LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 2000

• 1538

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages on this Tuesday, May 9, 2000. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), we are continuing our study of official languages policies and programs.

Today it is our pleasure to welcome Ms. Françoise Bertrand, Chairperson of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.

Before asking Ms. Bertrand to introduce the people with her, I would just like to tell you that I will be chairing the beginning of this afternoon's meeting, and that my Joint Chair, the Honourable Rose-Marie Losier Cool will take over in about 20 minutes.

I would ask you to kindly introduce your colleagues, Ms. Bertrand.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand (Chairperson, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): With pleasure. With me today are Ms. Ursula Menke, the Commission's new Secretary General; Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Executive Director of Broadcasting; and Mr. John Keogh, Senior General Counsel.

• 1540

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for not sending you the documents ahead of time. However, I would point out that this is a series of documents that already exist on decisions handed down by the Commission. If after attending this meeting and reading these documents, committee members wish to hear from us again, we would be pleased to return. So I wanted to start with this apology.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I would ask you to keep your remarks fairly brief, because I know committee members have a number of questions to ask, and generally they prefer to spend more time on the questions and answers. I will start by giving you 10 minutes, and then seven minutes to each committee member on the first round. You have the floor, Ms. Bertrand.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Thank you very much. I would like to review a number of CRTC initiatives.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Please go ahead, Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I would like a clarification. Ms. Bertrand is here with the members of her executive: I understand that it's not easy to anticipate the questions we will be asking you. Our questions will probably deal with the documents we were given here today. As Mr. Bélanger emphasized, unfortunately, it happens often that we are surprised with documents at the last minute, and don't have the time to read them. I can tell you right now that I will not be reading this document, and that I will, rather, be listening to Ms. Bertrand's presentation. Our questions will obviously concern Ms. Bertrand's presentation to the committee. I would like to be sure that she will return, as she offered, to answer questions that we may have after reading these documents, particularly this one.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You're quite right, Senator. Ms. Bertrand has always responded quickly to any requests from the committee. I hope this tradition will continue, and if the committee asks her to come back sometime in the near future to answer our questions specifically on that document, she will find the time to do so.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: With pleasure.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Very well. Please go ahead, Ms. Bertrand.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I would like to review a number of CRTC initiatives in terms of major policies that have been put forward in the area of broadcasting, specifically where Canada's cultural diversity and linguistic duality are concerned.

I will first of all tackle the issues dealing with Canadian content in the area of commercial and community radio as well as television.

In 1998, the CRTC updated its policy on commercial radio so as to better position the Canadian radio industry in a changing communications environment. This policy emphasizes an increased and more equitable share for Canadian songs. The Canadian proportion of popular songs broadcast each week on Canadian radio stations is moving from 30% to 35%.

I would like to note in passing that the CRTC fulfils its role as much through the policies it adopts as through those it refuses to implement. Let me explain. In bilingual markets, for example, a number of radio broadcasters asked us to reduce the quotas for francophone music, which are set at 65%, for competitive reasons. The Commission did not accede to these requests. I would call this the hidden face of the CRTC action. In this example, the Commission contributed to the support of the French language outside Quebec by maintaining the status quo. While rarely emphasized publicly, this is an important aspect of the CRTC's role.

I would like now to stay a few words about public radio and the conditions of licence that the CRTC imposed on CBC as part of its recent licence renewal. Several of these conditions affect Canadian content in programming and, more specifically, French- language content for francophones outside Quebec. The CRTC is requiring the Chaîne culturelle of Radio-Canada to extend its service to at least 50% of the French-language population of each province, and to at least 75% of New Brunswick and Ontario and all provincial capitals between now and the end of the licence term. By the end of this period, there should be a critical mass of French content broadcast throughout Canada over the waves of CBC Radio that meets the expectations of francophone listeners and that, through a ripple effect, will create fertile ground for the development of community radio.

• 1545

Community radio is an extremely dynamic sector of Canadian broadcasting, particularly among francophones outside Quebec. It should be noted that in February of 1998, the CRTC awarded a national network licence to ARCC, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada. This network includes 18 community radio stations outside Quebec that reach approximately 400,000 listeners.

We at the CRTC attach a great deal of importance to community radio because of its considerable potential for development. It is a low-cost medium that is close to the realities of the communities that drive it and that comprise its target audience. In that sense, this medium is a little like a community Internet network. It is therefore not surprising that francophone communities have 46 of them, of which 27 are found outside Quebec.

This reality fed the consultations held by the CRTC in the context of reviewing its community radio policy. Our new policy was announced in January of 2000. It focuses principally on simplifying the regulatory requirements and giving community radio more room to manoeuvre in terms of financing. It was well received by most community organizations, particularly ARCC. We are very proud of this.

As for television, the abundance of French-language productions and the audience levels are a huge success. With its Canadian television policy, the CRTC wanted to ensure that francophone expression would be preserved in all its diversity, as it is for anglophones. For this reason, regional productions were given priority status in prime time. The Commission, therefore, proposed that to be recognized as a priority program, a regional program must be other than news or sports and must be principally shot more than 150 kilometres from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. This policy should serve to foster talents in the region.

Which brings me to CBC television. The renewal of CBC's licences is in keeping with the review of the CRTC's major policies that I have been discussing.

The CRTC reached its decision based on the legislative mandate of the CBC, on all of the testimony received during the consultations held in 11 Canadian cities and during the public hearing, and on the commitments made by the licensee itself.

Given Canada's cultural and social diversity and the needs and interests of francophone as well as anglophone listeners, the CBC should emphasize programming that reflects all the communities of this country, particularly in information and public affairs programs. This obligation is at the very heart of the CBC's mandate. The CBC should continue its long tradition of high quality, rigour and professionalism by providing a balanced reflection of Canadians' values, English duality, cultural diversity, and creativity. To do this, the CRTC expects the CBC to devote $7 million, over the entire period of its licence, to independent regional productions for network broadcasting. I might add that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has heralded this initiative.

A few words now on an important decision by the CRTC regarding private television and the broadcasting of francophone content. I'm talking, obviously, about the decision to authorize Canada-wide broadcasting of the TVA television network. For obvious reasons, this decision was favourably received by the francophone communities outside Quebec. As evidence of this, I note that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada treated this as a very significant event in its review of the year 1998-1999.

As part of the decision, several commitments by TVA became conditions of licence, including the commitment to offer francophone viewers outside Quebec programming that reflects their reality. I should also mention the creation of an advisory committee composed of members from various regions of Canada whose role is to ensure that the concerns and realities of francophones outside Quebec are reflected on the small screen. This latter commitment, in particular, was welcomed by leaders of francophone communities.

The CRTC's decision to authorize four new French language specialty services also contributed to further extending the presence of French. The Commission was seeking to enrich the French-language broadcasting system by reinforcing the expertise of existing companies so that they could offer quality programs that stimulate even more talent and creativity in this country.

These four new services being added to the 11 existing ones will constitute a new discretionary service that will offer diversified programming at an affordable price. The Commission also wanted to gradually rebalance the line-up of French specialty channels in relation to the English language market.

• 1550

I would now like to touch briefly on the question of digital services. At the beginning of the year, the CRTC announced its regulatory framework for licensing new digital pay and specialty television services. Our goal is to bridge the changeover from analog to digital distribution and to offer Canadian consumers more choice, as much in terms of content as in linkage and program presentation.

In short, we will be offering two categories of digital licences. I'm going to skip this part of the text because it deals with regulatory details.

Industry interest is obviously high, because the CRTC received a record 452 applications. You would no doubt be interested to know that among them were 13 French-language and 4 bilingual service applications in Category 1, and in Category 2, 23 French-language and 13 bilingual.

I would like to conclude with the French-language broadcasting services for minority francophone communities in Canada. This is a priority for the Commission and an issue that has been of interest to us and all Canadians for some time. As early as May 1998, the Commission began an internal review and analysis of issues related to French-language broadcasting services for minority francophone communities in Canada. This stage was completed in May 1999 when the CRTC issued a call for public comments. Last April 20, the Commission announced a policy proposal and called once more for public input. You will be happy to learn that we redefined a bilingual market as being any community with 5,000 residents when 10% of the population knows French. This is quite different from the concept of 50% that existed two years ago.

No doubt you are already aware that the Canadian government recently asked the CRTC to hold public consultations on this subject. When we received the order in council, we decided that it would be wise to suspend the process we had begun in 1998. We hope to be able to enrich it with the new issues the government asked us to review. We will therefore be holding regional consultations in September which will be followed by a public hearing in October.

We still hope to announce the CRTC's new policy in the spring of 2001. This is an important deadline because at the end of the first quarter of that year, the Commission will announce the launch of a cluster of digital stations. Our policy on these issues should, therefore, be known at that time.

And with that, I conclude my formal presentation. We would be very happy to respond to your questions.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Ms. Bertrand. Your presentation was indeed very short. I know that the Committee members are keenly interested in these issues and were looking forward to meeting with you.

Mr. Hill is the first person on my list for questions. Mr. Hill, the floor is yours.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for your testimony.

I'm not sure I understood the 10% component that you mentioned right near the end. Could you go over that for me again?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It's in the new policy for which the commission had put out a public notice asking for interventions. We had started with a view that as long as 50% of a community would be francophone we would consider that community to be bilingual. With the research and analysis we've done it was clear to us that if we were to stay with this idea we were not really helping the expression of minorities. What we have been proposing in that policy is in any community where there are either 5,000 inhabitants or 10% of that community who have a knowledge of French, then it is considered to be a community needing to have more services in the language of the minority.

Mr. Grant Hill: I see. So when you say “knowledge of French”, you're not meaning spoken at home?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No.

Mr. Grant Hill: Someone like myself, who has a knowledge of French, would be included in that category?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes. It's a more demanding benchmark we are proposing in that policy. We had started with mother tongue. We feel that in Canada, and from all the comments we've received, a lot has been put on the public record to the effect that a lot has been invested in really bringing the knowledge of French to a better level. And the policy should recognize that, rather than strictly in what language you were born.

• 1555

Mr. Grant Hill: All right.

If I could turn to the Internet, you didn't actually go through this, but in your summary document you say that you have decided to leave broadcasting—even though it is broadcasting on the Internet—relatively unfettered, unregulated, if you will. It sounds like that's a “looking to see how things go” attitude. I'd like to know how you would regulate the Internet. I'd like to know how you would actually do what you do with television and radio on the Internet.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: First, let me clarify that the decision is not one to say for now we don't regulate and we might regulate later. What we've been doing—and it's not can we do it and what are the tools—is really a public process by which we have really tried to understand what it was and to what extent it was really covered by either the Telecommunications Act or the Broadcasting Act. We tried to understand it in two ways: Is some activity happening on the Internet broadcasting, or is some activity happening in the broadcasting system challenged by the Internet? That was really the purpose of our proceedings.

What our proceedings have taught us is that a lot of what is happening right now on the Internet is still alphanumeric. What is alphanumeric is not considered to be a program as defined by the Broadcasting Act.

The second element is a lot of the content that is on the Internet is customizable, in the sense that you can personalize it. You can modify either the background or the messages. Every time that's the case then it's not seen as covered by the definition of a program as the Broadcasting Act defines it.

That leaves all the other activities much more similar to the broadcasting as we know it in our television and radio. I'm just thinking of MP3, for example. There we felt that the activity was increasing in this country. When we say 5% of the content of the Internet appears to be Canadian, it's not to say that this is the level to which it should be forever. Certainly we would hope that it will increase. But we felt at the time that it was really on the right curve.

We felt that if we were to regulate we would probably not help, but rather do damage, because there was a certain culture and a certain entrepreneurship there that was really not looking forward to a regulation in the sense that also it was not mass media. It was really meant for smaller and narrower types of audiences. The phenomenon by which we'll see that broadcasting occurs in the sense that we've known it, in the conventional broadcasting system, will require broad band, which has not yet reached every household in this country and will still take some years to come.

So those are the distinctions. We didn't say for now we don't regulate and we'll come back at it. We felt that it was not broadcasting as we know it. It was more a complementarity—for example, what the film industry is to television, in a sense—and that regulation would not really be a helpful tool. How we would have done it is a question that perhaps fortunately we never had to really hammer out around the table and get interventions on.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): There are a few seconds left, Mr. Hill, if you like.

Mr. Grant Hill: I still pause at your last comment. I would love to know how you would do this. You say the Internet has 5% Canadian content. Canada as a country of course is not 5% of the world's population.

• 1600

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The knowledge we're sharing in our decisions is what we've gathered through the public record. At the same time we were getting all the studies that were filed with us saying 5% of the content is Canadian and 5% is French-speaking, those same studies said that 65% of the communications on the Internet find their termination point in California.

So 5% of content being Canadian is not enormous, but it also means, as is demonstrated when you take in correlation the other figure, that still it is a very U.S.-driven type of network. We'll need to really make it flourish, not only here but everywhere in the world, in order to make it the international network of networks that is promised.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, it is your turn. I would remind you that you have seven minutes for the question and answer.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Yes, I will be brief.

I have a quick question for you, Ms. Bertrand. First of all, welcome to the committee. Thank you for appearing before us with your team. In your opinion, in how many years will digital transmission overtake analog transmission for TV distribution?

My second question is as follows: Ottawa-based Rogers offers 16% of its services in French. Videotron, in the Outaouais, offers 60% of its services in English. Do you think it right that French- language services do not account for the largest share in French- language markets, when English-language services represent a clear majority share in a market of English speakers?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: You are not expecting a short answer.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The second answer will be longer.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I will begin with your first question. We have compiled data that I will have sent to you. As I said earlier, we could come back to the committee, because the cable companies and other distributors are continuously providing us with the most up-to-date figures. I can tell you that there is currently a total of 8.6 million subscribers to distribution services, including cable, ExpressVu and other services. Of these 8.6 million subscribers, 870,000 receive digital transmissions by cable. As for DTH systems, namely ExpressVu and Star Choice, they include an additional 813,000 subscribers. This means that 20% of current subscribers receive their services in digital form. There has been marked growth in the last three years.

The cost factor certainly has something to do with this. When we came before the committee two years ago, the major hurdle facing digital services, and especially ExpressVu and Star Choice, was that the dish cost as much as $900. Today, a dish costs $200 and satellite companies are planning to offer the same dish at a price of $100 in the fall. So, this hurdle is being knocked down. Of course, as soon as satellite distributors, offer better digital services to the consumer, the cable industry quickly catches up, because it does not want to lose its market share. Consequently, there has really been substantial growth.

As for the question regarding the percentage of various services, if we take all of the distributors who have obtained licences in Canada, the number is considerably lower on the French side than on the English side. This partly explains why we worked to ensure that there would be additional French-language licences, with last year's decision to add four new services.

• 1605

History shows that, even in Quebec, although the Commission's decision was to offer these services in an exclusively French- language package, the demand was only 10 to 12%. The distributors and services asked us to open the door to a bilingual package. In the past, the French-speaking population of Canada as a whole has tended to have a taste for radio and television broadcasting services in both French and English. Currently, Rogers in Ottawa offers all of its French-language services in analog and digital format, but there is no question that these services are more limited than the totality of services in English, if you take into account Canadian and American services.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: When you issued the licence to 690AM for news in French, everyone was surprised that you chose a private company over Radio-Canada. When I compare what I hear on television, for example continuous newscasts in French on RDI, which seem to be of a very good quality, with what I hear on the 690 frequency, I have the impression that you made the wrong decision. If you tune into the news at 7:30 in the morning, and then later on when you get into your car at 11:00 in the evening, you hear exactly the same news and the same comments. The same things are repeated over and over. There are four different newscasts per day. These are repeated throughout the day, along with advertising.

I have read all the documents and all of your arguments, and I am still unable to understand why—unless it was in reaction to political pressure or because of some connection that I would describe as dangerous—you made the decision to grant former station CKVL responsibility for broadcasting continuous newscasts in French, rather than giving it to Radio-Canada.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Bertrand. I would ask you to be very brief.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I am not here to defend the quality of the service provided by CKVL at this time. However, I can assure you that we did not bend to pressure, but acted in accordance with the Broadcasting Act, which calls for a diversity of voices. Since Radio-Canada already had, in the Montreal market, two English- language voices on AM and FM radio and two French-language voices on AM and FM radio, not including its television voices, we felt it important to improve one of the news voices, that of CKVL, which had a frequency that was less favourable in terms of listening area. That is what motivated our decision.

Now, has it met our expectations? This was no beauty contest to decide which was the better distributor to provide a news service. The decision was referred to in these terms, but that was not the purpose. The purpose was to ensure that, in the Montreal market, there would be stations to compete with Radio-Canada, which already had an important presence, and CKVL had a voice that was somewhat limited by the frequency allocated to it.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon, I will now give the floor to Mr. Bellemare. You will have another chance during the second round.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Welcome to the committee, Ms. Bertrand. We have not seen each other for two years.

On the last occasion, I asked you questions about the capital of Canada, Ottawa, which in my opinion is a bilingual city, a city where both official languages should be recognized. There are other people, at different levels of government, who hold different opinions, for what I imagine are personal reasons.

I would like to review this situation. If I understood your remarks correctly, as well as what you said regarding percentages, you reject the notion of 50% plus one being the figure that would justify a designation of bilingual market for a municipality, region or area, and you instead opt for 10% of the population or 5,000 residents who speak French.

• 1610

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): To answer your question, let me say that the former rule of the Commission defined what a francophone market was. For a place to be designated as a francophone market, there had to be 50% plus one francophones in the population of the zone served by the cable broadcaster. This rule still holds, but a new definition has been made: it looks at bilingual markets. It is recognized that in some places there is a very large francophone minority. Of course, the same applies to anglophone majorities in Quebec, but we are mostly talking about francophone minorities. In that case, the francophone part of the market only has to reach 10% of the total population, or 5,000 persons, to be considered as a bilingual market subject to the policy proposed by the Commission.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Now, if I have read correctly, you held consultations and you will resume consultations in a few weeks.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In other words, when we did our analysis and asked for suggestions about ways to solve this problem, we proposed a policy that included this aspect. For instance—and this was, incidentally, a suggestion from the Commissioner of Official Languages—rather than considering the mother tongue, we consider the knowledge of French. We were told that this would better represent the true situation in Canada. Thus, with all the interventions, we had a written procedure. When did we begin this procedure, Jean-Pierre? In October? No, it was in February. When we got the order in council, it seemed to us that the question put to us by the government was broader than the one that we put. It seemed important to combine both rather than to proceed on parallel paths, and this is what we are proposing to do. To cover the question properly, we will hold regional consultations in all Canadian cities with strong francophone contingents. Secondly, we will hold public hearings here, in October, to cover the question as a whole.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you consulting the citizens?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you consulting people in the radio or cable broadcasting business?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Our regional consultations are usually preceded by public announcements. We will probably use regional weeklies and hold so-called townhall meetings. Everyone will be invited. People will not have to carry out studies and bring consultants. We are reaching out to the public, as we formerly did for the CBC. We will hear what citizens have to tell us.

Then, we will finish these consultations with a public hearing that will be held here to make sure we have covered all bases and that the policy we want to propose really serves our intended purpose and that of the Broadcasting Act, while also meeting the requirements of the order in council.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: During these consultations, the communities that you will address will surely react. In communities, we often notice that there is a certain minority group, within a majority group whose concern for numbers becomes crushing for the linguistic minority. How do you deal with that in meetings where there is a vocal group that is perhaps opposed to official languages and bilingualism and who give the impression that everyone in the room is in favour of unilingualism? I think that if we poll the population, the majority could crush the minority.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: First, this is not a poll. We are primarily guided by the Broadcasting Act. This law essentially promotes the duality of culture and language in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Thus, we must go out and listen to people's concerns, hear them out, as it was done for the policy we proposed in February, when we began the process. At that time, not all stakeholders agreed that we should consider those who speak French rather than only those whose mother tongue is French. However, we thought that this had to be done to meet the dual objective of the Broadcasting Act. We are ready to admit that this is far from perfect, but we want to continue advancing and improving things. This seems to us like some kind of balancing act. We want to strike some balance among different interests and we are trying to identify the things that will best meet the requirements of the Act. In this case, there is no doubt that the Broadcasting Act is very clear regarding the need to serve the dual culture of this country.

• 1615

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We establish a new principle after the consultations.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, as I said, we had already prepared a draft policy and we are trying, thanks to the order in council that was given to us, to go even further.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you going to provide for some exceptions? I'm thinking of Canada's capital, which is an exceptional city. It is not a city like the rest. Do you intend to implement this new philosophy immediately regarding Canada's capital?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Our policy is not patterned on that approach at this time, as we are mainly dealing with communities as a whole. We are looking at this from another angle. If, within the public process that we are trying to broaden and enhance at this time, this notion clearly emerges, we will most certainly be receptive.

Jean-Pierre, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes. On May 5, 1999, we followed the process with respect to the notion of serving francophone minorities. On March 10, we proposed a policy containing more specific rules and guidelines.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You are not answering my question. I asked whether you would establish policies for all Canadian communities.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's it. Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The City of Ottawa is an exception.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It is Canada's capital. Would you establish right away the fact that it is the capital, that it must respond to official language requirements and that it should be a model for the rest of Canada? Since it is the capital, would you immediately designate it as a bilingual region?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I was coming to that. I think that in the process...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I invite you to give us a brief answer.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In the public notice of March 10, that we will reiterate, we said that we expected people to raise that point. Even though we had proposed to consider 10% of the population, in some communities we could possibly require a percentage that would better reflect the specific situation.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Would it be possible to declare that as Ottawa is the national capital, it be considered as an exception? We want to improve the situation everywhere, but would it be possible, in the public notice, to raise this issue and listen to different points of view?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Honourable Senator Rivest, you have the floor.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Does the CBC not also have an arts network?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, this is the Bravo! channel of CHUM.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: What is the current situation? I put this question as simply as I can because your presentation seemed to voice this concern. In any case, this is one of the general concerns of the CRTC regarding radio and television broadcasting and cultural diversity. These elements are already flourishing in the field of news; we only have to look at RDI. The arts network project of the CBC would really take root not only because it would allow, as you know and as has been repeatedly said, artists and creators to present their works, but also because it has a dimension that is of greater interest to us where official languages are concerned, as is the case for instance for the Réseau de l'information that broadcasts regional news. There would also be another very attractive possibility for Canadian diversity and linguistic duality, which would be to allow francophone creators and artists from outside of Quebec to show their worth.

• 1620

Even if the CBC has made efforts in its programming to emphasize Canadian diversity, we know very well that the dimension of francophones outside of Quebec is almost entirely missing from the production of programs and serials, despite requests made by the CRTC and efforts that the CBC has, no doubt, made to remedy the situation. I would like you to give us a brief overview of this issue.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In April, we got two requests concerning the arts channel, and one of them was from the consortium that was part of the first batch and this time presented a slightly changed request that essentially seemed to be going down the same road; the other one was from CHUM, which operates the specialized English channel with Astral Communications Inc. We have the two requests. The public hearings will be held on June 27 and 28. We will examine the comments received and should be in a position to hand down a decision in early fall.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Will you avoid giving us a CKVL 2 in the arts? Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Senator. You still have time for another question if you want. Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Ms. Bertrand, maybe you'll be able to help me understand this situation better. I believe the CRTC has responsibilities in both radio and television broadcasting in French all across the country. There is a persistent problem my colleagues have heard me talk about at length. I come from New Brunswick and I used to say that Radio- Canada television was actually Radio-Québec television. My colleagues corrected me and indicated that it was actually Montreal television. These days, it is Quebec City television. We still have that problem. Are we going to have to endure this all of our lives? The CBC belongs to the country. I was happy to see RDI on the air because I thought that we would finally get to hear about something other than Montreal. But down home, in New Brunswick, you only get RDI for less than an hour in the morning and about ten minutes at night around 11:30 p.m.. The rest of the day, what you get is the same thing that you have in all the cities and provinces, except for Montreal. That problem has never been settled. Will it be settled some day? What are the CRTC's powers in this area? Is this just a matter of politics? Do we have to accept that Montreal is a big city and that the smaller centres just have to keep on living like this?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I think the Commission has shown its will to be open to suggestions from the radio and television audiences in the context of what is being done concerning the renewal of the CBC licences, whether it is French or English radio or television. We have held many regional consultations and have tried as best we could, in last January's decision, to be a proper reflection of the voice of Canadians who, like you, are telling us that they want to be seen and heard. In light of the project presented to us at the time—we should remember these hearings were held in the spring of 1999—both by the tone as well as by the objectives we retained from the plan that was being suggested, and as well as through the licensing conditions, we emphasized the importance of having regional aspects on the national network. We didn't simply want to broadcast voices that would be heard only in some communities; we wished to favour a broader dissemination of ideas. Now, you know as well as I do how our decisions were received. There was no appeal. The CBC team is presently working very hard not only with a view to reorient itself but also to respond to the financial requirements and the needs of the audiences it must serve. It's very difficult at the present time to know exactly how it's going to reorient its action.

• 1625

As I was mentioning in by brief intervention, you can be sure that we agree entirely with you. It's not up to us to tell them exactly where they have to broadcast nor how to do it. We very strongly supported what we heard during the regional consultations we held everywhere across the country. It's important for the CBC—whether the English or French network, whether radio or television—RDI and Newsworld, to speak to all Canadians and not just only to a few Canadians. This problem is serious for the French-language minority communities. They only hear about Montreal but on the other hand, the anglophones only hear about Toronto. It would seem we have an acute problem. That's what we heard during those consultations.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is not satisfactory, because the problems persist. I want this on the record of this committee. You could sort of talk about an arm's length relationship between the CBC and the government. Because it's CBC, I think the government and the CRTC should intervene to settle these problems. They make appointments and all kinds of other things, but the problems still are not settled. New Brunswick is a province, not a region. We are part of Canada. We get the impression the CBC is a reflection of Montreal and that we are just a group of regions. That's the attitude and the mentality that have to disappear. You are the ones responsible for making sure that we are represented and the CBC plays its real role, whether on radio or television. When are we going to watch a movie or a TV program coming from Moncton or Caraquet? We don't get that kind of movie or program, but we hear all about Montreal. If they want to be on CBC-TV, will our artists have to move to Montreal? In my opinion, the CBC and the CRTC have responsibilities in this matter. Do you have any powers at all or none at all?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We have the power to make a decision and impose certain conditions for licensing just as we did. You have to admit that the $7 million budget they are going to be putting into regional productions outside of Quebec is an important move. We noted this as being a significant statement. Besides, when we granted a rate increase to RDI, we did it with a view to improving regional and international coverage. We think this is a very concrete gesture of support in helping to attain the specific goals the Crown corporation presented for its license renewal. We exercised the power we had by recognizing that it is very important and that it equates with what we heard. On the one hand, the law requires it and, on the other, that's what came out of all our consultations.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Senator Gauthier, you have the floor.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good afternoon, Ms. Bertrand. It is a pleasure to see you.

I would like to continue in the same vein, which is the definition of a so-called francophone, anglophone or bilingual market, zone or region. You establish this distinction based on criteria and guideposts. If 50% or more people in a region speak language X, then that is an X-language zone, while if the percentage is 49%, then it would not be the case.

I would like to use the example of Timmins, Ontario, where you have a critical mass of francophones but which, according to the CRTC, is an anglophone zone or market. On the other hand, I am sure that in the province of Quebec as a whole, 10% of Quebeckers understand English. If I were to apply the CRTC philosophy, the whole province of Quebec would be a bilingual zone or a bilingual market. Am I wrong? I recognize that these are two rather extreme examples.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We suggested a change in that matter. You are right in mentioning this 50% bar that we talked about during our appearance here two years ago and that was the criterion we used in analyzing the markets. In conformity with the new policy we set out in February with a view to improving television supply for francophone minorities, and in the light of the interventions we heard, especially what we heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, we intend from here on in to take into account the number of people speaking French and not the number of people whose mother tongue is French.

• 1630

Secondly, we examine the situation differently because as soon as you have a francophone or anglophone minority representing 10% of the population, we demand that very particular attention be given this minority to make sure that it gets better services and that its culture is preserved.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: When you answered Mr. Hill, I thought I understood that your figures were based on mother tongue.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's what we used to do.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not what you said.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, there has been a change.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Our data now reflect knowledge of the language.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who gives you those figures?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Statistics Canada.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is the language spoken at home taken into account?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No, what is taken into account is the knowledge of the language which gives a far more generous figure. We take into account everyone who knows French, not only those who speak French at home or for whom French is their mother tongue.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: When you appeared before this committee on May 5, 1998, you told us you would make changes to improve the situation and that you would look at the francophone and anglophone markets. Could you summarize the main positive points of the last two years? I for one haven't seen anything positive, anyway.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In my opinion, our proposal to change our definition of bilingual markets is the most significant gesture because that implies new obligations that will translate into increased French-language services all across Canada. That's really our most important file. Moreover, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we have expanded the TVA television network distribution to take in all of Canada. If there is one very significant and very structural element, it has to be the one that led to changing our approach concerning bilingual markets with a view to giving better support to francophone communities by offering a broader choice in their language.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Ms. Bertrand, in answer to the senator's question, I wonder if you could be more specific about the consequences of this change in policy and this new way of analyzing the French-speaking element of a given community by indicating the number of stations and quantifying French-language broadcasting from coast to coast. Do you have any figures on that?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, because this is a process that we are in the way of completing after getting our order in council. We will even enrich this approach which will probably allow us to classify Ottawa, our national capital, as an exceptional case. We haven't yet arrived at the result stage; we are proceeding with changing this approach.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Senator Gauthier, does that answer your question?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ms. Bertrand, about 18% of the programs broadcast by the Aboriginal APTN network is done in Native languages, about 25% of the programming is in French and the rest is in English. My question is quite simple. As there are Native francophone markets, especially in Quebec, why wasn't it requested that the programming be divided to ensure that those people enjoy radio and television in their language?

• 1635

According to present policy, is someone speaking neither English nor French considered as being an anglophone? In your mind, is an allophone part of the anglophone category?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, not at all.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That nevertheless seems to be the case. If a region is made up of 45% francophones and Native- language speakers and 20% allophones, then according to you, it is an anglophone region.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The market studies we have done to date have always been done in co-operation with Statistics Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. I must admit that we are not the masters of this definition. I will turn to Jean-Pierre who is more of an expert than I in this matter. I don't know exactly how they are qualified.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The proposal is to create a new category that would go from 10 to 50 percent to recognize the language duality that exists in some regions. We might suppose that there is a strong percentage of non-francophones and non- anglophones although I don't have any knowledge of any cabled territory that has a significant language group representing more than 10% of the population except possibly for Toronto, where there is a strong concentration of Italian speakers.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could you send me the definition of a francophone, anglophone or Aboriginal-language market, zone or region?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: With pleasure. I think it would be useful to send you the old definition and the one we are proposing to be able to see the difference and evaluate the results we are forecasting. That would give you an opportunity to gauge the impact of this change in services offered because, at the end of the day, that is the whole interest of this thing. We will do it with pleasure.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Ms. Bertrand, could I ask you to send these documents to our clerk? We will make sure we get them to our members as quickly as possible.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: With pleasure. At the same time, I will cover the latest developments concerning digital distribution because that information could also be useful.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. On a point of order?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, I would like a clarification. Earlier, Ms. Bertrand seemed to accept my suggestion...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): No, Mr. Bellemare, you are dealing with substance. You will have the opportunity to put more questions during the second round. We are almost there.

In turn, I would like to put a question to you, Ms. Bertrand. Not so long ago, witnesses came before us concerning minority francophone communities in Canada. One of the witnesses told us that the CRTC had decided to free the CBC from its responsibilities in radio broadcasting for francophone minorities and turn that responsibility over to community radio. You are looking at me as though this is news to you.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: You mean like I'm dumbstruck?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): No.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: This question was not submitted to us. Maybe I should turn to my colleague. This is not a matter we have heard about. However, we did hear say and read in the newspapers that the CBC was trying to reconcile the new ideas with its financial means. At this point, we don't have anything in front of us that would allow us to say anything at all about that. I don't think they have finished their work on that yet.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. We have now reached our second turn. Mr. Hill, you have five minutes.

• 1640

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

You've said that you're planning to change the policy with regard to the numbers for these markets. Would you see formalizing that under the Broadcasting Act?

Ms. François Bertrand: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The way we would do it is through appropriate amendments to the regulations we adopt.

Mr. Grant Hill: Made by whom?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We make the regulations. Under the Broadcasting Act, the commission can adopt regulations of general application. So we would adopt the regulations.

Mr. Grant Hill: So you feel it's reasonable for the CRTC to make this kind of major policy decision change by some public consultation mechanism and with the agreement of some Canadians. I categorically disagree with you. I think a major policy change and direction like this should be made by elected officials, who have a much broader consultation process than you do, and I state that very strongly. I think you're on very thin ice when you say that.

Mr. John Keogh (Senior General Counsel, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Just to be clear, the current definition of the francophone market we've been discussing is also found in the regulations that were made by the commission, so the commission has been making these pursuant to the authority Parliament has granted it under the Broadcasting Act. In terms of the whole discussion we've been having about the markets, the obligations to distribute certain services are found in regulations made by the commission, which have been made pursuant to the authority Parliament granted it. That process is a public process, as you were mentioning, in terms of both establishing a policy and the regulations that are being made. They would again be put out for public comment, and people would participate in that process as well.

Mr. Grant Hill: Let me turn this around, then, and ask you this question: since knowledge of French is now going to become a qualification and your numbers are going to be quite different from what they have been, will you use the same criteria in unilingual areas of the country that wish to be unilingual French—in other words, in Quebec? Would you use those criteria and flip this over and say that knowledge of English, in a community with 5,000 or 10%, will get the same treatment?

Mr. John Keogh: The policy doesn't draw a distinction between francophone and anglophone markets. It is a policy proposal to address the needs of minority official language groups wherever they may be in the country.

Mr. Grant Hill: I want concurrence across the board here. I see a nodding of heads, but that won't appear in the transcript.

Ms. François Bertrand: Yes, we all agree. That has been a topic of discussion around the table at the commission.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It's in black and white in the commission's public notice CRTC 2000-38, which was issued on March 10, 2000, that the proposed policy works for both minority language groups.

Mr. Grant Hill: Do you mean in this mighty document you've given us?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think it is in there. It's under the first tab, about four or five pages in.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'll read this at another time, so that we don't take up the time of the group here doing that.

Thank you. That's sufficient.

• 1645

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to correct a mistake I made before because of my hearing loss. I was surprised by what you said and I forgot the exact figures. I quoted some data from memory and I was wrong.

I should have told Ms. Bertrand that the APTN network broadcasts programs for about 30 hours a week and 18% of its broadcasting time goes to Native-language programming, 15% to French programming and the rest, basically, two thirds, to English programming. Why is the percentage of French programming so low?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's a good question. We approved the creation of this Aboriginal network at the same time we authorized the national distribution of TVA. I must admit, Senator Gauthier, that I do not know the answer to your question. I'll ask my colleague Jean-Pierre to help us.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: This percentage reflects the availability of Aboriginal production. There are many challenges to be met by this new service, including the production level of Native themes in English. It is experiencing difficulties with respect to availability and funding and these problems are even more pronounced with respect to the production of Native themes in French. This programming reflects the availability of production.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: And not a response to audiences.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You say that it is a reflection of the market.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It is more a matter of the production capacity as well as product availability.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I gathered that your philosophy was based on the market. However you are telling me now that it is based on program availability.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: When we approved the creation of this network, we were attempting to achieve the objective relating to cultural diversity and to reinforce Aboriginal expression in Canada. We realized that we could not expect subscribers to pay high rates for access to these services. The budget proposed was extremely modest and that is why this network has had to make due to a large extent with existing productions. We were sensitive both to the consumer's ability to pay and the availability of programming. I might remind you that the main objective underlying this decision was to strengthen Aboriginal production in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Allow me, Senator...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We can come back to that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Exactly. I now give the floor to Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Thank you, Madam.

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming. The CRTC is a federal institution required to respect linguistic duality as well as the laws of the land. The CRTC gives licences to radio and television stations throughout the country. If some of the latter do not respect or even violate the provisions of the Official Languages Act, what sanctions can be imposed by the CRTC?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I'll have to call in my colleagues who are all lawyers, unlike me. I must admit that since I have been in my position we have not really had to crack down, although sometimes we certainly have been tempted to. We are told that there are not enough services but there has not really been any breach of the rules in this respect.

Jean-Pierre.

• 1650

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Are you talking about a breach on the part of broadcasters with respect to their obligations relating to official languages?

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: No. If, for example, a television station openly stated that bilingualism in Canada is a flagrant social injustice, what sanction could the CRTC impose?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In dealing with matters of public interest, all broadcasters must provide balanced coverage and avoid broadcasting remarks that go against their code of ethics. I know that we sometimes hear shocking remarks on the air. In such cases we receive complaints.

You are probably referring to things that are occurring at the present time. If we receive a complaint or we investigate a situation, we have full powers to hear the position of the party, the complainant and the other party, to investigate the matter and take the necessary steps. So we do have a formal system to deal with complaints. Broadcasters are accountable and responsible for what they broadcast on the air, whether it be in the ordinary programming or in their advertising.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: If I were to complain openly today to you that a commercial, you know the one I'm referring to, broadcast by CJOH in Ottawa is a flagrant violation of the Official Languages Act of this country and is almost hate propaganda, what action would the CRTC be able to take? I've seen this commercial at least twice and from what I've learned, it is supposed to stay on the air on television until May 21. If I were to make a protest now, what action could the CRTC take?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: A point of order.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: To prevent...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Could we have some information about this? Could you tell us more about this commercial?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Since you named the station, Senator, you might as well let us know.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: It is CJOH. I named it already.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, but what does it say?

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: It says that bilingualism is terrible for the country or something to that effect. I don't have the exact wording. It says that the federal government spends huge sums on bilingualism and very little on the environment and that this is a social injustice for Canadians. That type of thing.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We hear the same sort of thing in the House of Commons.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: No, not to that extent.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, we do.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me. The question was put to Ms. Bertrand and her colleagues.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We have already been asked to look at the problem and we are conducting an investigation. I'll take note of your complaint. I cannot go any farther than that since it is a process...

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: I see.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We still have to hear from the station. We are actively investigating the matter right now. You are not the only one to have raised it with us.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud: Thank you. I'm glad I did because whenever I see this commercial, my hair stands on end, the hair I have left.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvon Godin: It couldn't happen to me.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'd like to come back to what Senator Gauthier said and to express to you my concern. You told me that when you chose CKVL, your choice was motivated by diversity rather than quality. The decision to deal with an application in this way, to chose diversity rather than quality, strikes me as quite disturbing.

Second, you say that when you accepted the Aboriginal network, you knew that French-speaking Aboriginals would be poorly served because you were aware of the availability of production for this network.

It seems to me to be unwise not to ensure, when a network is offered to a producer, that both francophones and anglophones will have their share of production and viewing hours. I'm quite annoyed by these two decisions you took.

• 1655

My third question relates to your interpretation of the French fact and the English fact based on the data from Statistics Canada. We know that the last Statistics Canada report was completely biased and was very much criticized by demographers. The previous question, “Are you French speaking, English speaking or something else?” that is, of Italian origin, etc., was replaced by “Are you of Canadian, French or British origin?” In Chicoutimi, for example, 65% of the people replied Canadian. This unbalanced the whole structure, it no longer holds in place.

If you make use of these data, how will you interpret “Canadian”? They've been doing it the right way for years now but they changed it in the last census. It will be changed for 2001 when they will return to the original question. I've received the questionnaire.

If you base it on that, I am afraid that you will stick to the number of responses in the francophone category and that the rest will go to the anglophones. The proportion of anglophones will go way up and enable you to justify a somewhat lackadaisical attitude with respect to services for francophones.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: With respect to the 690 call letters, I did not say that we made diversity a priority over quality. That is not what I said. I said that when we issued the call letters, it was not a matter of choosing the best news service. That is not what we did. That was not at all the case.

To ensure that there was a new voice on the market, we asked ourselves if it was better to grant an additional licence to Radio- Canada or allow CKVL to extend its area. At any rate, 850 is still available to add a new voice to the market. That was our line of thinking.

The comment I made on quality today—first of all I did not hear it—is that if they do not comply with rules to ensure quality, people will not be listening. That is the best way to remind them of their obligations.

As regards APTN, I remind you that the Broadcasting Act entrusts the Commission with several objectives and it sometimes happens that these objectives conflict. We try to maintain a balance. Perhaps we do a better job of maintaining it for our decisions on the whole as opposed to each individual one. We cannot say that we have achieved a perfect balance in each particular case.

It is clear that in the decision regarding the APTN the priority was to serve Aboriginals with a network that provided programming and programs that resembled them. If 15% of the programming is in French and two thirds in English, the fact remains that there are 18 hours of programming in Aboriginal languages, which was the main objective of setting up the network, to provide service in Aboriginal languages.

As for Statistics Canada data and the proposal contained in the new policy, our new way of addressing the issues was suggested to us by the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think that it would be worthwhile to examine it very closely. I think we took a big step in the right direction when we succeeded in talking about francophiles and knowledge of French instead of people's mother tongue.

However, you have raised a very valid point that we will undoubtedly clarify with respect to how we establish categories for the others or for allophones. Should we take our analysis even farther? That is a very good question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): How does the CRTC verify if the conditions for issuing a licence are complied with? What mechanism do you use to do that?

• 1700

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We gather information in two ways. First of all, we have a regular verification. However, when the licence is up for renewal, we normally listen to some samples that we compare to the licence conditions. That applies to all licensees.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If the licence is granted for five years, nothing is really done until you receive the application for renewal. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We can investigate if a complaint is lodged or when broadcasters publish the annual report they are required to produce. If we detect a breach of a condition of the licence, we have the authority to call the licensee to a public hearing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But people have to complain.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Not necessarily in a case where we determine there has been a breach of the licence conditions. Complaints are one of the ways of detecting such breaches.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you do some kind of annual review?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, with the annual report. We also respond to a particular condition, in which case we request a specific report in that area.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are these documents public?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The annual report is for the most part public.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How do we know, for example, if TVA, which is subject to very specific conditions, is complying with them? And what do you do if it is not complying?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am happy that you have given a specific example. We are currently in the process of investigating, because TVA must produce certain regional programs. It has tabled a report, which is a mechanism that enables us to examine the situation, and we are troubled by the response it contains. As we speak, we are currently investigating.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Will the outcome of the investigation be made public?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely. In fact, the exchange of correspondence is public.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Please take note that I would like to receive a copy of it, because I do not always follow everything you issue.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You have a little bit of time left. Do you have another question?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will ask all of my questions, because I have several.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I apologize, I was not cutting you off. I was talking about the report.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have been patient, Madam Chair.

As regards zones, on what basis does the CRTC define a geographic region? Is it based on the cable operator's penetration?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Each licensee who receives a cable licence is given a zone to serve that is defined under the terms of the licence.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If Rogers were to acquire Videotron, would it also acquire the zone?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: At present, Videotron has several licences. Videotron does not just have one licence for all of Quebec, but several licences. For example, I think that Montreal Island is one licence and Jésus Island is a second licence.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The owner is the same.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: But the licences are distinct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If Rogers were to request a global licence for its entire network, which is simply a hypothesis, could its licence in theory apply to the entire territory?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That could be possible. We are currently considering that and studying requests for groupings. If that were the case, a new licence would be granted.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If a cable operator wants to drown out a minority, all it has to do is broaden its territory. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is a technique that someone could try to use. However, we are quicker than that, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What could you do to prevent it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am sure that people will step in to tell us that a cable operator has obligations with respect to its subscribers, which we would consider. I do not want to prejudge what we would do.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Allow me to doubt your speedy action, at least at certain times. I live in this region and receive service from Rogers. But I do not have access to everything that Rogers offers in French on the analog network. The four specialized networks that are currently offered in Quebec are not offered here in the region.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: But you do have them on the digital network.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you familiar with section 41 of the Official Languages Act? Has the CRTC examined this section since it came into existence in 1988?

Ms. Ursula Menke (Secretary General, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): We have not yet taken an official stand on the issue. We have obviously examined it, but we do not have an official position.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you know what I'm talking about?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. You are talking about designation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

Ms. Ursula Menke: That's right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The designation?

Ms. Ursula Menke: I moved too quickly, perhaps. It stipulates an obligation, of course...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: An obligation to...?

Ms. Ursula Menke: ... to serve... Do you want me to use the exact wording?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: To promote the English and French linguistic minority communities. Is the CRTC waiting to be specifically designated before doing something?

• 1705

Ms. Ursula Menke: No. We already have that obligation under the Broadcasting Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Has an action plan been established since this provision of the Act received Royal Assent in 1988?

Ms. Ursula Menke: No. No action plan has been established.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Might we hope that the CRTC would voluntarily undertake the establishment of an annual action plan, an exercise imposed on some 26 agencies and departments?

Ms. Ursula Menke: Some questions about this issue have been raised, obviously.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is my last question.

Ms. Ursula Menke: Under the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC is subject to a range of obligations and proposed objectives. Under section 41 of the Official Languages Act, there's only one principal goal. Our problem is that the Broadcasting Act comprises a number of objectives at the same level: if we attempted to establish an action plan for only one of those objectives, this would cause difficulty since we are a tribunal. It might possibly...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Allow me to interrupt. I would like us to check something. I know that Senator Beaudoin made a statement to that effect during previous hearings. I thought that the Official Languages Act had quasi-constitutional status, and I was under the impression—please correct me if I am wrong—that the CRTC was covered by it.

Ms. Ursula Menke: Of course it is.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It is not among the 24 organizations...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, but it is subject to the Official Languages Act nonetheless. Therefore, it is also subject to section 41. That is what I wanted to know.

I have one last question.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: With respect to the concern you expressed, I believe that we could in fact set forth our specific actions within the framework of our action plan.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In any case, I believe you mentioned a fairly recent government order. You talked about hearings. I wanted to know where those hearings will take place.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: First of all, there will be a regional consultation process. Jean-Pierre, you have the details on this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, but I do not have the list yet. We are in the process of finalizing it. We are planning to go to all parts of the country—we thought of visiting Vancouver, Toronto and Moncton. As for Saskatchewan, we are finalizing the details with the communities of Saint-Boniface and Gravelbourg.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is where most of the francophones are.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I have not completed the list yet. There will also be hearings in eastern, western and Northern Ontario, as well as a regional hearing and a central public hearing both in Ottawa and Hull. Hull is in Quebec.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But you will not go elsewhere. That is because your headquarters are there.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It is also because it is the National Capital.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You will not visit other parts of Quebec.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I said, the list has not been finalized. The order was on services provided for francophone minorities outside Quebec.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That was not the only issue, with all due respect. I will find that order. I have it somewhere. It mentioned something else as well. It mentioned the way in which the francophone presence was reflected in all regions of Canada. As far as I know, Quebec is a region of Canada.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: May I ask something? What would you suggest for Quebec? What cities should we visit for our regional hearings?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's not up to me to tell you how to manage your organization. My job is to ask questions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You could go to the Gaspé.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: A few moments ago, you told Senator Gauthier that you would be sending all members of the Commission your new proposed definition of a bilingual zone. If I understand your proposal correctly, your figures will henceforth be based on the number of people who know the language, rather than on the mother tongue of the minority.

• 1710

During our initial dialogue, you responded positively to a suggestion of mine, but I want to make sure I understood everything correctly. Am I to understand that you would consider making the National Capital Region an exception, a zone different from the others, because it is Canada's capital, because it should reflect the Official Languages Act, and because it should be the Canadian model? Am I also to understand that you will include this in your statements?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Absolutely. We plan to issue a new public notice to invite people to participate in the consultation process and hearings. In the public notice, we will set forth the main points of the policy, and include the concerns expressed in the order in council. That is one of the proposals we will put forward.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Well, congratulations and thank you!

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a brief question. You mentioned community radio earlier. You said that community radio stations were closer to the people and the community. But we hear complaints that community radio includes many volunteers. Many volunteers take part in community radio, and feel they have to because the CBC—I always come back to the CBC, they are the ones I'm upset with, I'm upset with Radio-Montréal—is not really doing what needs to be done. Under the terms of its CRTC licence, isn't the CBC supposed to go to the regions and have stations there? If they did what they had to do, volunteers wouldn't have to set up community radio stations to serve the community.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: As far as radio is concerned, Radio- Canada and the CBC are doing some remarkable work. At least, that is what everyone tells us. If TV did as much to give a voice to Canadians from all regions at the network level, there would certainly be better dialogue across the country.

Community radio does not replace CBC radio, but rather complements it. This does not of course take away any of the CBC's obligations. That is something very important. As we said earlier, given the diversity of voices, we did not grant the CBC an additional licence for the Montreal market. In the same way, I do believe that though it is important for CBC to serve communities, it must not be the only voice heard there.

Canada must have a broadcasting system that is solidly founded on both the public and a private component. In my view, the community radio policy opened the way to recognizing that community radio could not survive solely on a volunteer basis, and that we had to be more liberal on the advertising issue so that they could get more funding and resources.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bélanger, do you have another question?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes. I don't understand the issue of the diversity of voices. In that light, how can you explain the CRTC's decision regarding TFO?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Since the TFO case is presently under appeal, I would prefer not to speak to that matter.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Hill, do you have a question?

Mr. Grant Hill: Back to the issue of the definition of knowledge of one language or the other, it's pretty easy to say, do you speak English or French at home? It's very difficult to say what level of knowledge you have. Can you give me some insight into how you'll do that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Mr. Hill, it's precisely because of the concerns you're raising that the commission went out of its way in the public notice I mentioned to you earlier, in paragraph 11, to seek comment on the use of the definition of “knowledge” as opposed to “mother tongue” or “language spoken at home”. It's an issue that we specifically asked the public to comment on.

For all those reasons, even if you haven't gone into it, I note the discomfort with that knowledge test, and that's precisely why we raised it.

Mr. Grant Hill: Just give me a little insight into a practical way.

[Translation]

I speak a bit of French: good afternoon, my friend. That's about it.

• 1715

[English]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, it is the Commissioner of Official Languages who proposed that we adopt a test based on knowledge of French. Their argument, which the commission accepted, at least on a preliminary view because it's just a proposed policy, was that because there are—for instance, they gave the example of western Canada—a greater number of French immersion schools to which parents choose to send their children, this Canadian reality would be well served if we moved to a knowledge-of-French basis.

Mr. Grant Hill: You're still not answering my question. Can you give me some hint as to how you would define a knowledge of French?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We would accept the definition. Statistics Canada specifically surveys a question on knowledge of French, so they define it. That is what we would propose to use to define a bilingual market.

Mr. Grant Hill: There's one other issue. You've said there aren't spots in Canada that you are aware of that have 10% speaking another language. In my own area, 10% of my riding are natives speaking Blackfoot. In parts of Vancouver, there are well more than 10% of people speaking, as the minority language, Chinese. So I think that comment is inaccurate.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I was talking in terms of service areas of licensees. You're correct that there are areas where there is a larger percentage, but one looks at the cable licence service area for ridings and we're looking at a single language, based on mother tongue.

Mr. Grant Hill: All right. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The time for questions is up. That leaves me to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here and for answering our questions.

Honourable members of the committee, our next meeting will be next week, on May 16, at which time we will hear from a minister from Dublin, Ireland, who would like to made a brief presentation on how his country deals with bilingualism. He is a State minister and was previously the director of a co-operative.

After that meeting, there will be a small reception with wine. It's not Saint Patrick's Day, but so what!

The meeting is adjourned.