguished between the types of signals in
paragraph (a) because the signals receive different treatment in
paragraph (d).
[69]
Third,
the statutory interpretation maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius
suggests that since Parliament expressly said that royalties had to be paid for
distant signals, it also meant that royalties did not have to be paid for local
signals.
[70]
Fourth,
the Copyright Act uses the term “royalty” (or “royalties”) liberally –
more than 60 times. If Parliament had intended that royalties be paid for the
retransmission of local signals, it could easily have said so. It did not.
[71]
I
conclude, then, that Parliament intended paragraph 31(2)(d) of the Copyright
Act to mean that royalties be paid only for distant signals and not for
local signals.
[72]
Given
this conclusion, it follows, in my view, that the CRTC’s Order is ultra
vires. Parliament delegated power to the CRTC when it passed the Broadcasting
Act. However, this delegation of power is not absolute: “[t]he delegate is,
of course, always subordinate in that the delegation can be circumscribed and
withdrawn” (R. v. Furtney [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89, p.104; see also Sam
Lévy & Associés Inc. v. Azco Mining Inc., 2001 SCC 92 at para.17).
[73]
Parliament’s
intention, as expressly stated in paragraph 31(2)(d) of the Copyright
Act, that royalties be paid for the retransmission of distant signals and
implicitly that no royalties be paid for the retransmission of local signals is
a clear limit on the CRTC’s power to impose conditions under the Broadcasting
Act. Thus, since the Order conflicts with Parliament’s intention, it is ultra
vires the CRTC.
[74]
I
will now address two of my colleague’s statements. First, she finds that in
paragraph 31(2)(b) of the Copyright Act, Parliament gave the CRTC
the power to limit transmission rights under subsection 31(2) by stating that
such transmissions must be “lawful under the Broadcasting Act”. If the
BDUs fail to comply with any conditions imposed by the CRTC, including the VFS
regime, then they cease to have lawful access to the airwaves. The section also
suggests, in her view, that Parliament has ranked the objectives of Canada’s
broadcasting policy ahead of the retransmission rights created under the Copyright
Act.
[75]
I
respectfully disagree. Paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection 31(2)
are linked by the conjunctive “and”. This language and structure suggests, in
my view, they are co-equal conditions that must both be met before an exception
to copyright infringement is recognized. It does not suggest, however, that
paragraph (b) can be read to rank ahead of and to overwhelm paragraph (d).
Both provisions apply with equal force.
[76]
To
put it another way, the CRTC could not assert its power to regulate the
lawfulness of a retransmission under the Broadcasting Act to grant an
exception to copyright infringement for non-simultaneous retransmissions,
contrary to paragraph (c). Similarly, the CRTC could not assert its
power over broadcasting to say that no royalty need be paid for the
retransmission of distant signals, contrary to paragraph (d). In my
view, this approach is sound because it would be contrary to the principle of
parliamentary supremacy if a regulatory body with delegated power could use its
power to override Parliament’s clear legislative statement.
[77]
The
effect of Sharlow J.A.’s interpretation of paragraph 31(2)(b) is that
paragraph 31(2)(d) comes to mean that royalties may only be charged for
the retransmission of distant signals and may not be charged for the
retransmission of local signals, unless the CRTC decides otherwise. Such an
interpretation is, in my respectful view, erroneous.
[78]
Further,
the VFS regime is similar to the distant signal royalty payment regime in
several ways. In both regimes, a royalty is paid – that is, value is exchanged
for the use of property: see Mobil Oil Canada v. Canada, 2001 FCA 333 at
paras.17-18. Under the VFS regime, this value is determined by negotiations
between each individual local broadcaster and each individual BDU: Order at
para.7. Under the distant signal regime, the royalties are determined either by
tariffs filed by the collective society representing broadcasters or by
negotiations between the collective society and individual retransmitters: Copyright
Act ss.70.1(c), 70.13, 70.191.
[79]
In
both regimes, the payee and the payor are the same. Under the VFS regime, the
local broadcasters are paid for their signals by the BDUs, or receive other
forms of value from the BDUs: Order at para.7. Under the distant signal regime,
a “broadcaster” is paid the tariff fixed pursuant to paragraph 31(2)(d),
or the other compensation separately agreed to, because the broadcaster has the
sole right to authorize another person to reproduce his signal: Copyright
Act ss.21(1), 31(2)(d). The payor is the retransmitter.
[80]
In
both regimes, the obligation to pay attaches to the same activity. Under the
VFS regime, the BDU is obliged to pay because it retransmits the local
broadcasters’ signal: Order at para.7. Under the distant signal regime, the
retransmitter is obliged to pay because it retransmits the broadcaster’s
signal: Copyright Act, ss.21(1), 31(2).
[81]
In
both regimes, the protected property is the same. Under the VFS regime, the
local broadcasters’ signals are what is being paid for: Order at para.7. Under
the distant signal regime, the broadcaster’s signal is what the retransmitter
is paying for: Copyright Act ss.21(1), 31(2).
[82]
There
are also some differences between the two regimes. Under the VFS regime, the
royalty is established as a result of direct negotiation between each local
broadcaster and each BDU: Order at para.7. Thus, the type of compensation can,
theoretically, be different in each individual agreement. Under the distant
signal regime, the collective society may either file a tariff that is
applicable to all users or it may enter into agreements with individual users: Copyright
Act ss.70.12, 70.191. As a result, the type of compensation may be the
same, if a tariff is applicable, or it may differ, if individual agreements are
reached. This difference is primarily a difference in form and thus is
unimportant, considering the numerous substantive similarities between the two
regimes.
[83]
A
second (potential) difference is the distinction Sharlow J.A. draws between Canada’s
broadcasting policy and its copyright policy. In her view, paragraph 31(2)(b)
is an articulation of broadcasting policy while paragraph 31(2)(d) is an
articulation of copyright policy: Reasons at paras.38-40, 43-44. Thus, in her
view, even if the VFS regime essentially establishes royalties for local
signals, these royalties constitute an expression of broadcasting policy and so
cannot be said to conflict with Parliament’s expression of copyright policy.
[84]
With
the greatest of respect, I cannot agree. The analysis above shows, in my view,
that the VFS regime is far more similar to, than different from, the distant
signal regime in the Copyright Act. Both regimes involve a royalty
passing between the same parties for the same activity relating to the same
protected property. They are functionally equivalent, despite slight
differences in form.
[85]
This
functional equivalence results in the VFS regime being ultra vires the
CRTC’s powers. In Galerie d'art du Petit Champlain inc. c. Théberge,
2002 SCC 34, the Supreme Court said at paragraph 5 that “[c]opyright in this
country is a creature of statute and the rights and remedies it provides are
exhaustive”: see also Copyright Act s.89. Contrary to the exhaustiveness
of statutory copyright law, the CRTC, through the Order, is attempting to
create a royalty that is essentially the same as the royalty Parliament has, in
effect, forbidden in paragraph 31(2)(d) of the Copyright Act.
Given this conflict between the Copyright Act and the CRTC’s Order, the
CRTC’s enactment must give way.
[86]
I
would also like to address my colleague’s remarks found at paragraph 42 of her
Reasons where she says that “it is irrelevant that the VFS regime might be
characterized as an obligation to pay a royalty”. In support of that
proposition, Sharlow J.A. says that the BDUs have not contested the CRTC’s
power to impose the current bundle of regulatory burdens on them, which
includes both non-monetary and monetary compensation. In her view, since these
regulations are presumably valid, and since the burdens imposed by the VFS
regime differ from these regulations only in kind, not substance, the VFS
regime must be valid.
[87]
I
cannot agree. The validity of the current CRTC regulations is not before us.
This reference was submitted by the CRTC directly to this Court and asks solely
whether the VFS regime is a valid enactment by the CRTC. Thus, the current
regulations are beyond the scope of the reference. In other words, whether the
current Regulations are valid is an irrelevant consideration in answering the
question posed by the CRTC.
[88]
I
would therefore answer the question posed by the CRTC as follows:
The Broadcasting Act does not
empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to
establish a regime to enable private local television stations to choose to
negotiate with broadcasting distribution undertakings a fair value in
exchange for the distribution of the programming services broadcast by those
local stations.
|
La Loi sur la radiodiffusion ne confie
pas au Conseil de
la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes le pouvoir d’établir un
régime permettant aux stations privées de télévision locale de choisir de
négocier avec les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion une juste valeur
en échange de la distribution des services de programmation diffusée par ces
stations de télévision locales.
|
“M. Nadon”