OTTAWA – The CRTC is now allowing Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc. (CPAC) to participate in the proceeding dealing with the broadcast side of the proposed Rogers/Shaw transaction as an interested party, thereby granting it several new rights.
In a letter dated Oct. 7, the CRTC authorized CPAC to appear at the upcoming hearing into the matter in its own right and granted CPAC the right for its representatives to participate in any in camera discussions that may be held regarding its governance.
The CRTC also granted CPAC “the right to file a reply to intervenors in accordance with section 27 of the Rules of Procedure,” according to the letter. The Commission gave CPAC 10 days to file a reply.
As outlined in the CRTC’s notice of consultation into the proposed transaction, Rogers currently holds 41.58% of CPAC shares, while Shaw owns 25.17%. Should the proposed deal be approved, Rogers would acquire all of Shaw’s shares, bringing its total to 66.75% and making it the majority shareholder. (Videotron, Cogeco, Eastlink and Access Communications all have shares as well.)
Several intervenors took issue with this while CPAC in its own intervention stated it reserved the right to reply to such interventions.
CPAC wrote a reply letter by the original reply deadline (Sept. 23), which the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) obtained a copy of, as reported by Cartt.ca at the time.
The letter highlights the value of CPAC and attempts to assure those with concerns about Rogers acquiring Shaw’s shares that there are enough measures in place to prevent Rogers from being able to exercise control over CPAC’s operations and output.
PIAC argued in a letter to the CRTC that CPAC’s reply should be struck from the record because it went against the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure.
The CRTC for its part did not post CPAC’s reply on its website until Oct. 8, a day after it granted CPAC the right to reply in the first place.
In a statement emailed to Cartt.ca, PIAC’s executive director John Lawford said PIAC is “pleased the Commission effectively validated our objections to CPAC assuming it was an applicant when it was not.”
Lawford goes on to state: “The Commission’s solution to allow CPAC to appear as an interested party effectively grants CPAC yet another written reply, which means that CPAC will now have had two more opportunities to comment than any other intervenor. If nothing else, this procedural skirmish shows applicants to transactions must be organized and present their interest transparently to satisfy the public interest.”
