[Translation]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
• 1531
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, since it is 3:30, we will begin. I would first like to thank Ms. Thibeault for sitting in for me yesterday. I had to attend another committee meeting, and after having read the transcript of yesterday's proceedings, I think that maybe I should stay away more often.
I would also like to thank the clerks for supplying us with a copy of the Constitution acts. I believe that everyone has received it. These documents are most useful.
I would ask the committee members to stay on for a few minutes after we have heard the witness and dealt with the questions. I have two or three administrative matters to take care of.
We have with us today the representative from the CRTC, Mr. Blais. Mr. Blais, you have the floor.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here with you today to assist you with your review of the broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons in both official languages, by CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel.
I have a short presentation, which I hope will provide a good framework of the issues under consideration, and will set the stage for any questions you may have regarding the role of the CRTC in this file.
Yesterday, through the clerk of this joint committee, you were provided with a certain number of Commission documents for your information. I will focus on four of these documents during my opening remarks. These documents establish the regulatory framework under which CPAC operates. And, as they build on one another, I will address them in chronological order.
The first is CRTC Public Notice 1992-6, released by the Commission on January 17, 1992. It sets out the policy framework for the broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons, or any provincial legislature.
After reviewing questions involved in the broadcasting of live coverage of Parliamentary or legislative debates, the Commission concluded that there was no requirement for these services to be licensed. They would be classified by the Commission as exempt services.
This exempt status was based on the following key criteria being met:
1. that the programming is comprised solely of coverage of the proceedings within the House or Legislature and its committees, and this coverage is provided in total, that is "gavel to gavel" without interruption, and without any commentary;
2. that control of the programming is retained by the Speaker of the House in question;
3. that no fee is charged for this service, by the operator of the undertaking;
4. that the programming contain no advertising content; and
5. that the programming be made available to all distribution undertakings in its region of relevance. In the case of the House of Commons, this means that it would be made available throughout Canada.
The CRTC released this policy document in January 1992. One month later, a consortium of more than 30 members of the Canadian cable television industry created the Cable Parliamentary Channel (CPAC). Through CPAC, the cable industry offered to take over the funding and operation of the service that would distribute the proceedings of the House of Commons across Canada—at no cost to cable television subscribers.
In June of that year, an agreement was signed between CPAC and the Speaker of the House (as a representative of the House of Commons) regarding CPAC's satellite-to-cable distribution of House proceedings. The initial term of the agreement was for a two-year period.
• 1535
In October 1992, as an exempt service based on the
Commission's policy referred to earlier, CPAC began distribution of
the televised proceedings of the House and certain Parliamentary
committees.
In 1993, CPAC applied for, and was granted an experimental broadcasting licence for two years. This temporary licence was required because of the proposed addition of public affairs programming on the channel, programming for which the licensee would have editorial control and which would not have been covered by the exemption order. This programming would supplement the gavel-to-gavel broadcasts of House and Committee proceedings.
This brings me to the second document—CRTC Decision 95-22. Following a public hearing in the fall of 1994, the CRTC renewed CPAC's licence for a seven-year term, to August 31, 2002.
This licence renewal was granted upon adherence to a number of key principles and conditions of licence, the most important of these being that CPAC must respect the letter and spirit of its agreement with the House of Commons.
A key element of that agreement is the requirement that CPAC make available the technical capacity for the distribution of the House feed by means of a single video signal, and sufficient audio capacity to distribute the three different language versions of the programming to be provided by the House of Commons Broadcast Service, which would be the bilingual Chamber and Committee floor sound, plus English-only and French-only sound tracks. It is, in fact, the only Canadian programming service which is distributing three different audio streams to its cable affiliates, something which provides CPAC with unique technical challenges.
Across the country, individual cable operators then select which audio source best meets the needs of their community. Some cable operators also use what is known as the second audio program technology, or SAP in English and SPA in French, to make a second audio signal available to consumers.
The Commission in its recent review of the provision of French-language broadcasting services across Canada, strongly endorsed this practice. It underlined its expectation that distributors should use the SAP technology to provide this second language service, wherever technically possible.
As you may have observed, CPAC's licence makes no reference to the issue of carriage. This is because that element of its regulatory environment is addressed in the third document I have provided.
In Section 20-2 of the Broadcast Distribution Regulations, it is stipulated that if a licensee distributes a programming service that comprises the proceedings of the House of Commons, or the proceedings of the legislature of the province in which its undertaking is located, the licensee shall include that service as part of its basic service, unless the operator of the programming service agrees, in writing, to the distribution of its service as a discretionary one.
We understand that CPAC will agree to an affiliate contract for carriage, only if the service is carried on basic cable, or the basic package offered by the two DTH satellite carriers.
Accordingly, today CPAC is not a service that has been given in “must carry” status. Under the Commission regulations, those services designated as mandatory for basic carriage on cable are all local and regional over-the-air services that can be received in the marketplace by the cable operator. If there is no local English or French CBC service in a community, those services are also required to be part of the basic package, obtained via distant signal distribution.
In addition, there are other services that the Commission has designated as mandatory basic, because of the nature of the service and how it fulfills the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. The national distribution of the French language TVA network, and APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network are examples of that category.
It is also important to note that CPAC did not apply for that mandatory carriage at the time of renewal of its licence in 1994.
However, this is not to say that CPAC's status should not be open to review.
The commission is very much aware of the significant role that CPAC plays within the broadcasting system, in providing the full proceedings of the House of Commons and informative public affairs programming to Canadians.
• 1540
The Commission is sensitive to the issue at stake here, that
Canadians want to have, and should be able to access the
proceedings of their Parliament in the language of their choice, no
matter in what part of the country they reside.
However, within the confining environment of analog technology, the Commission has had to balance that need, and its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act, with the realities of finite channel capacity within the system, and the capability of distributors to provide space for CPAC.
In the fourth document we have brought with us today, the Commission clearly signals that the issue of CPAC's distribution will be reviewed quite soon.
In the document entitled Achieving a Better Balance—A Report on French-language Broadcasting Services in a Minority Environment, the Commission states that a separate process will be undertaken to determine if the distribution status of CPAC needs to be changed, in light of its importance in providing the proceedings of the House of Commons to Canadians.
We plan to open the debate on the issue by means of a Public Notice, which the Commission expects to release within a few weeks. All the players involved and the general public will have the opportunity to participate in this important discussion. One should also note that the CPAC licence is up for renewal in 2002.
There is no doubt that CPAC is very useful to all of us as Canadians. As noted by the Commissioner of Official Languages in her most recent annual report, this unfettered access to the proceedings of Parliament is an important tool for citizens within a healthy democracy. We will be examining within the near future how best to make that tool even more available, and usable, by all Canadians.
I am now ready to answer your questions.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Blais.
[English]
Mr. Jaffer.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): I missed most of the presentation, but I'll get caught up. Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for being here today.
I wanted to follow up with my line of questioning to both the Speaker, who made a presentation to the committee, and CPAC. It seems to me that all the obligations of the House of Commons, as well as CPAC, in relaying bilingual services from the House of Commons to markets across the country are being met. The problem is arising in markets where people would like either/or, but sometimes only one language is accessible. In fact the CRTC would be technically responsible for enforcing anything with regard to bilingual services in some of these markets where it's not accessible. I found out yesterday, from the CPAC presentation, that now it is going to be easier to gain access to either language through SAP and other forms of technological advances.
What I would like to hear from you, if possible, is whether this is the way the CRTC plans to go, to look at these forms of dealing with problems where bilingual services are not available currently. Or are you going to be looking at a more voluntary approach to providing services? Or are you going to be looking at coming down a little harder, say, on cable companies and forcing them to provide services in all markets, regardless of what's needed?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Obviously, the role of the regulator is not always to regulate. Sometimes things occur on their own. I was pleased to read the transcript from yesterday, where the cable industry, through CPAC, seemed quite eager to use the SAP technology to improve quite quickly distribution in the minority language across the country. But as the commission mentioned in its report on French language services, it still has the intention to start a public notice to look at this question.
The question is not just one of the availability of CPAC in the minority language, although that's your interest here today. One could also ask what should be the availability of CPAC in the official languages across the broadcasting system. The history of CPAC is odd, in that it was one of the first “specialty services” available, and one must ask whether it would be in the public interest to re-examine the availability of that service in both official languages.
So we're going to issue a PN within a couple of weeks, and we plan to look at the issue.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: That's fine.
• 1545
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Blais. You are the executive director. What, exactly, does an executive director do? You represent the CRTC. You speak on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am not a commissioner. I am a senior civil servant and I am in charge of the broadcast group at the Commission.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand.
Mr. Blais, radio and television signals are important for us, the francophone minority outside Quebec, just as they are important for anglophones in Quebec. As you know, for many years now we have been demanding access to French-language television networks. In Canada, the French-television services are rather poor.
We had some good news recently. The TVA network was supposed to provide us with local programming. We have yet to see it, but we live in hope. We have TV5 in certain areas. We have RDI on Radio- Canada. We have the Parliamentary network, and that is what I want to discuss with you.
As you explained in your preliminary remarks, the CRTC does not force the cable companies to broadcast the CPAC signal. That is clear. However, you encourage the cable distributors to use what is called SAP technology, that is, the second audio program.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We sometimes call it SPA in French.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: SAP is the English acronym. What is the French acronym?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is SPA.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So, the cable operators are asked to broadcast the two sound tracks. We learned yesterday that CPAC, up until now, did not broadcast west of Ontario; in western Canada, the French-language broadcast is not accessible or available. We were told that it would be broadcast today. I imagine this will be by satellite, because, to my knowledge, there is no network.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is a satellite-based distribution.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Therefore, CPAC will be broadcast in French in the French-language market and in English in the English-language market, with the second possibility made available through what we call SAP. If I have access to SAP, can I ask the CRTC to require cable operators to carry another sound track besides the floor sound and make it available to subscribers?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I cannot give you a decision today, because, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a Commissioner and I am not the Commission. However, as I mentioned in my notes, the Commission fully intends to examine this issue and issue a public notice. In our report on French-language services in the country we mentioned that we would examine this issue. The options available to the Commission range from encouraging distribution or the status quo all the way to using powers. I think that other witnesses mentioned that the Commission, under the Broadcasting Act, has other powers.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Blais, you do not require cable companies to do anything. You simply encourage them. This is paying lip service to the issue.
• 1550
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I was trying to indicate that I cannot tell you today what the Commission will decide. However, in the framework of what we will be examining, there is certainly the possibility of using our powers to force, to require, cable companies to broadcast the CPAC service in a second language.
As we mentioned, in the report on the French language, we could have merely said that there was the possibility of using the SAP service. But the Commission went further. It stated that we would begin a process. If we begin a process, it's because we are going to seriously examine an issue.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I were to tell you my preference, I would say that the CRTC, in my opinion, should require cable operators to carry both the English and French versions of CPAC, since it is easy to go back and forth from one to the other with a remote control. All we have to do is tell Canadians that it is possible. There are a lot of people who do not know this.
Second, I would say that the CRTC should require cable operators to provide the SAP option, so that we can exercise our right to watch the debates in the language of our choice.
Third, I would like the Parliament of Canada to provide closed captioning—this may come as a surprise to you—of the debates in the House of Commons and possibly in the Senate.
Fourth, I would like CPAC to carry three versions: the floor, French and English, with closed captioning subtitles, if possible, using SAP technology, so that all Canadians have access to the broadcast of Parliament's debates in both official languages of the country.
Mr. Blais, I would like to remind you that currently, for some reason that I do not understand, question period in the House of Commons—I am in the Senate, but I was in the House of Commons for 22 years—is broadcast and closed captioning is added in English, but not in French. Can you tell me why?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am not an expert in the field; however, as I explained earlier, the broadcasting of the debates in the House of Commons is done under an exemption as opposed to a licence from the Commission. My understanding of the agreement in place between the Speaker of the House of Commons and CPAC is that it stipulates the type of closed captioning that will occur; this is included in the contract.
However, I am taking note of your other comments. I will study them and add them to the public record. We invite you and other Canadians to participate in our public process to help us make good decisions. All of our decisions reflect the public record, to some extent. We recently published our report on French-language services outside of Quebec, and the report was very much strengthened by the input of Canadians.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Blais and Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to say that I completely agree with the report that you have published entitled Achieving a Better Balance.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, if you have other questions, there is a second round.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Put my name down for the second round.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is what I said.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Blais, hello.
I listened with great interest to your speech and I have a few questions to ask you.
On page 3 of your speech, in the first paragraph, you state:
I believe that you or the officials who advised you have read the report of Ms. Watson's statement yesterday. Ms. Watson of Rogers did not seem to say that it was a unique technical challenge. She seemed to state that it was relatively easy with modern technology to carry the three services, that is, the floor and the others.
Do you agree with Ms. Watson when she says that today, in the year 2001, it is not a particularly difficult challenge, that it can be done relatively easily?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I believe that Ms. Watson mentioned that they would need to install additional equipment to the some 600 cable head-ends throughout the country. I am not an engineer, but it would appear that, according to them, it is in fact possible.
• 1555
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You state later on, when referring to the commission:
This can be done with some good will. Ms. Watson promised us that it would be available everywhere starting tomorrow. Therefore, it's not a technical issue. It's an issue of good will. Do you agree with this?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think that it's a question of good will, yes, but there still needs to be some technical equipment installed in order to meet the objective.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Where there is a will, there is a way.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Apparently.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's right. Great. We agree.
What causes some concern for me is the end of your speech. Do not take it personally. You said that you were not the CRTC. You state:
That sounds to me like a minister who does not want to tell me anything. If it is in the Constitution of 1867, then it is mandatory to distribute the service in both official languages. This is nothing new. This goes back a hundred years, several decades.
Why does the Commission need to study this process if it comes under the Official Languages Act? You can study it all you want, but you may end up studying it to death. Why do you not simply make a decision first? You state further on:
In three months time, you will negotiate a contract with CPAC and in six months, you will issue a Public Notice. It seems to me that your timelines don't work out. Am I wrong?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I would like to clarify a few things.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The Commission does not negotiate the contract with CPAC. Our role is to regulate. We are the administrative tribunal that grants licences. The fact that we proceed by issuing Public Notices is a result of our nature, which is that of an administrative tribunal. We must provide interested parties an opportunity to present us with their comments before ruling. It is a process that must be transparent because of our obligations under the Broadcasting Act.
You referred to the Official Languages Act and the Constitution. These objectives are already part of the objectives that the Commission must apply under the Broadcasting Act. This is referred to on several occasions in our February report on minority French-language services.
When we studied the CPAC issue in the context of this report, the problem we had was that certain parties, justifiably, asked the following question: why was CPAC not available in the second language, in French outside of Quebec? The problem is that cable operators are not required to carry CPAC, even in the majority language.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But 84% of cable operators offer it.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We must be careful when regulating, that we do not stand to lose when we impose a condition. Therefore, we have to look at the big picture.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I ask you one more question? Would it be better not to enforce a law in order to ensure that the service is offered on a wider scale, or would it be better to apply the law, even if it means losing some viewers?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I don't think that that is the choice before us.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, no. You said that if we require them to respect the law, that the 84% may drop. I don't know, but personally, that does not seem right.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I explained, the Broadcasting Regulations do not currently require CPAC to be distributed.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but 84% of them offer it.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Receive it, yes.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And they are not required to provide it in both languages.
However, with some good will... We were shown maps yesterday. Throughout western Ontario, it will be offered in both languages. This is what Ms. Watson said and I believe her. It's a matter of wanting to do it.
Back to my question. It may be that I do not understand, because I am new on this committee. In three months, CPAC will be required to renegotiate its contract. There are no guidelines with respect to the Constitution and official languages, and you stated that after the contract is signed, the Commission will study the rules that would be imposed on CPAC when the contract is signed. If it is still a question of good will, what will happen?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The Commission was as clear as it could be in its report on French-language distribution, in indicating what it thought should be the policy. As well, there are other opportunities to meet with representatives from CPAC. There is a contract which will be coming up, and we also have this process that we are about to begin. Thus, we will continue to study the issue.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.
• 1600
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blais, you stated that cable operators are not required to distribute CPAC.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is correct. What happens—
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Why is it then that they do carry CPAC in one language or another, or in both languages?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think that cable operators have chosen to offer the CPAC service as a public service and also because it is run by the cable operators. It's in their interest as corporate citizens.
There are no language requirements in the current regulations.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could you require cable operators to distribute CPAC in both languages? You would not be able to require them to, isn't that right?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I believe that the Commission would have the legal and legislative authority to do so if it found that it was appropriate, following a public process.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If it thought that it was appropriate.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Here is what I mean by appropriate. Since we are a statutory tribunal, our rights and responsibilities stem from the Broadcasting Act, which outlines the objectives defined by Parliament regarding broadcasting issues.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How would you reply if I were to ask the following: why not require cable operators in each region to distribute CPAC in the language of the floor even if cable operators were to help those who do not know the second language by offering a second channel or a second number? If they were required to distribute CPAC in the language of the floor, I think that in many French-speaking regions they would be forced to wake up, because they would have to allow English-speaking viewers to watch CPAC in English. And in English-speaking regions, the anglophones would require cable operators to broadcast the debates in the original language, given that the House alternates between French and English. Many people could follow.
There are francophiles, anglophiles, unilingual anglophones and bilingual anglophones. There are also unilingual francophones and bilingual francophones. They say that there are many francophones in Canada. When we talk about languages, we always say that there are so many francophones here and so many anglophones there, but we forget that there are mixed marriages, that people are better educated than they were in 1867 and that many people in Canada speak and understand both languages, want to use both languages and encourage their children to speak both languages.
Here is my question. What stops you from requiring cable operators to offer the language of the floor and giving them the possibility of deciding if they want to add a second channel in some regions?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I mentioned, I believe that the Commission has all of the necessary powers to study this type of solution. I must reserve my right to decide as an administrative tribunal, because I cannot rule on the issue before having even begun the process. This is an option that we will study. It may just be that during the process, we may discover limitations that we don't know about today, but this is certainly a proposal that we will study during the process which will begin in a few weeks.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could you please tell me why a commissioner or the Chairman of the CRTC is not here today?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Unfortunately the Commission was sitting today. We were asked to appear today and, following discussions that we had with the clerk, it was decided that I would be acceptable. I am sure that Mr. Colville, the Chairman of the Commission or our Vice-Chairman, Ms. Wylie, would be happy to come and speak with you on this topic.
• 1605
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But we would have liked to have spoken with them, seeing as they...
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If you would allow me, I think Mr. Blais is right. We accepted because we were trying to finish the hearings before Easter so that—and I will discuss this further later—we could begin preparing a report, and it was important to hear from the CRTC.
If we would like to hear from Mr. Colville or Ms. Wylie, we are entirely free to invite them at some other time.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that update.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No, that's it.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid.
[English]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I'm no expert on the activities of the CRTC and how cable is regulated, so maybe you can help me out a bit here. How many channels is one required to carry as a cable distributor typically? Is it standardized across the country?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The obligations vary depending on the size of the cable system and the class. So let's take the example of the class one system—the vast majority of subscribers in Canada are served by class one systems. They have obligations to distribute all the over-the-air signals in the locality. In addition to that, there's an obligation on basic to distribute the Aboriginal Peoples Network, as well as, outside French markets, the TVA signal. On top of that, there are access rules with respect to specialty services that must be carried, depending on the majority language in the various areas.
Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. I imagine records are available as to what the viewership is for various channels that are carried, including the mandatory ones. Would that be correct?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As part of its functions, the commission does obtain viewership data from both BBM and Nielsen so it can fulfil its supervisory function.
Mr. Scott Reid: There's something of a discussion in the air here about the idea of making CPAC obligatory in either one or both languages, or perhaps in the floor language. Given that there is some viewership already for the non-mandatory CPAC coverage, I assume it would be possible to find out how many people are actually watching it in the areas where there is viewership, where it's available now, and we could compare it to those channels where there is obligatory coverage. Would it be possible for you to come back to us at some point indicating whether or not the viewership that exists now is sufficient to justify making it obligatory, so as to ensure that it's covered a bit more widely?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Although viewership is one of the factors one would consider in licensing or undertaking a particular regulatory action of the commission, there are other public interest objectives that may be at stake. Even when not a lot of people think a particular service would be useful, but some people think it is, the commission has as a mandate to offer choice to consumers. So with a bit of caution, I think we could find that information for you, but one mustn't extrapolate too far, saying that because the viewership is x, one is drawn to a particular conclusion.
Mr. Scott Reid: That's very well taken, and I'm glad you've made that point. But if, for example, one were to discover that there was a substantial interest in areas where it's offered voluntarily, then that would be a strong argument for making it obligatory, I would think.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It could also be an argument to say, well, since they're doing it, one needn't make it an obligation. One could argue both ways, I suppose.
Mr. Scott Reid: Great. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Bacon.
Senator Lise Bacon (De la Durantaye, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair. Mr. Blais, hello.
Before CPAC, it was the Canada Broadcasting Corporation that broadcast the proceedings of the House of Commons. At that time, did you require broadcasting to be in both languages?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I noticed that the question was asked earlier in the week and we had to search our archives, because I certainly was not with the Commission at that time. I think that I was not even in high school at that time.
Senator Lise Bacon: I remember.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Nonetheless, we did check them. The broadcasting field was very different at that time. There were neither specialized services nor the framework which exists today for specialized services. There were no requirements. The answer is no. At that time it was sort of “may carry.” If a specialized network already existed, which was actually not a specialized network at the time but a distribution mechanism, they were automatically told that they could distribute this Parliamentary service as well, and if there was no service of this type, all they had to do was ask permission of the Commission and it was added to their broadcast licence. There was no requirement to do so.
• 1610
Senator Lise Bacon: I am not sure if you have already answered this question, but could we not ensure through regulations that cable operators provide the CPAC signal in both of the official languages? Could this be one way of doing it?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I mentioned earlier, I believe that if we do decide to do so, there are a number of... We will begin this process and I do not want to anticipate the results. However, I think there are a number of options. In the case of APTN and TVNC, we used a power pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act. Thus, it was not really a regulation, but rather a binding order, so basically it is the same thing. Therefore, yes, there are powers available. Is it appropriate? That remains to be seen.
Senator Lise Bacon: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Ms. Thibeault.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Blais.
To follow along the same theme as senator Bacon, I must say that I am concerned. I am concerned because yesterday, as you know, CPAC representatives spoke with us. They had very good news. They were prepared to do everything they could, or a lot in any case, to televise the debates of the House of Commons in both languages. However, one thing came out of all of this: it is quite clear that they do not like to have things imposed upon them. Yet, we are in a situation where the House of Commons must renegotiate an agreement with CPAC in August of this year. However, CPAC will only renegotiate their contract with you one year later. So, what scares me now is that this debate that the CRTC intends to launch comes a bit too late.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I do not think that you should necessarily be concerned about the situation, because the fact that the Commission has stated that it will be studying the issue often pushes people to take a position that seems to support the distribution of the service in both languages. On the contrary, I think the fact that the commission is studying the issue may in fact encourage people to take a position.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You mentioned in your speech “quite soon.” What do you mean by that?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We are in the drafting and translating process now. We realized that not everyone has access to SAP and a lot of people do not think they have access to SAP, and so we want to have an information sheet at the same time to explain to people how it works. So we are in the process of putting the final touches on this process.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It will definitely be before the end of April.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Really? Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you Ms. Thibeault.
Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blais, I'm happy to see that there will be a debate to see how to follow up to CPAC. I think that it's important for all Canadians from coast to coast to have access to the debates of the House of Commons in order to watch and participate in the democratic debates.
You brought up a few points which I find interesting. You said that it is difficult to presume what we might be able to do given that we do not have all of the information from cable operators as to the issues they may have to deal with. However, if ever it happened, there must surely be some provision for the CRTC to ensure that, within a certain amount of time and with technologies or costs that may be higher than expected—I think that you must have people who are able to assess that—there will not be any red herrings which could draw out the process of setting up this network from one ocean to the other, even though Ms. Watson seems to demonstrate a great deal of good will, which is quite good.
• 1615
If we were to follow this route, would it be possible to say
that there is an alternative solution? Could we find some other way
of doing it if this were not possible? There may be some cable
operators who might not be able to. I don't think that is the case,
but is there an alternative solution to this, that will allow us to
set this up from one ocean to the other?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: All I can do is provide you with an example.
In the case of APTN, the Aboriginal service, there were a number of cable operators who were against this proposal. They expressed their point of view. They said that the public did not necessarily want this service, and that there were costs associated with it. Nonetheless, the Commission studied the issue and balanced all the objectives that we were targeting. The Commission decided that it was in the public interest to require this service to be carried.
I cannot anticipate what will be done in this process that we are about to start, but I think that there are options available. Will the situation really have changed that much in a few months? It may not be necessary for the Commission to act, but we will see.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Losier-Cool.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello Mr. Blais. I'm sorry that I missed the first part of your presentation. Perhaps you have already answered my question. I had another responsibility over in the Senate.
On page 3 of your presentation you refer to cable operators that offer a second audio stream. What is the proportion of Canadian viewers that have access to this audio stream?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I do not have the answer. We would like to obtain more information on this through our process.
We estimate that approximately 50% of television sets that are on the Canadian market currently have this internal equipment. However, it can also be obtained through a VCR. If you have a television set that is older, the combination may still allow you access.
A separate decoder can also be purchased, which costs approximately $100, and is placed beside the television set; it is not integrated.
To answer your question, at this point in time I do not have an answer. I do not know how many people in Canada have access to this technology. But it is something that we should know.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Is that what is meant by “wherever technically possible?”
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No. There is the subscriber at home on the receiving and, but there is also the issue of carriage over the broadcasting system. There are cable operators, particularly smaller ones, who may have fewer than 2000 subscribers, who do not necessarily have the cable head-end equipment to broadcast SAP over the broadcasting system.
So there are two sides to the story.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There are three people who want to ask questions: Senator Gauthier, Senator Maheu and myself. Are there any others?
Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Blais, in your comments, you mentioned licensees wishing to distribute programming from Parliament or the provincial legislatures, and you said that if they offer that service, they must include it in the basic service package. Did I understand correctly?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: CPAC is a consortium of cable operators, or an association of cable operators, in fact. You also said in your comments that CPAC did not apply for mandatory carriage.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Back in 1994.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: But the CRTC, Mr. Blais, can make that a condition of licence renewal. Yes or no?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In order to require distribution of a programming service, in full or in part, the legal relationship has to be with the distributor, not the programming undertaking.
• 1620
So if you want results, if you want, for example, the service
broadcast in French, the CRTC has to deal with the distribution
undertaking, not the programming undertaking.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You mentioned three things: the French market, the English market and the Canadian market. Could you give me a definition of the French market, the English market and the Canadian market? If you do not have it, you can send it to me in writing or send it to the clerk.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Okay, I can send you that.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not complicated.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Of course not. We have a definition of the French market that is a bit outdated, given the findings in our recent report. Distinguishing between English and French markets is still somewhat useful for regulatory purposes, but...
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can you send me that?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, I will send you that.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because your answer is counted as part of my time, you see.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Okay.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The chairman is going to cut me off.
I wanted to discuss your report: In Achieving a Better Balance.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I took part in the public consultation, as you know. I provided you with a relatively substantial document, which you probably read.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your reaction to the order-in- council, right?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We quite rightly started the process before the order-in-council. Other matters have piggybacked on our process, but it is basically our response to the order-in-council. Still other processes are needed to finalized the details, but the fundamentals are there.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Blais, this report raises many issues that we are not currently dealing with. I hope that one day, Mr. Chairman, we are going to take this report seriously and study it with you or with others.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I would be happy to come back.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Unless it is as a result of the CRTC's refusal to allow mandatory carriage of TFO in Quebec. That is why you were required to pay particular attention to that. Now, you said you had already started. Yes, I know. You have always been known for your open-mindedness toward minority official language groups. Up until you turned TFO down, all was well. That made me mad. I cannot talk about it because I am in court, but we will come back to that one day.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Be careful. That is sub judice.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, we will have to come back to that issue.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am willing to provide copies of my factum to all members and senators who would be interested in reading it.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You are free to send it to everyone.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is an easy read.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Mr. Blais, I am compelled to ask you something. You say that in the beginning, the CRTC felt it was in the public interest to distribute APTN. If both official languages are not in the public interest in Canada, what is the public interest?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is certainly a very interesting question, and I will explain why. For the CRTC, the public interest is defined by the objectives set out at subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act. That provision refers to Aboriginal minorities, but also to French-language services for francophone minorities outside francophone markets, and vice versa for anglophones in francophone markets. So I think Canada's official bilingualism objective is found in the objectives set out at subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Shirley Maheu: So what are you waiting for?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: When it wants to exercise its jurisdiction, the CRTC must take those objectives into account.
Senator Shirley Maheu: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to have the answer that will be sent to Senator Gauthier. What is the Canadian market? You spoke of three markets. Perhaps you should send the explanation of those three markets to all committee members.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, I was going to do that.
Senator Shirley Maheu: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Could you be a bit more specific with respect to the schedule for the up coming CRTC hearings on the CPAC issue? You mentioned that notice would be sent out in late April.
• 1625
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Public notice will be given in April because we want members of the general public to participate. It is not public notice to associations, but to everyone, really. We will give people at least 60 days to submit their comments. Once everything has been received, CRTC staff will make recommendations to members. So we should have a decision by the end of summer or early September or October.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In the fall, then.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That brings me to my second question, which at least two committee members have raised. It is about the situation we are currently in. The existing contract between the House and CPAC expires at the end of August, yet CPAC's CRTC licence expires in August 2002.
Here is my first question; depending on your answer, I may have another one. If the licensing conditions were changed or different from the conditions in an agreement, which would take precedence? When I say agreement, I mean an agreement with the House of Commons. If the House renews its agreement, signs a new agreement with the CRTC this summer, and we find ourselves in the fall with conditions set by the CRTC that run counter to those in the agreement, what takes priority?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Unfortunately, like all regulatory issues, it is a bit more complicated than that. The problem is that CPAC is in fact two entities. There is the exempt entity, and that covers the debates of the House of Commons and its committees. That is not renewable because there is no licence; it is exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence. Public affairs activities other than the debates of the House, however, are subject to renewal because they involve an editorial element.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If the House wanted to know what the CRTC thought about this whole issue, perhaps it should enter into a short-term contract in order to reflect the CRTC's wishes in a subsequent contract if necessary.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, that would be an option. It is not for me to tell the House what to do, but that is an option.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is an option. Thank you.
I would like to go back to your report, In Achieving a Better Balance. The main finding of the CRTC's report is that a better balance is needed between English and French services, but that is apparently couched in a digital world, maybe not right away but later, which leads me to ask a question. Later could be very soon, because digital television is arriving quite fast in Canada. In your hearings, are you going to take into account current conditions? Will you be dealing with the world as we presently know it, or will you deal mostly with the digital world?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Both, I imagine. We have to consider the current situation and the future. You say the digital future has not yet arrived, but there are half a million digital cable subscribers and over a million digital satellite subscribers. So there are already a lot of subscribers.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is it conceivable to have two sets of regulations or wishes, one for non-digital, or analogue, and another for digital?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think all options are open.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. There are two other committee members who have asked for the floor: Mr. Sauvageau and Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A few people have referred to your document. At the beginning of your document, in paragraph 8, there is a table that makes reference to knowledge of French. Why not refer to the use of French, like we usually do? Could you please explain that to me.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is because the proposed CRTC policy included the idea of knowledge of French, but the CRTC eventually abandoned that test. It became moot in the process we started. In fact, the CRTC preferred to use knowledge of French rather than mother tongue. In its proposed policy, the CRTC had suggested using this test, but at the end of the day, the test is even broader. No language test was used to create obligations for cable operators.
• 1630
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I understand what you are saying, and you are right, but when I look at tables that refer to the use of French, they appear to me to encompass more than tables that refer to knowledge of French. Am I to understand that you used to use the language test, but no longer do?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We had proposed its use as part of this process, but in the end, because of the comments of stakeholders, we decided not to use a language test, but to create a country-wide requirement, period.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Statistics Canada has tables on language use at home for 1991 and 1996, and now I learn that Statistics Canada has other statistics on knowledge of French. Usually, these tables refer to the language used at home. Here, and I do not think I see this often, you are referring to knowledge of French. Is there any reason for that?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The word “knowledge” is broader, because francophiles outside the country had knowledge of the language, but were not necessarily using it at home.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are right that it is broader, but on the other hand, it is dangerous. When I look at the statistics on knowledge of French, they appear to paint a very rosy picture, because the numbers are up across the board, but when I look at the table on the use of French, I see that the numbers are down across the board. Do you not think that could create a—?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That may be one of the reasons why the CRTC dropped that test.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Understood.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blais, if the agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC expires, what will the CRTC do?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We will have to consider whether the activities of the House are consistent with our exemption. I mentioned that the debates of the House can be broadcast without a licence because a licence exemption was granted in 1992, but you must comply with the conditions of that exemption.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is the language designation of the Ottawa area in CRTC regulations?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Before we began the report process, the Ottawa area was defined as a non-francophone market. That is actually one of the reasons, in large part, why we abandoned that idea in the report we just adopted. The concept of a francophone or non-francophone market is a bit obsolete in some ways.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The former designation of Ottawa was as an anglophone market, but it is no longer an issue of French or English.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is still of some use in terms of the obligation to offer the old specialized analogue services, but looking toward the future, the impact will—
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is the current status?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Today, for analogue services, it is a non-francophone market.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You are subject to the Official Languages Act, are you not?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In some respects, yes.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In some respects? Tell me in what respects the act does not apply to you.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am merely echoing what the Commissioner of Official Languages said herself in her recent report on CPAC. She recognizes that we act in a quasi-judicial capacity. When we are wearing our quasi-judicial hat, the act does not apply, except to our process. So we proceed bilingually for our hearings, et cetera. This is all somewhat academic, because the objectives of the Official Languages Act are found at any rate in the objectives of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Blais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am pleased with what you just said, because Mr. Goldbloom, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, used to say "bilingual market". Even the annual report he co-signed with Ms. Adam refers to the bilingual market. You refer to French and English markets. I asked what you meant by that and by Canadian market. I asked for a definition.
• 1635
My question is about something else: captioning. Am I naive to
think that one day soon, in a few years, the CRTC will require
parliamentary or legislative programming, for example, to include
or be broadcast with captioning in the other official language?
That would be beneficial to folks like me, who are deaf. It might
also help people to learn the other language by giving them a
chance to read what is going on. Orally, it would be an important
teaching tool. Do you think the CRTC will deal with the issue of
captioning soon?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The issue of services for people with a loss of hearing or sight is of great concern to the CRTC whenever television services are renewed. We consider this issue whether we are dealing with specialized or conventional services. You were asking about the debates of the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the debates of the House of Commons operate under an exemption and are not licensed.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understood your argument.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is not an argument.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: But if you leave it up to cable operators to ask, they will not. You said so yourself, they have not asked yet. So I am asking you whether we should not, at the House of Commons—because we are talking only about the House of Commons or the Senate—give CPAC the signal with captions? What is your opinion?
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think you should look at the agreement that was signed between the Speaker of the House and CPAC in the past. The issue of captioning was raised back then, and perhaps it should be raised again. But for parliamentary debates, I think the question should be directed to the Speaker of the House, because there is no exemption.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, we covered this with Mr. Milliken the other day.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: He told us what Mr. Parent had told us, that it would be prohibitively expensive. But no one has given us any evidence of that. We were simply told it would be expensive. I have told you that my guardian angel, here on my right, does not cost me very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Gauthier, if you do not mind, I am going to ask all members to stay here for just a few minutes after I thank Mr. Blais for accommodating our schedule and coming here today.
I am not kicking any one out of the room. This is not an in camera meeting. There are a couple of little things to deal with, and that will cover what you brought up, Mr. Gauthier.
So, on behalf of the committee, thank you, Mr. Blais, for coming here today, and we do look forward to your work in this area, the upcoming work of the CRTC.
Ladies and gentlemen, with your permission, I have four small items to report. First, if the committee is in agreement, we would like to invite Ms. Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, to appear on April 24 for two reasons: first, to review her latest annual report; in addition, she would like to release a report that is an offshoot of that annual report. I told her I would convey her wishes to the committee today to see whether we could agree on her appearance on April 24. That would be the first meeting after we come back.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, is the Commissioner going to table her report?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, it is the annual report that was tabled some time ago.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): When she is here, she would like to release to the committee a report from a study that was an offshoot of the annual report. That is the first thing.
Second, you have before you the minutes from the sub- committee. For purely procedural reasons, they have to be adopted, if you are willing.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Moved by Mr. Sauvageau, and seconded by Mr. Bellemare.
(The motion is carried)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Third,
[English]
I would like permission to present to the body that allocates funding for travel a sum of money, a number, that we would ask them to take into consideration in the preparation of their funding of travel. I'm wording this carefully, because I'm not seeking for the committee to buy into the travel itself, the trip itself. We've talked about this long enough. It would be to visit communities to see how the application of section 41 is actually carried out in the communities.
• 1640
I understand there may be difficulties in getting the
green light to travel at this time, and I'm not seeking
that at this time. What I'm seeking is permission from
this committee to make representations, with Senator
Maheu, so the group that decides on allocating funds
can at least be aware that we have this in mind. The
amount of money is a ballpark figure of $250,000 to
$300,000.
[Translation]
Are there any questions?
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is if we use our travel points.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is if we use our travel points.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Right.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you ask for money to travel, it is because you intend to travel.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am not talking about that.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Has the committee accepted that proposal?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, not yet.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: When that comes before the subcommittee, please report that to us, because I have some things to say about that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): OK. All I want today is the committee's consent for us to make representations to the decision-making body and to tell that body that we could perhaps travel this year and that it should take that into consideration when it makes the budgets. That is all.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, you have the committee's consent to do that.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is there any dissent?
[Translation]
Fine. Thank you.
Fourth, as to the dates, the green light and all that, we will get back to you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Chairman, on that point, Mr. Sauvageau said we would use our points. We will have to ask permission because that comes out of public accounts, and the Senate is not entitled.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Let's go on to the last point.
Ever since we began studying the CPAC issue, there has been some discussion about a report to the House. The Speaker of the House would apparently like to have a report. Can we agree on tabling a report?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I hope so.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would say in all sincerity that it is time we looked at the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We decided that would be on April 24.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In that report, the CPAC issue takes up 13 lines. That is not much. They did not even look into it. I am asking you, the joint chairs, to seriously consider putting consideration of the annual report on this committee's agenda.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That will be on April 24; we have already decided that. The first point I raised was the appearance of the Commissioner of Official Languages on April 24. The meeting will deal with her annual report.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am looking at what was passed around.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Before that, we decided that on April 24, the Commissioner of Official Languages would come to discuss her annual report. That was a unanimous decision.
Finally, if you have any suggestions—and I am coming back to Senator Gauthier—you would like included in the report we will present to the House and Senate on CPAC, please get in touch with our researchers before the break, in others words, this week.
If you are in agreement, on April 25, in camera, I would like us to consider a draft version of the report to be presented.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How many pages do I get for my dissenting report? I am just kidding.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As many as you want.
So, Senator Gauthier, the question you raised earlier about captioning will, I do hope, be part of our report, but I do not want to make any assumptions. The committee will study that in camera on April 25. Is that OK with everyone?
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: I know I have missed some meetings, but apparently we are going to have two meetings per week, and there will be one on Wednesday.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: It's very complicated on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If there's only one meeting a week, we won't be able to get all our work done.
When we come back, on the 24, it's the Commissioner of Official Languages. The meeting will deal with her Annual Report and another document she would like to present to us and it will be televised. On the 25, at an in camera meeting, we will examine the draft report on CPAC. Is that agreeable?
• 1645
Any further questions or comments?
I wish you all a happy Easter.
The meeting is adjourned.
