LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 5, 1998

• 1538

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I see quorum for the official languages committee.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Madame Françoise Bertrand of the CRTC.

[Translation]

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you. Would you please introduce the members of your delegation.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand (Chairperson, Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission): With pleasure. Good day I will allow these people to introduce themselves and describe what they do.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Charman (Director General, Broadcast Distribution and Technology Branch, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Wayne Charman, director general, broadcast distribution and technology.

[Translation]

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches (Manager, French Radio-television, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Anne-Marie DesRoches, French Radio-television.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Senior legal advisor, Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission): Jean-Pierre Blais, senior legal advisor.

[English]

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Susan Baldwin, executive director, broadcasting.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Welcome to you all. I thank you for your brief, which is very attractively done. I hope the general population is going to have access to this brief. I wondered if in the course of your presentation you would tell us how this brief is being circulated so the general population who's interested might be able to use it and speak with you.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, certainly.

[Translation]

Good afternoon. First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity you are giving me not only to present to the Standing Committee on Official Languages the Commission's new Vision, but also to explain the measures we are taking in order to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. Sharing this information will prepare us for the discussion period scheduled after my presentation, and allow us to look more closely at these issues.

• 1540

[English]

Over the past year the commission has begun to refocus itself to both keep abreast and respond quickly to the drastic changes occurring in the communications environment. That is why we have developed a strategic plan and an action calendar for the next three years and announced them publicly last September.

To give meaning to our vision, we needed to understand the environment in which we evolve. It is being transformed by three major factors: first, the gradual disappearance of the telecommunications monopoly and the opening up of markets to competition; second, convergence where telecommunications, broadcasting, and computers are interconnecting; third, and this is where the challenge really lies, the emergence of new technology platforms and new contents launched on the information highway called the Internet.

Despite the changing environment that informed and underpinned our review, it is important to say that we are still reaffirming and supporting the objectives of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts and that we are doing everything in our power to achieve them. On the other hand, we feel it necessary to rethink our tools in the context of new technologies emerging and where we must take into account the cultural diversity of our country and its linguistic reality based on two official languages.

Furthermore, the challenge confronting the CRTC is to maintain a fair balance of the cultural, social, and economic objectives established by governmental policies while contributing to shape both today's and tomorrow's communications environment. Striking this balance is not easy, because we have to reconcile those that are sometimes conflicting.

Our vision statement, world-class quality communications with a distinct Canadian presence in the public interest, has become the guiding principle of our actions and decisions.

To materialize our vision and ensure the CRTC serves, above all, the public interest, we are committed to promote an environment in which existing and new communications services are available to Canadians; ensure a strong Canadian presence in content that fosters creative talents and reflects Canadian society, including Canada's linguistic duality and cultural diversity; promote choice and diversity of high-quality communication services; and foster strong competitive and socially responsive communications industries.

[Translation]

Under the Broadcasting Act, the Commission has the obligation to ensure that Canada's Voices are expressed in both official languages. As a reminder, the Act states that the broadcasting system is a single system, while specifically recognizing the difference between French- and English-language broadcasting. In addition, the Act clearly defines the responsibilities of the CRTC in this matter.

Accordingly, and given an environment where competition, convergence and emergence of new technologies are creating a communications landscape of endless possibilities, the Commission has recently licensed several undertakings offering new services, this reflects the importance we give to providing broader choice for Canadians and preparing for the communications universe of the 21st century.

In more practical terms, the introduction of competition allowed some companies to consolidate their activities and strengthen their presence, here and abroad. For example: the purchase of Télévision Quatre Saisons by Québécor makes a solid contribution to French-language broadcasting and we believe that, thanks to the programming commitments of TQS, it will contribute to the vitality of the independent production sector, and create a synergy between different types of media; the acquisition of CF Cable by Vidéotron will strengthen the cable industry in Quebec, while ensuring the public interest continues to be served; and in New Brunswick, when Fundy proceeded to the consolidation of the company a few years ago, they committed to provide a variety of French-language services. TFO, an educational service, was also integrated into their basic programming service.

The evolution of technology is a source of both opportunities and challenges. One of our concerns, as a regulator, is to ensure the protection and promotion of the development of services in both official languages. This will provide consumers with increased choices in distribution systems, as well as in contents.

Since contents reflect and are the expression of a society, we have focused, and will continue to do so in the coming months, on Canadian content which stands with the best the world has to offer. That is why we must work towards developing public policies supporting the production, promotion and distribution of Canadian television programs in a variety of formats.

• 1545

[English]

Today we are saying if distribution is queen, then content is king. As consumers, we are eager for content responding to our needs and interests, and digital technology will soon give us access to custom-designed products. This is where we must focus our attention.

Canadian content, in English and in French, is about more than the forces of technology, regulation, and globalization. It is about the work of our creators, who must be served and supported by these forces. We know that Canadians will watch Canadian content when it's available. In Quebec, for example, 85% of television viewers are watching domestic programs, and this is not only because of language. What this shows us is that long-term investment in Canadian programming is without a doubt a paying proposition.

We were recently holding a public hearing on the possibility of creating a third national television network. Following this proceeding, we received an application from the TVA network for a national French-language broadcasting licence. Their application will be examined shortly.

We will surely have additional opportunities to review the regulatory measures concerning content, since we will be holding public hearings at the end of September on Canadian content in television. These will be followed by other hearings, first in French and then in English, on specialty channels. We have used the same approach for the radio industry and our decision was made public last Thursday.

Our radio policy framework aims at maintaining a balance between three major elements: first, Canadian artists must hold a place of pride on Canadian radio airwaves; second, a distinctive French-language presence in radio broadcasting must be assured; and finally, the radio industry must be positioned financially to achieve its obligations under the act and to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Accordingly, the commission felt the time was ripe for an increase from 30% to 35% in the level of popular music played each week on English-language radio stations. What this means in practical terms is that a radio station playing 200 musical selections will now play 10 more Canadian tunes per day.

[Translation]

Regulation of radio broadcasting, particularly French-language broadcasting, has always had two main objectives: to support a francophone recording industry in Canada and to ensure that francophones have access to music reflecting their culture.

We believe that this regulatory approach to French-language broadcasting is still relevant. It has enabled the production of an impressive inventory of French-language recordings. Consequently, all francophone AM and FM radio stations are expected to maintain the current level of at least 65% of French-language popular music broadcast each week. We believe that percentage is essential to give the French language an adequate presence in radio.

In addition, to ensure maximum exposure to francophone artists in prime time listening periods, from now on 55% of their music will be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., each week day. Also, French-language selections will have to be played in their entirety.

When we hold our Public Hearings on television content, we will examine how we can maximize, in the smaller Canadian market, the profitability of English- and French-language programs. Thanks to partnerships and business alliances, we believe that Canadian broadcasters will be able to increase their economic potential and diversify their products.

As I mentioned earlier, we will examine in late fall the applications of undertakings offering specialty services in French and in English. In this regard, it is interesting to note that, relative to the number of subscribers, the ratio of French-language services per capita is higher that that of English-language services.

[English]

Over the last few years the commission has focused on creating and nurturing a climate encouraging competition and convergence, which in turn led to the emergence of new technological platforms. After 30 years of monopoly in the cable television industry and considering the new options provided by technology, the CRTC opened the distribution market to competition in order to better achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

• 1550

Digital technology largely increases the variety of choices, and soon it will allow viewers to put together service packages corresponding to their interests and responding to their needs, which does not mean that pay-per-view service will be immediately available. These packages must continue to be offered if we want to ensure they are made available at reasonable costs.

Let's take, for example, the direct broadcasting services from Star Choice and ExpressVu. They offer three types of packages: all French, all English, and bilingual packages. However, even if the framework is competitive, reality is still monopolistic.

Because of the current costs related to the implementation of new technologies, we recognize that actual consumer choices are not as numerous as they should be. Hence we are looking at licensing new distributors to promote competition.

For all that, is competition the universal remedy to all consumer problems? At first glance, no. But it can help resolve some of them.

This is where the commission steps in with the firm intention of ensuring that Canadians are protected and that the cultural objectives established in our acts are respected.

In line with this thinking, the CRTC announced its new distribution policy on December 22 and opened up the marketplace to competition, while setting some guidelines for a fair, sustainable competition.

[Translation]

Before this policy, the Commission only took into consideration the geographic location of technical facilities and granted distribution priority to stations having transmitters located in the same province. For example, in Ottawa, Hamilton stations had priority over Hull stations. The new regulation we adopted introduces the concept of a "National Capital Market" within which all Outaouais Region stations, Quebec and Ontarian, have priority on both sides of the river. This means that, from now on, CHOT and CFGS are broadcast in priority in Ottawa, instead of the Hamilton stations.

We are nevertheless aware that this is not a perfectly ideal situation and that several French-language services are not yet available across Canada.

That is why, in the coming months, we will be reviewing the access rules (or the bilingual market concept) allowing to prioritize a category of services against another. Among others, we will examine the concept of francophone and anglophone markets, and look at how Canadian services in both official languages could be distributed more widely throughout the country.

Let me give you a concrete example related to this issue. Timmins is a region where 50% of the population is anglophone and 39% is francophone. According to the current definition of the CRTC, this market is considered anglophone. Obviously, given the large proportion of francophones in the area, we will have to review our definition to increase the market supply for French-language services. Above and beyond choices, I believe we have an obligation, as francophones, to want services in our maternal tongue and to be responsible for these choices, individually and collectively.

As you can see, our approach to regulation evolves to keep pace with technological changes. This being said, regulation is not an absolute tool. For their part, market rules are efficient. Technological developments could address some issues related to service distribution in both official languages in communities where they are spoken by a minority. When digital capacity will be fully operational, distributors will be able to provide more service packages, and subscribers will be in a position to choose the services they want in the language of their choice.

[English]

In closing, I do not want to leave you with the impression that all is in order in the broadcasting and telecommunications sector. Tough challenges lie ahead, and the stakes are very high for government, industry, consumers, and society as a whole.

The commission monitors closely the impact of its policies on Canadians. We welcome any suggestions, modifications, and innovative solutions inasmuch as they will benefit the citizens of this country by providing them access to programming and services in the language of their choice.

• 1555

I thank you for your attention and will gladly answer your questions.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Madame la présidente.

I'd like to ask you for clarification on two statements you made, please.

On page 7, in the second paragraph, you say,

[Translation]

"Let me give you a concrete example related to this issue." You said that the CRTC's current definition made Timmins an anglophone market. Could you tell me where, in the legislation on the CRTC or in the Broadcasting Act, it states what percentage the CRTC must use in its decision to define a market as anglophone or francophone?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: It's based on policies and regulations that stem from the Broadcasting Act that we have established rules to define whether a market is francophone or anglophone for distribution purposes.

In this area, the rule was submitted for consultation, as we normally do in a public process. The rule was reviewed about 11 years ago...

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: In 1987.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: ...through a public process. The rule adopted says that a percentage of 50% plus one determines whether a market is francophone or anglophone.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So you're telling me it is a regulation. I know it is certainly not in the law.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, it's not.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, and having done the broadcast and CRTC bills at three different stages in my life in this House, I don't recall any discussion of that nature. So you're telling me this is an internal regulation of the CRTC that came from a consultation.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, it's the public process in order to establish the access rules and the distribution rules, and it's the policy we had at the time. I suppose from time to time it's been reviewed, but it's always done based on the public process. We have to define concrete and manageable ways to be able to implement policies and rules.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So you're telling me, Madame Bertrand, that over an 11-year period, you haven't seen fit to re-examine the percentage of distribution that defines whether it's bilingual so they could have equal access, or whether it is to be anglophone because it's more than 50% plus one? Is that what you're telling me—in 11 years?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I'm telling you it hasn't been revised and we're about to do it now.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And you have sent out a notice to that effect? Has it gone out as public notice?

Ms. Anne-Marie DesRoches: What has come out right now—and it's in the vision calendar that came out two weeks ago—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I've seen the vision calendar.

Ms. Anne-Marie DesRoches: —is that we will be reviewing some of the access rules dealing with the video broadcast distribution undertaking regulations.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): My question is quite specific. I've read your vision statement. I know something about that Broadcasting Act. I do not know anything about what you're talking about. Where have you mentioned that you will be revising those regulations? They are not rules; they are regulations.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It comes under the hat of access policy on the vision calendar statement. We don't refer to it, because there are other issues associated with it. It is a subset of access. So anywhere you see “Review of access”, it would fall under that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So it would apply to francophone or anglophone access to radio or television. Is that right?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's correct.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Fine, thank you.

The second definition and clarification that we require as a committee, please, is found on page 5 in the paragraph just above “Variety of Choices Ensured Through Multiple Distribution Channels”. At the end of that paragraph, which starts,

[Translation]

"As I mentioned earlier", it says:

In this regard, it is interesting to note that, relative to the number of subscribers, the ratio of French-language services per capita is higher than that of English-language services.

[English]

Could you explain that, please?

Ms. Anne-Marie DesRoches: We have 11 French-language specialty services. In the speech, we were relating to the French specialty services. When we take the population, the population with French as their mother tongue is 7.4 million or 7.8 million, depending on the statistics and on whether you use the 1991 or the 1996 figures.

• 1600

You have 29 English-language specialty services for a population of 23 million English-speaking people. So you have a ratio of 1.49 services per capita for the French-language services and 1.27 for the English-language services.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are the French services Canadian-based, versus the English services, which are American, Canadian, and British?

Ms. Anne-Marie DesRoches: We are talking strictly about Canadian specialty services.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: These are the ones licensed by the commission.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Canadian.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes.

Ms. Anne-Marie DesRoches: We were referring to the fact that the commission has granted a lot of licences to Canadian services, both French and English, in order to increase that balance. We were talking about Canadian English and French specialty services.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: But it's the overall licensing process itself. You have to look at it from market to market, and it may be different from situation to situation and market to market. In terms of the whole population, the overall statistics, although we can say that there are fewer services in absolute terms, relatively, it's an interesting figure given the small markets we have that are designed as francophone markets.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. Breitkreuz, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank you for coming to make your presentation to this committee.

I would like to pursue what you raised earlier in your first clarification. It's about why these regulations haven't been changed insofar as the percentage of francophones or anglophones. I suppose the biggest reason they haven't changed.... You can clarify this. Has there been a public outcry or demand that these francophone services be increased where there is a 20% or 25% francophone population?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In the last launch of specialty channels, especially around the Ottawa region, there have been some complaints about the fact that out of the new French services that were being launched, the Ottawa subscribers of cable really got access strictly to the new English specialty channels and had no access to the new French specialty channels.

The rules are that Ottawa is recognized as an anglophone market. The cable distributor had the right to make an English offering in terms of the specialty services. In theory, he was free to do so.

There have been a lot of complaints about that situation, and that has brought us to raise a question. Over the years there have been complaints here and there, but the capacity of the distributor was not such that we could extend the offer without retracting some of the services that were already there.

What we see—this is not going digital, it's even in analogue form—are some possibilities to expand the offer, and maybe we could reconsider the definition of the market that would allow for a better representation for all the subscribers of the different services. Those will be the rules that we'll be requestioning with a due public process. We'll go with all the comments on it so that we can really carefully study the question.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: With this new digital programming, will consumers be forced to buy a whole marketing package, or will they be able to selectively purchase those cable stations they prefer and not pay for a whole range of others they don't want?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The technology in the near future—we can define that as three, five, seven, or eight years, but it's very difficult to put a time on this—will bring us the possibility of having channels on demand, and only those. The technology will be there.

• 1605

The question we'll have to consider is what's the capacity for those Canadian services to live by only a small number of subscribers? Is it possible? Is it possible to live on a decent rate for a subscriber if we were to go that route? Those will be the elements we'll have to weigh and balance when the real technological capacity is there.

At this point in time, it is really not a possibility, because only DTH, direct-to-home satellite services, can deliver digital technology as we speak. Cable, which is really the main distributor of television signals in all our households, is still in analogue mode, so the possibility of the addressability to the client and the subscriber is not yet there. So it's not an immediate question. But definitely, when the technology is there, that will be a very serious question.

We think it has to be weighed against the different objectives. On one hand, the client and the subscriber want to have freedom of choice and choose whatever they want each time. On the other hand, as a whole, as a country, as a society, what do we choose? Do we choose to chip in and support a Canadian broadcasting system? That will be the question in front of us at that time.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: What I'm getting at, Madam Chair, is why should a francophone in Quebec who chooses not to watch any English television be forced to buy the programming? Of course it's vice versa out west or in a lot of the other provinces.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The situation, as we speak, is about an analogue system. It's not a technology that can be addressable to the subscriber. It is the rule of the common denominator, the majority. The majority of French-speaking people have been over the years used to having both French and English services. I think you'd have a big outcry in Quebec if you were to remove the English services.

It may not be the same thing in the English communities where there are some French services. Maybe there it wouldn't be a big outcry, but certainly it would be that way in Quebec.

For now, it's not possible to address this to the various subscribers. This world will come with digital technology being rolled out. DTH is already offering that in a limited way because the space on the satellite is not such yet that you can have all the signals, the full addressability. It's a matter of years until that availability.

That's why I say that at that time we will have a hard choice to make as Canadians. The commission can hold the public process, but the question will be put to the Canadians: What do we choose? Do we choose fewer services but have the ones we really want, or do we still want a system in which we feel there's a lot of diversity and even if we find sometimes that the cable rates are high, it is still pretty reasonable for the quantity of services we get?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: For example, in the Edmonton market there's only the one public French station, which is, of course, the CBC. It's taxpayer-sponsored in spite of the fact that there's a viewing audience of fewer than 1,000 there. Yet it costs $2 million to $3 million to operate. I think that's bad use of the taxpayers' dollars, and of course it certainly isn't serving the majority of the consumers.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The rule and policy is to serve the objectives of the act. We understood that there was a willingness to support the two elements, the duality of French and English, all across Canada, but also a public and private system in both languages. That's the choice we as a majority of Canadians have made.

We can reconsider. As for people in Edmonton, certainly there are some services they don't appreciate. In other cities and markets, it's others. That's really a kind of balance. But I understand exactly what you're saying.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: It certainly isn't what the Canadian majority is saying, it's what the Ottawa government here is foisting upon Canadians.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You just have to switch the button if you don't like it.

Continue, please.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Sure, but I'm still paying for it. That's the whole point: I'm still paying for it.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's why you're a Canadian.

• 1610

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: That's why I'm not a Liberal, that's for sure.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Aren't we lucky.

You have one minute left, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I guess I'll just finish by saying this. I thought the CRTC was mostly involved in Canadian content engineering, but obviously that's not the case, as it's heavily involved in linguistic engineering as well. We sure got an earful this afternoon.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, if you please.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Thank you all for coming here today to testify.

I would like to talk to you about French broadcasting services outside Quebec. I have had a little research done on five issues by my party's researchers' and I would like your opinion on the validity of the conclusions of this research.

It seems that francophones are clearly disadvantaged. First, in Ottawa, where they make up 20% of the population, Rogers offers 16% of its broadcasts in French. In the Outaouais, where anglophones make up 16% of the population, Vidéotron offers 55% of its broadcasts in English. In Edmundston, New Brunswick, where francophones make up 92% of the population, 26% of the services are in French. In Bathurst, where francophones make up 34% of the population, Fundy Cable offers 26% of its broadcasts in French. In Montréal, where anglophones are 13% of the population, according to Statistics Canada, Vidéotron offer 50% of its broadcasts in English; in the east end of Montréal, 57% of the signals are in English.

On the other hand, francophones are worried about the fact that the CRTC says in its documents and its president's speeches that it intends to let the market regulate itself. In a CRTC Telecom Public Notice published December 22nd, number 150, Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, which applies to all major signal distributors, the CRTC stipulates that the anglophone market has no obligations towards the minority, except for basic services, where it must broadcast certain signals.

Given such a policy, naturally I am worried. There are also demands from people in New Brunswick who cannot get, for example, Musique Plus, or Canal Vie, or CPAC French; there is even a part of the population that cannot get RDI. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes is presenting a number of demands to the CRTC.

I would like to know how you answer in terms of the power you have to make French culture more available and to give francophones the right to benefit from broadcasting.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I would say that those are only statistics. We may not have exactly the same facts, but in the documents we sent you we arrive at the same conclusions. That's why we have taken the initiative, given the reactions we have observed during the last year especially, of revising our regulations. We don't want to say that trend isn't there. However, we think that when the facts are given to us, if they coincide with a growing technological and financial ability to support better service, it is our duty to rethink the issue. That is what we are going to do.

Personally, I am a Rogers subscriber in the Ottawa region and I do not have access to the new French language service, except when I go to Montréal when I turn on my television at the office, which does not happen very often, as you can imagine. So I see clearly where the problem is. I also see it in the regions where the French communities work hard to keep their culture and their language. As a result, our Commission is certainly open to any request and is willing to consider these issues insofar as there is a greater possibility of supporting and helping them. That is what we will be doing during the next year.

• 1615

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I am pleased to hear of your good intentions. I have always noted them in your statements. However, I have to ask myself why the CRTC didn't require all signal distributors to offer a percentage of optional French channels on top of the basic service. That is my first question

Second, it is normal that channels be broadcast according to the market, but francophones in Canada should be assured access to services in French. In other words, I am asking you to tell us that you will act firmly and not only induce people to act.

I will conclude by saying that you issue regulations to favour the distribution of Canadian content. Last week, for example, you decided to increase to 35% the Canadian content for radio stations, but you kept the French content for francophone radio at 65 per cent. I agree with you about that. But why, when it comes to francophones outside Quebec, do we have to let the market decide what will be offered? Why the double standard?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: First, on the question of our willingness to act and go beyond good intentions, I will give you an example. During the hearing about a third national network, we openly welcomed the idea of a TVA national network for basic service. We have a request that should be analyzed in the next few weeks and that should be the subject of hearings this summer. There is therefore an immediate concern to go beyond simply revising the regulations. That requires a more elaborate process. I think that is a concrete example of our willingness to act.

As for the question of why francophones do not have the same kind of service, I have to say that the distributors, who are mostly cable these days, have to offer services to a majority of their subscribers. That is still both a financial and technological rule. That has to be reconciled with cultural objectives. The tradition has been to take both elements into account.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm sorry to cut you off, Mrs. Bertrand. I listened with interest when you said that one of the elements of your mission, of your reason for being, was to perpetuate this wonderful Canadian duality, English and French, but in answering me you told me that there are economic realities and that the cultural aspect of promoting Canadian biculturalism was a pious wish. You do not seem ready to say authoritatively that it was part of your mission and that you require that the francophone who lives in the far corners of Saskatchewan has the same rights as an anglophone in Quebec. I don't want to compare Quebec to other provinces, but I do want to establish a relationship between your mission, which you outlined at the outset, and what you have just told me. You seem to be making a pious wish and dealing only with economic realities. That was the reproach in my question.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I understand what you begrudge me, but I think that I have highlighted the necessity of allying technology and finances. I do not think we can impose strictly cultural or identity objectives on the Canadian broadcasting system without relating them to technological and financial ability.

Let's look at a current and real situation that we have worked on, radio. Last Thursday's decision showed you that the Commission wants to say that times have changed and that we had to accept the concentration of property. Even if we were in favour of self- regulation, we see that there is a certain laxness in certain practices and that the intent of the policy is not followed. So we can turn the screws here and there.

• 1620

We have not invented new rules, but we have said that there is a Canadian content from which broadcasters could take the shows they needed. We therefore raised the ante a little higher and concluded by saying that it was necessary for the music industry and the broadcasters to work together.

It is much the same spirit that guides us on this issue. We recognize that there are new financial capacities and new players. Now, the ExpressVu and Star Choice players in this world will, quietly but surely, ensure that with technological and financial resources, we can go further to reach the cultural and duality objectives.

It's always a kind of balancing act, and that's what we say at the Commission. We always try to balance the various elements. It's never always all white or all black.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Mrs.. You will have the opportunity to come back.

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I would first like to welcome you. I would especially like to say that I support my colleague, Mr. Plamondon, today. He is becoming more liberal and it's going well.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have to learn everything. I am just starting.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You are starting to understand. You're less of a dinosaur. I would like to continue on the track you started, but also come back to the case of Timmins. Finally, I believe I have understood that you calculate your French and English markets in terms of the number of subscribers. That's where the problem lies.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's exactly it. In fact, the calculation is based on the population.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's the population per se.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Based on a statistic from Statistics Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): But it's the population in general, not by district or by city.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's the whole.

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: It's the market. Let's take the case of a market served by a cable operator, in this case Timmins. Sometimes, like in Montréal, there are two cable operators and therefore they have different markets.

Mr. Denis Coderre: If Timmins is 39% francophone, in my opinion that number is sufficient to enforce respect of this linguistic duality. It seems to me that all basic services plus the 11 specialized channels should be available, as in Montréal,.

I have the feeling that we are going more and more towards monopolies. You have spoken about Télévision Quatre Saisons, which was bought by Québécor. It seems that big blocks are being set up. You told my colleague Plamondon that there was in fact a linguistic duality and that we had to respect our cultural content, but that we also had to take economic problems into account. In the end, I have the feeling that people essentially want to make money.

How can you assure me that the CRTC is strong enough to have its regulations respected in the area of linguistic duality? In short, it seems like pious wishes and that in the end it is the economy that will decide the issue. Personally, if I was a francophone living in Timmins, I think I would be better off moving to Montréal if I wanted services in French plus the 11 additional channels.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No. We are simply telling you that according to the current regulations, Timmins is not considered a francophone market. We have enough evidence to say that we have to ask ourselves the question again and hold public hearings.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It hurts me, Mrs. Bertrand, to hear you say that Timmins is not a francophone market.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I understand.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I'm not trying to tell you that it's perfect and that we are right. I am simply trying to explain that according to our regulation, we have to have 50% plus one for the market to be recognized.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are saying 50% plus one francophone?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, that's it. Or anglophones.

Mr. Denis Coderre: That means that if, in a given population, 50% of the people are francophones, it's a francophone market.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's it, and vice versa.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Based on what you are saying, we will never offer services in French at the federal level because there are places where we do not have 50% plus one francophones. Do you realize what you are saying? When we think that this has been going on for 11 years! What are we waiting for to change the regulations?

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: I think we have to try to understand.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't.

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: I want to say that we are also horrified by these numbers. But when that regulation was adopted in 1987, and this may seem strange, it was to encourage the distribution of French services outside Quebec. In fact, it was the first time that there were specialized services in French and we granted licenses to TV5 and Musique Plus. RDS came on the scene a year later.

• 1625

To maximize their distribution, the Commission had decreed the following: whoever takes one takes them all. Some of you may remember that. We had also said that for TV5 to be available wherever Musique Plus was acceptable, the subscribers to the English market would pay 10¢, 5¢ or 2¢ instead of 26¢ and 30¢. In 1987, we already had that problem and that is when we introduced the concept of anglophone and francophone markets.

Mr. Denis Coderre: But in 1998, we see that it isn't working. What are you prepared to do to change that?

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: In 1994, we had two French services. Now, RDI is distributed almost everywhere.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mrs. DesRoches, I don't want a history lesson. I am aware of all that. I simply want to know what you are prepared to do to change all that.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I understand your problem quite well.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have just lashed out at Bill Warren who was calculating the number of francophones and who said they represented 20% of the Canadian Olympic Association. And now you are telling me that because of the population, you cannot offer French services equitably across Canada.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No, I cannot assure you that we will have the same service everywhere. I can't guarantee that. But I can guarantee that there will be a public process to define the bilingual market in order to better recognize the situation. If we said we would have exactly the same services everywhere, that would mean that in markets where there are virtually no francophones we would have to require the cable operator to remove some English services to replace them with French services. I think that it would be dishonest to tell you we will make that kind of decision.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): At least give us an explanation. Radio-Canada is still there. There is no choice in that matter. Where are TV5 and TVA?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: In the case of TV5, they have a choice.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): TV5 has to be imported from Europe. That's fine. Radio-Canada has to be there for Canadians. And for TVA, there would be no requirement?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's what we will be doing this summer. There will be public hearings on the distribution of TVA's basic services across Canada.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So you will have public hearings.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: We will have public hearings about TVA and there will be a public process to define the markets in order to review our definition of them, especially the bilingual markets.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have just come back from Winnipeg last week and the people in Saint-Boniface, Saint-Vital and Saint-Norbert asked me to do something for them because I was the vice-chair of the committee. They told me they wanted French services wherever they lived. They found it insulting that we considered an area an anglophone market when there was a great deal of French spoken there. To be refused French services is insulting and also goes against our policy of linguistic duality.

If we realize after 11 years that we have to take economics into account, it seems to me that the CRTC is very weak and will never be able to control the situation. We may as well mourn it. In the end, you are saying that the linguistic duality policy through the CRTC can never be respected because it's a question of cash.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: If you are asking me to tell all cable operators, as we know them and with the technological capabilities they have, to stop giving part of their English services tomorrow and replace them with French services for communities where there are few francophones, I would be dishonest if I told you that is possible. But I can tell you there are new technological breakthroughs, including DTH. There are also technologies such as LMDS et LMCS that are coming up and that will want to steal cable subscribers. We will see how they will try to identify themselves and it will be interesting to see the competition. As of September, there will a multiplication of satellites to allow these new technologies to come in. They will be able to offer francophones, wherever they are, the same services offered in Montréal or in Hull thanks to an access system.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Let's continue in this atmosphere of honesty, Mrs. Bertrand.

• 1630

Since we are moving to the globalization of exchanges, and given the economic issue, since you tell us cash is the issue, the operator who buys stations or offers a satellite service couldn't care less about linguistic duality if he doesn't make money by offering a French channel. He will simply take it off.

Therefore it is up to the CRTC to have linguistic duality respected in broadcasting. Is there not a contradiction between the coming reality and the lack of authority of the CRTC? So this linguistic duality can never be honored.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I never said we have no teeth. I said we didn't bare them if we couldn't deliver the goods afterwards. When we have to bare our teeth, we do. Above all, we try to be realistic. There are things we cannot ask for. Any small cable operator that we do not even regulate would go under if we imposed a whole series of things on him tomorrow. One can say that the financial question isn't everything, but it does exist.

We should rather look at the major players and the fact that new players are coming into the game. They will have technological and financial capabilities. At that time, the cultural and linguistic duality objectives can be hiked. That's what we want to do and that is what we will do through a public process.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So it is competitiveness that will ensure the respect of linguistic duality.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: It will help.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I am simply repeating what you said, that's all.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No, no. The technological capability must also be there.

Mr. Denis Coderre: If we don't rule on content and on linguistic duality, Mrs. Bertrand, you know full well that we will not be able to solve this problem. You have more experience than I do in this field since you have worked at Télé-Québec, I believe. You know exactly how it works. If we do not impose certain things, we will never solve that.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: As I was saying last week, the percentage of 30% that we announced for radio was not a ceiling but a floor. But since it was had been considered as a ceiling, we raised it to 35 per cent. I recognize that we have to impose certain things and if we want to use a public process regarding those rules, it is obvious that we are serious. However, I cannot promise that we will get exactly the same things. I would be lying if I said that. All I can tell you is that we will do it seriously.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mrs.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I will have more questions later, madam chairperson.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, Mr. Coderre.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, please.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Madam Chairperson, welcome. I will try to make peace between you and MP Coderre. Have you thought of telling the member that the political choices he is suggesting to you are quite legitimate for each French-Canadian outside Quebec in order for him to get the services that he has a right to expect? Have you told him that the government should live up to its responsibilities and make it a specific duty vis-à-vis the Parliament of Canada? That's easy.

I understand that the member ask questions, but he should take the technical issues, among others, into account.

Mr. Denis Coderre: At the time, the Conservatives were there.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, I know. But I wasn't a conservative 11 years ago.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It doesn't make the slightest difference.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: It's Mr. Plamondon who was there.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I left, but it still doesn't make the slightest difference.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That's exactly it. On the other hand, what is slightly incongruent in terms of bilingualism or linguistic duality is that for technical, market or economic reasons the where numbers warrant criteria under the Official Languages Act is applied differently in the case of cable operators that are small businesses. There we have different criteria that determine the market.

Finally, if there is truly some ambiguity and we want to supply services equitably, there is no reason for francophones in this country to not have access to radio or television services in their own language when this is required of other government institutions when the numbers warrant it.

In Quebec, there is no number criterion in a number of areas. I am thinking, among others, of the health and education fields for anglophone Quebeckers. There are no number criteria in these areas.

Since you are part of the government, Mr. Coderre, talk to your government and tell it to make its choices. I believe it is possible.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It has already been done.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I know that you are very bad- tempered.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are about to understand also.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: You have a small Bloc side that honors you.

• 1635

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You are here to question the CRTC.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I would like to talk briefly about your friends in the Société Radio-Canada. We spoke about cable operators, who are very important, but one of the concerns of francophones outside Quebec is more basic. In any case, that's how they see it. And if one is from Quebec, that is also how one sees it.

The French network Radio-Canada works almost exclusively from a Quebec perspective. Yesterday I was watching the show Le Point, where the new Premier of New Brunswick was a guest. Instead of being interested in what he would do or in the concerns in his province, he was asked what his accession to the position of Premier of New Brunswick meant in terms of the Quebec issue.

I know very well, having met Mr. Spicer in this committee, that it is not obvious and that the CRTC cannot tell Radio-Canada what it must do. Could you elaborate? Is there anything new in the attitude of the CRTC on this issue? When you talk to Radio-Canada, do you tell them what they have to do? Do they answer politely? Do they tell you what they are going to do? And if they don't do it, do you punish them? You understand what I mean?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, very well.

Perhaps I should explain the work we have done. You asked me, madam chairperson, if we had distributed our document describing our vision and our work plan. Yes, we have done that and it was widely distributed. We met with consumers' groups, groups of viewers, NGOs, etc.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Such as the adult services in Quebec, for example?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, that's it. We have also done a broad distribution on the Internet. We have just reprinted it because we made minor adjustments after six months. It is always necessary, especially in the broadcasting field, in radio and television, where one must review one's approach.

You can see that we dare to challenge our policies and invite everyone to question themselves with us. In the fall, we will also review the programs and then move on to license renewals.

The first to ask us for a license renewal was Radio-Canada. We intend to take a serious look at it. The first one we informed about our approach and our three-year plan was Radio-Canada. We met with the board of directors and the management committee to explain our approach, our philosophy and our intention, and to convince them to participate in these exercises, as we have done with the other players. Few felt the need to tell them it was very important and that we intended to do serious work. We have just dealt with commercial radio and, when we are finished, we will deal with programming. In March we will move on to license renewal. Before that, we will have town hall meetings across Canada and then we will have hearings. But these will not be hearings that will put all of Radio-Canada's operations under one umbrella because we will look at each one separately, in other words, French radio, then French television.

Obviously we cannot substitute for Parliament. In any case, that is not our intention. However, we hope that through this public process there will be a serious review of the situation and a hearing about the concerns of Canadians on the way Radio-Canada might play a role more suited to the XXIst century. That is not a criticism about the past, but since we are moving on to another stage, we have to ask how they will be able to contribute. We intend to go to the limit. If they do not agree, they will have the opportunity to go to the minister and go back to Parliament. In that case, we have declared our intentions, that we are here to do serious work and to try to see, with all the tools we have, the way in which Radio-Canada, in French as well as in English, will be able to play its part in the world of Canadian broadcasting.

• 1640

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: And I suppose you have spoken to Radio-Canada about linguistic duality? Of course we are thinking mostly of the French aspect and of the impact of certain budget cuts on Radio-Canada. Of course Radio-Canada is responsible and you don't decide on its budget.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: But you have a say in the level of productions outside Quebec. Linguistic duality also has consequences on the performance of public broadcasting.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's why there will be mini- hearings to which the public will be invited. People will not have to make long presentations that have to be submitted 92 days in advance. They will be able to tell us 24 hours in advance of their intention to be heard and to talk to us about how they see thing and about what their needs are in terms of Radio-Canada.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: In closing, I would like to point out to you that in terms of production, there are often more interesting things on Canadian duality produced by TV5 or, in the end, on the presence of French outside Quebec, than by Radio-Canada. On the other hand, we must seek to keep a balance. I believe we must take note of the effort made by RDI in programming, because that didn't exist before. At least there is air time and good ratings. That is one of my concerns. I think you are well aware of the fact that francophones outside Quebec are somewhat oppressed.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: We will treat that issue seriously. You understand that we cannot manage Radio-Canada and that we give it neither its budget nor its mandate. But we will ensure that the public process will be done under good conditions to ensure that our role and the dialogue we have with Radio-Canada will be fruitful.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's your turn, Mr. Eugène Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Every time I come to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages I am disappointed. Today, I am again disappointed. To be disappointed by the Reform Party is not a surprise. We know what their attitude towards the country is. But I am disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm to defend the minority language in this country. I am, I believe, the only francophone from outside Quebec at this meeting here today. I am fourth generation and I can tell you we have always had to fight, to try and find ideas to defend ourselves. It's very hard, madam. It's very hard for a francophone from outside Quebec.

I don't want to be a beggar. It's not my style. I am very well off. I have four children who have done very well in various professions. They are all francophones to the tips of their fingers. But we must always be on the warpath.

A little while ago you were defending your position by saying that there had to be 50% plus one francophones. As a former city councilman, which I was for 20 years, I have seen a lot of battles. I must say that it is not the number of francophones that you have to count, but the number of francophiles. In the municipality that I represent as a member, there are about 35% to 38% francophones, but I can guarantee you that there may be about 90% who are francophiles. I can also tell you that there may be about 80% of the people in Carleton-Gloucester who are bilingual. I am talking about the Orleans region in Ottawa.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Excuse me. I made you lose your train of thought.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No, no. I can tell you that attitude is very important. I have noticed, in my community, the very positive attitude of anglophones towards the francophone community. That is the reason why I say there are perhaps 98% of the people who are francophiles. There may be 2% who are not. I may be exaggerating, because there are idiots everywhere, as you know.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: In every house.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There are some in every house. You know there are people who are francophobes. We know one here, Mr. Breitkreuz. I am saying it: he is francophobe.

• 1645

When I meet family or friends who are in Edmonton or elsewhere in the West and we want to watch a show, we have to watch the programming that is available in Alberta or British-Columbia. It seems that this programming is dominated by dollars and the massive number of anglophones, who, by the way, are not necessarily all good Canadians, even though I do not accuse most of them of not being so. However, their shows reflect their Americanization. When I speak to them, it seems to me that their culture is becoming more and more Americanized. They do not seem to have any roots to the culture that comes from programming in Toronto, for example, which broadcasts good anglophone programs. Whether it is about culture or sports, they seem more attached to American programming. Some people in Western Canada are ruining us as a country. That is what I have observed. They don't seem to want to promote English- Canadian culture, and even less the francophone culture that they attack.

There is a question of linguistic survival. Assimilation is more and more an issue. We are being assimilated. Look at Timmins. A while ago, you spoke of 38 per cent. It is not recognized as a bilingual region or as an area where French programming can be imposed because 50% plus one of the population is not francophone. That is hard to accept.

In this committee, we have four members of the Liberal Party, two anglophones and two francophones, but we are four francophiles. No one on this side will tell you that we should speak or think in English 95 or 98% of the time.

It's the issue of numbers that worries me. You may be telling yourselves that you have heard what I have said but you wonder where I am going. I want to underline that that it is more than a question of numbers. The law stopped at numbers. I say that if we want to truly save this country, and truly promote the language of the minority outside Quebec, first we have to think of being francophile.

The Canadian population is becoming more and more educated day by day, generation by generation. Our young people from unilingual English families now go to French schools, where they take immersion courses or French courses. The attitude has changed completely. Unfortunately, there are still fanatics on both sides. I think we have to block our ears when they speak.

You said there would be town hall meetings. I find that dangerous. They are like referendums. When one holds a referendum or a town hall meeting, it's a little like arriving and saying "We suspect that someone has done something wrong and we are looking for a patsy". You know American history, the history of the west, the Wild West. You remember the expression Call out the patsies. Those who get caught and are suspected of wrongdoing are guilty before they have a chance to say "I'm not guilty". They were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I hate referendums and town hall meetings because they attract the screamers while the minority of people are not always brave enough to stand up in the centres where people are screaming against minorities.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, Mr. Bellemare. Since there is only one minute left, do you wish to ask a question?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No. I wanted to hear your reaction.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Very well. The first round is about done. We will have a second five-minute round.

• 1650

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, you will have five minutes and I would like you to tell me who will speak for the government side.

Madam, I would like you to first answer Mr. Bellemare's question.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I heard your comment very clearly. Certainly when we say we want to reconsider the market issue that implies that that we will not be looking at the same criteria and that we will be thinking of new formulas. I am keeping in mind your suggestion of thinking more in terms of francophiles rather that strictly of people of francophone origin. It's an interesting concept.

As for the decision of holding town hall meetings, it is the result of comments made at the Commission, which is aware that our public processes are still somewhat formal and that they do not allow people who would like to simply come and speak to do so. There is a whole procedure that requires that documents be submitted so many days in advance and our lawyers assure that everything is in order. That being the case, citizens have the impression that they absolutely need specialists to speak for them and that they cannot have a simple conversation.

We have done it in Saint John, New Brunswick, during hearings about NBTel, and it worked very well. Sure, there is an order; it is not a rat race. People have to register and there is a certain decorum. We have thus had the opportunity to listen to people who we normally we would have had little chance to meet during our public hearings. We believe that the public process is still an important tool for the Commission, since we have everything to gain by being more open and more generous in our ways of reaching the Canadian public.

After our next experiences, we may have other things to share with you next year. But for now, although our experience is limited, we really believe that it is a way of improving the wealth of our information.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, but to be quite honest, Mrs. Bertrand, we have to be front and centre on Canada's policy and philosophy. This is a bilingual country where we have two official languages. On that issue, there is no other policy, other philosophy or cultural activity. As Mr. Bellemare told you, the way you plan your round tables or your open hearings is very important.

[English]

It is very dangerous if you haven't laid down a clear and unfiltered argument—never mind an argument; it is a basic principle of the Canadian environment.

We are on to the second round, ladies and gentlemen. I give you notice that I have a motion that I will put before you at the end of this second round. As you know, we need 48 hours for a motion to be passed one way or the other, or rejected or discussed. I will place the motion before you, and the discussion and vote will take place at the next meeting of the committee.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, colleague Bellemare, you sure took a strip off western Canadians, let me tell you.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Well, you were speaking for them...

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Western Canadians are pragmatic, and realists. In fact, they're busy having to make money so they can pay taxes to this place, to finance some of your ridiculous policies.

Another realistic fact is that western Canada, Alberta in particular, does more trade with the Americans to the south than to eastern Canada, so that's where the identity comes from—and in the oil patch as well, of course, in the oil patch as well.

It was Canadian government and Canadian financial institutions going back 30 or 40 years that would not finance western entrepreneurs, so we had to go south to get the investors. That's why.

I'd like to also ask you something, Madam Chair. You mentioned that there were complaints here in the Ottawa area. I was wondering if you could furnish this committee with the numbers and with the people and the organizations that made all these horrendous complaints.

Also, people are knocking around statistics about mother tongue. Using stats based on mother tongue is very misleading. You use home language and the stats drop by a good half, according to the francophone numbers that were being bantered around here. So if you say that there's a population, say even a 40% francophone population in a community based on mother tongue, it's very misleading.

• 1655

The other point, of course, is that if people are not speaking the language at home, why should taxpayers be paying for it to supply it to their homes? It just doesn't make sense. There has to be some commitment on the part of people, as well.

Let's get to this whole composition of the CRTC, of the commission itself. That comes under attack quite often from members of the public, and now of course from members of Parliament, from the government's own members in particular. They have recently submitted a letter signed by 37 Liberal MPs.

It's mainly because of the blatant patronage appointments made by the heritage minister and of course those made to the regulatory body that you chair. I suppose more specifically that is because the appointments usually seem to come from the four industries that are governed by the CRTC.

So could you suggest a way in which the CRTC could be comprised that would get away from this kind of criticism, not only from the public at large, but also from government members? Instead of being based on friends of the heritage minister and favours derived from them, I think it should be based on merit and expertise. Could you suggest a way in which the committee could be comprised that would overcome this kind of criticism we're hearing from every side?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, as you well know, it's the government that is appointing commissioners, so I don't want to interfere here. But I would like to speak up for myself and for my colleagues. I think we're very honest people. I think we know about telecommunications and broadcasting, and I think it's a plus in that complex and complicated world. I think we're doing...with staff who are of great help and have tremendous expertise. Over the years the CRTC has been doing a lot of interesting work, helping Canada to give itself a very strong telecommunications universe and a strong broadcasting universe.

When people do not have the knowledge of the industry, they're criticized for having other kinds of links, and when they're from the industry, they should be without links to the industry.

I've been at the commission for 21 months now, and what I've observed is that when it comes to a decision the discussion is real. Analyses are good, made by staff. There is real discussion, real debate. I can assure you that we have nothing to envy with respect to parliamentary life. There is really strong study and strong analysis going on there, and it's taken very seriously. It's not something we do at the corner of a table. Every decision is weighed, and I can certainly speak with pride about the the decisions of the commission.

In terms of what can be done to improve, there's always a place for improvement, but I think that's a discussion you should have with the minister.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you finished?

Is there anyone on the government side?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you, madam chairperson. I would like us to understand each other.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Who will start the second round?

Mr. Denis Coderre: For the second round, we let individuals speak. In the first round, we gave the parties the right to speak. We won't argue about semantics today.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would you like to, please,

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, consult the list? I assure you that I am there as required. Each time we start, you have questions to ask.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's a motion that has been seconded.

A voice: I proposed the motion, I know.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Then don't give me an argument.

Go ahead, please, Denis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I was throwing bouquets, madam chairperson, I wanted to ensure that you did not leave here with the impression that a single member was speaking against the members themselves. The first aim of our discussion today is to improve the Canadian context and the second is to ensure that francophones can also have access to services in their language in an equitable and more flexible manner

• 1700

I would like to talk about Radio-Canada. You may be able to enlighten me and explain the problem a little. I was talking about executive power. Radio-Canada comes to you to get a license. You ask them to present a specific development plan for francophones outside Quebec. They answer that there is no problem and they give you the plan. You accept it and issue a license. But what happens if for budgetary reasons that plan is never implemented? Can you withdraw Radio-Canada's license, for example? You could no doubt refuse to renew it. How can we ensure that the CRTC can continue to be an even more efficient watchdog on the level of content? Shouldn't we give it more executive power to ensure that while the license is in effect the content is respected or that they do what they said thy would do?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: I will let Mr. Blais talk to you about possible recourses, but I will first give you a chairperson's response.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, because with a lawyer it would take too much time.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Wouldn't you prefer that?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I prefer that.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: There are two ways. They can present us with an overall plan or we can deal with specific issues in a given field. We cannot manage in their stead. I cannot afford the pleasure of designing programming grids; that's over. But we can examine some dimensions and ask fairly specific questions that could become licensing conditions. That would make it more stringent, not totally independent from budgets obviously. If they were cut by I don't know how much and there was only 10% of the budget, we couldn't do everything. We would not be able, as in the past, to question it in the same manner. Historically, we have not imposed licensing conditions on Radio-Canada. It came and presented an overall plan for all of its broadcasting stations. There was a kind of understanding that that was linked to with what Parliament had given it as a mandate and that was that.

What I am telling you today is that we do not want to go and manage in their stead. However, we have told Radio-Canada that given the effort we are making to review all the broadcasting policies, it must rethink its role and participate in this redefinition. In this regard, we will have more specific expectations regarding Radio-Canada.

Mr. Denis Coderre: In the end, what you are telling me, Mrs. Bertrand, is that there is a double standard at the CRTC: Radio- Canada and the others. Should I take it that that is what explains, for example, that when a radio license was granted to 95.1 in Montréal, that CKVL and Radio-Canada wanted, you were more inclined towards Radio-Canada? Is that what I should understand?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's another question.

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, but it is related to the principle.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No, no, no.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So it's Radio-Canada and the others.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No, no, not at all. We are currently making an effort to ensure that Radio-Canada will come. When we discussed commercial radio, we expressly invited Radio-Canada to participate in the process. When we will talk about television programming this fall, Radio-Canada will be asked to participate. In the same manner, we ask the public, the other broadcasters and the people in the programming industry: "Listen, when Radio-Canada's license comes up for renewal, be there; let's talk about the hypotheses we can put on the table to ensure that Radio-Canada plays a role that is more suited to the expectations for the XXIst century". I don't believe our expectations are lower. On the contrary, they are perhaps greater.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So we have State radio and television and the private sector. That's not a double standard? Everyone will be on the same footing?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That is to say that everyone has his role to play, but that it is not exactly the same. Our expectations of public radio or television are not necessarily the same. But one thing is certain: they all have a contribution to make and in that regard it is important that we get the maximum that the system can offer.

Mr. Denis Coderre: And if Radio-Canada does not offer what we want, in the end you can't do anything.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: We certainly can, through a public process, set out licensing conditions. I will now yield the floor to my lawyer, who will tell you what we can do if the licensing conditions are not honored.

• 1705

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The Commission has the necessary tools. It can impose conditions for the granting of a license. It sometimes imposes certain objectives based on certain expectations. We do that for everyone. The law imposes additional procedures in the case of the Société Radio-Canada because it has a special place according to the law. The Commission has the necessary powers and, where required, it does what it has to.

Mr. Denis Coderre: What do you mean exactly? Don't talk to me like a lawyer.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I would not want to prejudge what the Commission could or could not do since it is in fact an administrative tribunal that must judge everyone fairly and equitably.

In a given situation that will require the Commission to exercise its power in a more draconian fashion, I am sure it would not hesitate to do so. However, we cannot prejudge.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It hasn't happened yet, I agree.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon, you will be the last speaker today.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: He doesn't seem to like lawyers.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We will talk about that later.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I once told you, Mr. Coderre, what my grandfather sometimes told me. I repeat it with a little bit of humor for Mr. Blais.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Do I take the time into account or not?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, yes, it counts.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I simply want to advise the committee members that this is the last question and that I am being signalled from this side.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, yes. I will be very brief. I simply want a clarification. I was simply saying humorously, Mr. Blais, that my grandfather used to say that in many cases a lawyer did four years of straight law in order to be crooked the rest of his life.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That was obviously intended to be humorous. Mr. Coderre laughed. Are you laughing also, Mr. Blais? Yes, you laughed. So everything is fine.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Let's say that I have a smile on my lips.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I will only ask you to clarify one thing for me. You have talked about bilingual and unilingual markets. Does that mean that until you consult the population the national capital region, Ottawa will be considered a unilingual anglophone market by the CRTC? Is that how it is now?

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: No. Mrs. DesRoches, would you please try to explain this?

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: The national capital region market is considered as the national capital market.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: It is unique.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Unilingual.

Mrs. Anne-Marie DesRoches: In terms of basic signal priorities, according to a regulation we have adopted, they must first send local signals, then regional ones, then those from outside the region, and finally the national ones.

To determine the language of the market, to avoid some of the confusions that have arisen in the past, we defined a national capital market. We wanted to use this kind of concept, and other similar concepts. Mr. Bellemare spoke of francophiles earlier. From that point of view, we have started gathering statistics on listening habits of non-francophones, etc.

So all we wanted to say was that we would look at this kind of idea more closely when we would study market definition more closely.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: But the fact is that Ottawa is still currently an anglophone market.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is a unilingual market. Do you see that, Mr. Coderre? Your beautiful capital is a unilingual anglophone market according to the CRTC.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: That's what we are...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: They are going to consult.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, that's it.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you for your answer. Thank you, Mrs..

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

There certainly were a number of questions related to new digital technology. I pulled the switch to start digital services in Canada in 1987; it's still not here. So I hope the day will come, and at that time I want to ask you, at any point will one be able to pick one's menu, and all of it will be available? In other words, if Star or any of the other diagnosed illnesses we are about to be subjected to internationally as the whole world is our oyster...does that mean that they will be mandated, or they must carry French and English so that the library of choice will be there?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, well, at present Star Choice and ExpressVu, which are distributing these services digitally by satellite, are subject to the same rules as the terrestrial distributors.

• 1710

That's the policy we adopted last year to make sure that the preponderance of English and French together, Canadian services, was distributed in any household. Now what we're saying is that with an increase in the capacity of technology because new satellites will be available, we can probably go further in the next round of distribution regulations as we go into the review of this. On that level this will be 18 months from now.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Does someone on this side want to ask a question?

[English]

Thank you very much for that question. I think it's very important to understand what elasticity is available in terms of pricing and what the right is of a menu of choice from a digital service that is from a satellite distributor within the near future.

[Translation]

It's Mr. Paradis' turn. I would then like to thank our witnesses and read the motion.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Thank you very much, madam chairperson. I do not want to ask a question, but make a brief request.

Last year I was with a group of French parliamentarians in British Columbia. We went to Victoria. People in Victoria complain that the French radio signals cannot be heard. It seems there is an antenna missing that would allow the French radio waves to get to Victoria. It is the only provincial capital in the country where people have a problem receiving Radio-Canada.

I bring this to your attention. Is it possible to check whether this is true or not? I went to British Columbia again two weeks ago and the people told me the problem had not been solved. I'm not an expert on technology but if it's only a question of installing a small antenna somewhere in Victoria, so that Radio-Canada's air waves can get there, the francophones in Victoria would appreciate it very much.

Thank you, madam chairperson.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: Thank you, Mr. Paradis, for bringing this to our attention. We did not have that information. We will keep you informed.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I suggest that you check on the antennas that are at Surrey, B.C. They are below the normal Canadian borderline, which is creating a serious problem with a point of land where you can only get American programs, no Canadian ones.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare, you have the last word. Do you have a question?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, madam chairperson. It's a question of definition.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): But you have one second.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: One of the comments of the CRTC's chairperson surprised me: she said the national capital region was in fact an anglophone market. According to her definition of the capital, is it the city of Ottawa, which is basically the capital, or the national capital region, which would include all the municipalities in the Outaouais and the Regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes. the national capital region.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It is a center where listening habits cannot be divided, even if there are bridges between Ottawa and Hull, of course, but also in the entire Outaouais region and that of Ottawa-Carleton.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): John.

[Translation]

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: We will go and see Mr. Rogers to talk to him about that.

That is exactly the kind of question we have to look at. You won't see me saying that's the kind of question we feel comfortable with. We see the need to question that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could I have the answer? I'm trying to hear it but I can't because of the peanut gallery on the other side.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mrs. Bertrand.

Mrs. Françoise Bertrand: You are right, we have to reconcile those concepts. We have a problem with definition that does not match reality. We therefore have to redefine what constitutes a market.

Currently, in terms of cable systems, we have Hull on one side and Ottawa on the other. We have to review that situation. We looked at it in the context of the national capital region to ensure services on both sides of the bridges, but we did not go any further. We believe that in terms of redefining the markets, the first thing to look at...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The entire national capital region must be representative of Canadian duality. If the capital can't be, we may as well stop everything.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think you've made your point, Mr. Bellemare. I think Mr. Rogers and Mr. Videotron are going to have a little chat.

In the meantime, I would like to ask whether you have any closing remarks before we thank you.

• 1715

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, a closing remark is my own thanks, and thank you very much for the generosity of your comments and your concern about those questions.

I can reassure you that although certainly you may have been disappointed by some answers, it is of concern to us, and we'll be very serious about the future steps we have to take in order to improve the services.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We thank you very much, Madam Bertrand, and we hope there will be some changes made.

I have a motion to read to the committee. You are certainly welcome to leave or you are welcome to stay, as you wish, but the motion, ladies and gentlemen, is that the official languages committee recommends to the Government of Canada that the CRTC be added to the list of federal institutions designated in the accountability scheme adopted in August 1994 for the purposes of implementing sections 41 and 42 of part VII of the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

You will get a copy. Do I have to read it in French?

A voice: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I don't know if my French is up to it, but you will at least have a translation.

The committee recommends to the Government of Canada that the CRTC be added to the list of federal institutions designated in the accountability framework adopted in August 1994 in order to ensure the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

A voice: Seconded.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen, you will receive this motion.

There is one other motion that we have had—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: This motion we'll discuss in the next meeting.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, you need 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have had 48 hours' notice, ladies and gentlemen, of the following fourth report.

[Translation]

The sub-committee on programs and procedures of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is honored to present its fourth report to the Standing Joint Committee.

The sub-committee met on Thursday, March 26 and recommended that the following appear:

- Mr. Victor Goldbloom, Commissioner for Official Languages

first, about the 1998-99 budget.

Second, about the annual report of 1997 and the subsequent review of his mandate, followed by a reception.

It is the end of Mr. Goldbloom's mandate and I believe we should have a small reception in his honour.

- Mr. Norman Myers, Deputy Minister, Heritage Canada, about the technical and administrative details of the Department and Mr. Gaston Guénette, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Division, Treasury board Secretariat.

- Radio-Canada about regional programming.

That the committee travel to francophone communities outside Quebec.

Respectfully submitted by myself as Vice-Chair and by the honorable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam chairperson, will there be two meetings with Mr. Goldbloom? The budget is always technical and doesn't take much time. We could have the meeting on that and adjourn for five minutes and go on immediately, the same day, to continue our work. Normally we have two separate meetings. Could we do it in just one?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The same day, but two different meetings.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I agree.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I have a motion I want to give notice of as well, and it's regarding the St. Jean Baptiste Society and the presentation they made to the National Assembly recently.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Hold on a minute.

Would the committee members be good enough to resume their seats? I'm sorry. We will be exactly one minute to hear this, so we can then leave.

Go ahead, please.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: As I mentioned, Madam Chair, I want to introduce a motion and it's regarding what I mentioned, regarding the St. Jean Baptiste Society and the presentation they made in the National Assembly recently about the perfection of knowing the French language before you can vote in that particular province.

• 1720

The motion is that they instruct the clerk of the official languages committee to draft a letter to the Quebec National Assembly. Let their letter read that the citizens of Quebec and new immigrants to the province be guaranteed the right to vote in Quebec provincial elections without discrimination based on language preference, race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or mental or physical ability.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

Table that motion.

I'm sorry, I know you have to leave for the vote, everybody. I will bring both motions back for discussion.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: So he tables the motion and we debate it at the next meeting?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Exactly. That's what I just said.

Nobody seconded?

A voice: That's not necessary in committee.

Mr. Denis Paradis: As for me, I would have to say something about validity.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You don't wish to receive the motion?

Would you bring it back for next meeting, please? They don't want to accept the motion.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I'm giving 48 hours of notice, that's all.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You're just giving notice. You have the right to give notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: If we want to discuss validity, we will do it the next time?

The Joint Chair(Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

The meeting is adjourned.