LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

• 1527

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): It's time to resume our deliberations.

The subcommittee met last week. In response to a wish expressed by the committee, we have invited the Commissioner of Official Languages to discuss a specific issue. We will no doubt have other opportunities to discuss her report, her first report, and perhaps others as well.

We will be discussing the television broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. As you will see in the minutes of the subcommittee's first meeting, we will have an opportunity next week to meet either the Speaker of the House, or CPAC and/or the CRTC to discuss broadcasts of House proceedings.

So without further ado, I would invite the Commissioner to go ahead with her presentation. Afterwards, there will be questions by members.

Welcome before the committee, Commissioner.

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here.

As the other joint chair pointed out, I have never had an opportunity to discuss my first annual report with you, since our Prime Minister decided otherwise and called an election. This certainly affected the work schedule of members of the House. However, the annual report is still current and it would therefore be a pleasure for me to discuss it with you, at your convenience, even though it was published six months ago.

[English]

I would like to come back to the subject on the agenda and thank you, the co-chairs and members of the committee, for inviting me here today to discuss this investigation report on the broadcasts of the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I have a point of order. The meeting was called for 3:30 p.m. It is now 3:30 p.m., and I note that the meeting has already begun. Sorry, but this meeting was called for 3:30. I am here at 3:30.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I apologize to the Commissioner for Official Languages.

As you know, I have become deaf. I asked to be provided with a machine stenographer today, but there was none available. I have therefore brought one of my faithful assistants with me, Mr. Boulianne, from the University of Ottawa. He will interpret and write down everything that is said so that I can follow. So please be patient with me.

• 1530

Briefly, my point of order is as follows: in the standing orders, there is a tradition to the effect that when a matter is before the courts, it is not discussed before a parliamentary committee, whether it be a House of Commons committee or a Senate committee. Mr. Chairman, I know full well that the question could be raised. It is not prohibited, that it is not the custom, and it is not in line with tradition.

If I understand correctly, the subcommittee has prioritized the CPAC and Air Canada issues. That is not a problem. The commissioner's annual report was already a priority, and that makes three priorities. In my view, the Commissioner's report should have top priority, but in any case—

I was informed—and I did go to the source—that some people in New Brunswick were not happy with the way in which cable companies were providing service. They make only one of the following options available: English, French, or the floor. In some regions of New Brunswick only the floor is available. In other words, unilingual viewers have no access to television showing full parliamentary proceedings.

I know that this certainly affects the House of Commons. But I have read the notice for this meeting, and I am unable to understand. Mr. Chairman, I would advise you to ask your legal counsel or others for advice to determine whether a parliamentary committee is permitted to study or consider a matter which is before the courts. The case I have in mind has been before the courts since December 2000. It concerns Louis Quigley of New Brunswick, who asked the Federal Court trial division to determine whether it is constitutional, appropriate and legal for the House of Commons to broadcast its proceedings in one language only.

I must say I was surprised by the committee's decision to meet today in order to discuss this issue specifically. I have been here since 1974-75, and according to my experience, my institutional memory, I have never known a parliamentary committee to consider a case currently before the courts.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you first of all to tell me whether my point of order is in order, and if you deem that it is, I would suggest that we re-examine the committee's agenda and consider the Commissioner's annual report, tabled in October 2000, rather than specifically discus the CPAC issue, which is before the courts. I am sure that all members and senators have read the commissioner's report.

In any case, I would remind you that the CPAC issue is mentioned in the report, on page 67. If anyone here wanted to raise the issue, I do not think there would be a problem. But we will have to be careful: we cannot prejudice any matter which is before the courts. It is something we must avoid.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator. We have heard your point of order. The committee is well aware that Mr. Quigley's complaint is before the courts. The committee's and the subcommittee's intent was not necessarily to discuss the case as such, but to engage in a broader discussion on the concept of broadcasting House of Commons proceedings for all Canadians. Hence, your point of order—and I am of course the servant of this committee—is not in order. I do hope we will take it into account in our deliberations, but the subject the committee planned to discuss is the broadcasting contract slated to expire in August of this year, I believe. The committee might have suggestions for the Board of Internal Economy as to the approach that should be taken in renewing the contract.

Thus, the committee planned to engage in a general study of the broadcast of House of Commons proceedings, something that we will now do.

• 1535

Senator Lise Bacon (De la Durantaye, Lib.): When I examined the issues before us, I said to myself that we would have to be careful in the questions we put, and never forget that there is a case before the courts. To some extent, I do agree with what Senator Gauthier just said. We do have to be careful. I would urge everyone here to move carefully. We are skating on thin ice, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to avoid having the Commissioner of Official Languages called upon by a committee member to comment on the CPAC issue. As you know, we have received a report on it, dated October 2000. I read the report carefully. I would not wish Ms. Adam to be placed in an uncomfortable position by any substantive question on this issue.

But in my view we are free to discuss negotiations with Ms. Watson, the new director of CPAC. I see no difficulty in inviting Ms. Watson to tell us how the system works, discuss the contract and the negotiations, and answer other questions. But it is unacceptable for the committee to put Ms. Adam, who will probably be a witness in the case, in a situation that is somewhat, if not very, embarrassing for her. Do you understand what I am saying?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, we all understand what you are getting at.

Thank you. We are agreed.

Ms. Adam.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe the remarks by both senators reflect the warning that I have received from my lawyers.

[English]

I want to stress that I am obliged to point out that there are limits placed on my presentation and on my responses to questions. This is because of the factor I have already mentioned—namely, the pending litigation that raises the very legal and factual issues addressed by my report. As well, my office will be conducting a follow-up to this investigation, to the first recommendation of their report, within the next few weeks.

[Translation]

If I answer somewhat hesitantly, or give the impression of being on the defensive, it is not because my personality has suddenly changed; it is simply because the circumstances prevent me from giving you a complete answer.

My remarks here today will essentially give you a concise overview of the report.

[English]

First of all, where did that start from?

Between October 1998 and September 2000, my office received and investigated six complaints concerning broadcasts of the debates and proceedings of the House of Commons in the language of choice of the audience. These complaints came from both anglophones and francophones living in the national capital region as well as in various parts of New Brunswick and Quebec.

The cable public affairs channel, or CPAC, distributes, as you may know, three audio signals of House proceedings via satellite to cable broadcasters throughout Canada—one in English, one in French, and the third live, in the language used by the speaker. However, local cable companies often broadcast only one audio version, often the live signal. This means that unilingual viewers, French or English, are unable to comprehend a significant portion of House proceedings broadcast on CPAC, especially during question period.

[Translation]

In the report, we consider that Part I of the Official Languages Act and the spirit in which it was drafted require that all parliamentary proceedings, regardless of how they are broadcast, be accessible to both official languages community in equal measure, from the moment the House of Commons decides to broadcast them in one form or another.

We consider this to be a House of Commons' responsibility. In our report, we also noted that the House of Commons was responsible for ensuring that broadcasting services provided to Canadians by a third party, in this case CPAC, were in compliance with language provisions in sections 22 and 25 of the Official Languages Act.

• 1540

As you know, CPAC is a non-profit organization producing non- commercial programming funded 100% by a consortium of over 100 Canadian cable distribution firms.

In 1994, the House of Commons and CPAC signed an agreement. Under the agreement, CPAC is responsible for the satellite distribution of House of Commons' proceedings and parliamentary committees. The CRTC granted CPAC a seven-year operating licence, which is due to expire on August 31, 2002.

As indicated in our investigation report, the agreement on the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings specifies the obligations of each party. The agreement is designed to ensure the widest possible distribution of broadcast signals to all Canadians. Under the agreement, the House of Commons transmits House proceedings and the proceedings of some parliamentary committees, in both official languages, to CPAC. From the Broadcasting Service, CPAC receives one live video signal and three live audio signals: one French, one English, and the floor. CPAC then broadcasts these signals bye satellite to cable companies, the two satellite Direct to Home broadcast distributors, and Look TV, throughout Canada.

When cable companies, who are not parties to the agreement, receive CPAC signals, they can choose the language of the audio signal they offer to viewers free of charge. So, depending on the cable distribution company, and the area where the House of Commons' proceedings are being broadcast, the public may not always have access to the proceedings in both official languages. We should point out, however, that cable distributors have no obligation to distribute CPAC programming at all.

[English]

It is also important to note that between 1979 and 1991, when CBC/Radio-Canada was broadcasting House proceedings in both official languages on its parliamentary channels, the CRTC then played an important role, because it issued a decision facilitating cable companies' broadcast of House debates. As a result, with the participation of cable companies, the CBC-SRC parliamentary channels were available to potentially 50% of Canadian households in both official languages. In 2001 about 80% of Canadian households have cable, which means that broadcasts of House proceedings now reach approximately 7 million households.

During our investigation we learned that the vast majority of cable companies choose a combination of two of the three audio feeds for their viewers. We also learned that because of current technological limitations and public demand for increased channel capacity, very few cable companies choose the floor sound audio signal as their primary audio feed to broadcast to their audiences rather than the two separate English and French signals. Because the floor sound does not include simultaneous interpretation, unilingual viewers are now unable to comprehend a significant part of the broadcasts of House proceedings.

• 1545

We also were informed about the existence of new technology—namely, multi-channel TV sound and a second audio program. A single television channel can now carry one video signal and two audio signals at the same time. This technology has been available for a few years now. It means that the viewer may now choose between two of the three audio signals provided by CPAC to the cable or satellite distribution companies. However, we note that this technology is not widely known and not readily accessible to everyone, since it depends on the type and age of the television set.

[Translation]

Now, I would like to talk about the comments the House of Commons and CPAC made on the preliminary investigation report. In June 2000, we forwarded our preliminary investigation report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the complainant, and CPAC, to give them an opportunity to comment on our observations and recommendations.

[English]

Our final report reiterated the response sent to me on October 2, 2000, by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. The board is of the view that the House is fulfilling its obligation by making its proceedings available in French, English, and floor sound to all cable companies. The board felt also that the difficulties identified by the complainants related to the choices made by the cable companies as to the distribution of the broadcast feed as part of their service offerings. It suggested that this question be brought to the attention of the CRTC and the Canadian Cable Television Association.

The board also maintained that the House is committed to providing public access to its proceedings in both official languages, and stated that as new technologies become available, the House will maintain its investment in ensuring that proceedings are made available according to industry standards.

The general manager of CPAC informs us that CPAC is not able to direct which linguistic version of its service its network affiliates elect to make available at no charge to the subscribers of their respective cable or direct-to-home distribution systems.

We concluded in our final report that the six complaints were founded. In our view, the current practice of the House of Commons regarding the televising of its proceedings contravenes the Official Languages Act, because it has not ensured that its debates are ultimately broadcast in both official languages and are reaching the two official language communities.

[Translation]

As I said earlier, we accept that a few years from now digital technology will give people access to multi-channel tv sound, which will probably make it possible for all Canadians to hear broadcast proceedings in the language of their choice. In the meantime, however, we believe that the House of Commons should take all necessary measures to achieve that end. In our report, we point out that it is incumbent upon the House of Commons to bring this issue to the CRTC's attention, and with all stakeholders, including the Canadian Cable Television Association, to examine any short-term solution enabling the Canadian public to access parliamentary proceedings on television in the official language of their choice.

In my report, I therefore make two recommendations to the House of Commons.

[English]

The first one is to immediately take, with all interested parties, all the measures and steps required to ensure the implementation of the rights of members of the public to access televised debates in their preferred official language, pending the advent of more effective technology.

• 1550

The second is that the House of Commons take into account its linguistic obligations under part I and part IV of the Official Languages Act, when it renews or concludes a new agreement with a third party, to ensure that the latter takes all the measures required to ensure that parliamentary debate is ultimately televised in both official languages, so as to guarantee the effective implementation of the right of members of the public to access these debates in their preferred official language.

[Translation]

Thank your for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Ms. Adam, for your presence here.

I have two questions. The first one revolves around the issue of the original act. As I understand, it says “where numbers warrant”. If I understand correctly, the proposal here would ensure that every single Canadian in every single community would have the two options. That, to my mind, strays from the original idea behind the act, which was, as I said, “where numbers warrant”. Could you comment as to whether or not “where numbers warrant” has any position in your commentary today?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Unfortunately, I cannot comment on that.

Mr. Grant Hill: Okay. Let me ask another question then.

In your investigation, did you find there are some video carriers that are carrying no CPAC? I'll give you as an example one that I personally know of. Videotron in southern Alberta carries zero CPAC, so that forces individuals in urban communities to get satellite coverage, where you can get CPAC, and it leaves a great number of individuals who have no CPAC, period. You talked about numbers, people receiving these services—how many cable companies carry no CPAC?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I go back to my presentation. I did mention that there is no obligation on the part of the cable companies to carry the signal or the CPAC programming. There is no obligation.

Mr. Grant Hill: I understand that. What I was after is whether you got an indication of how many do not.

Ms. Dyane Adam: How many?

Mr. Grant Hill: How many.

Ms. Dyane Adam: We don't know, unfortunately.

Mr. Grant Hill: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Constitution of 1867 is very clear: section 133 stipulates that all House of Commons and Senate proceedings must be available in both of Canada's official languages. We have two official languages, French and English. The Constitution is very clear: under section 133, all proceedings must be broadcast or distributed in both official languages. This is what we do in Hansard, and in our communications, documents, statutes, and other things.

The question I have for you is an important one: Must proceedings be broadcast in both official languages? In my view, the answer is yes—but the question is currently before the courts. Your position may not be the same as mine.

I would like to come back to something the Commissioner said earlier. If I understood correctly, she said that we had the technology required to broadcast two audio signals at the same time as the video signal. There are two places where this can be done: here, in the National Capital, and in New Brunswick. As far as I know, the facilities do not exist elsewhere. Where the service is available, you can use a remote to switch from French to English.

This question was raised in the report, though not in the report before us. At least I don't think so. I think we had to withdraw the question from the Commissioner's report. However, I don't want to open that up now.

• 1555

Here is my question to the Commissioner of Official Languages: Do you agree that section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires Parliament to disseminate its proceedings in both official languages? I did say “disseminate”.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, that's right. It doesn't matter how Parliament chooses to disseminate its proceedings. But regardless of whether it is in print or through a television broadcast, Parliament is obliged to provide both official languages, as indicated in our report. The issue of "where numbers warrant" is not a factor in this case.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a second correction, or a question to put. The messenger is CPAC. The message is the House of Commons or Senate proceedings, or committee proceedings. If we are required to comply with Canada's Constitution, I have a good case to defend: captioning. I may be unable to hear, but captioning makes it possible for me to understand. Some people hear but don't understand. I try to do both. I can read and understand. The Commissioner already knows my views on this, because I have spoken with both her and CPAC.

Could House of Commons and Senate proceedings not be broadcast in both official languages, using the technology currently available and adding captioning in the other official language to meet our fellow Canadians' needs? They would be free to choose the language in which they wish to follow.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Take a look at page 15 of the report, Senator Gauthier. It states that...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We do not have the report here.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am aware of that. I will read you the relevant comments.

Captioning involves a number of technical problems. According to information we have obtained from experts, which I am not, text elements could fill the screen. This would be a problem. These are difficulties we learned about during the investigation.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I contacted Ms. Watson because I had been told there were technical problems. Last week, she told me those problems had been solved. Now, they have the technology to enable Canadians to receive captioning without any problems. It would take up no more space than line 21, which is on the screen. Line 21 is dedicated to captioning. She told me that with line 21... Ms. Watson does know what she's talking about. We should invite her to appear because she has significant information to provide. This avenue is very promising, and may solve the problem of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings in the two languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For your information, Ms. Watson will appear before the committee next Wednesday. Please continue, Madam Commissioner...

Ms. Dyane Adam: As I mentioned earlier, we will follow up the first recommendation within the next few weeks. That will no doubt allow us to check the information given to us by Senator Gauthier, with respect to the technology having possibly changed since our report was published in October 2000.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Your last question, Mr. Gauthier? Is that all? Then Mr. Sauvageau has the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good afternoon, Ms. Adam. Welcome also to your colleagues. I am happy to see you here.

I would simply like to tell you that I have learned something. On my television set at home there is a button with the letters SAP. I never knew what it was for. I have just found out. My television set is 12 years old. It is not high tech. I have just figured out that when I press that button, I can hear either English, or French. I think we should suggest that CPAC advertise this fact. Other people would find it out as well. It could be interesting. You could advertise.

• 1600

I have a question based on something said by Senator Gauthier: if something is stipulated in the Constitution of 1867, and this is something I was not aware of—we learn all kinds of things in committee—, does this take precedence over the Official Languages Act? Would the Official Languages Act apply in this case or would it be the Canadian Constitution? If it is the Constitution, that's another matter; you can plead the fourth amendment if you don't want to answer. I would understand. That's my first question.

This is my second. Could you enlighten us on the responsibilities of the House of Commons in this debate as opposed to those of the CRTC? How far can we go before being told that we have no jurisdiction in the matter, that it is up to the CRTC, which is private, and from which we cannot demand answers?

As Mr. Bélanger has said, we must renegotiate our contract with CPAC. Maybe now that more people know what an SAP is, and now that we will perhaps have more information on the primacy of the Constitution over the Official Languages Act or vice versa, what priorities do you feel should be set by our committee in negotiating the new contract? The aim of this would, of course, be to reduce the number of complaints and ensure better service for all Canadians.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I can answer the first question; as for the second, I am not as sure.

In answer to your first question, page 6 of the investigation report, if you have it, stipulates the linguistic obligations of the House of Commons pursuant to section 133 of the Constitution Act 1867, and, of course, Part I of the Official Languages Act. These two legislative texts set out the obligations of the House of Commons in broadcasting the business of the House in both official languages.

With respect to your second question, I will abstain from answering.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And the third question?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Were there three? I am sorry.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Of course. It was about the priorities that you would suggest we adopt.

Ms. Dyane Adam: So it's the second one that I forgot. I know that I cannot answer the third one.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Can you explain the difference between the House of Commons and the CRTC? How far can a committee of the House of Commons go before being told that we have no jurisdiction over the activities of the CRTC?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The investigation report established that the House of Commons has the final responsibility to ensure that its business is broadcast in both official languages and is made accessible to Canadians in the official language of their choice.

With respect to the CRTC, I would like to remind members that this organization has made a public commitment regarding CPAC. The CRTC intends to examine, among other things, CPAC distribution and will soon begin a separate process in order to determine if CPAC's status as a broadcast distributor should change, in view of the importance of the service that it offers, that is to say, the House of Commons' debates. This commitment was made last February.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In that case, if ever someone from the House, Ms. Watson, the Minister, or any other person were to tell us that they cannot answer because this involves the CRTC, we might suspect that they are acting in bad faith, because the House of Commons takes precedence in matters pertaining to the televised broadcasting of its business. Is that indeed the case? Do I understand you correctly?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think I should abstain from commenting.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Oh, you don't want to comment on that. That's fine.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It is not easy.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is so difficult; but I am not a lawyer. You say that you cannot comment and that it is difficult. But that's fine. If I have other questions, I will ask them later. I apologize.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, if I may, I cannot tell you what to do, but you might want to try that little button, before our next meeting, and you can then report back to us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would be delighted.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I must admit that I have had some problems. I have one at home as well, but it does not work.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will be happy to tell you if it works.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On another matter, before giving the floor to Ms. Bulte, do committee members have or would you like to have a copy of the acts that were referred to here, that is, the Official Languages Act and the Constitution Act? We could ask our clerks to see if they could obtain these texts for each of the committee members. Thank you.

• 1605

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam. Welcome. Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Chairman, I have four short questions.

[English]

I have some questions that deal with the CRTC—and I understand if you cannot reply.

You stated that there is no obligation to distribute CPAC. Does this non-obligation arise because the CRTC does not require it, and is this an obligation that can be imposed by the CRTC? That's my first question.

Secondly, you stated in your presentation that CPAC has stated that they cannot direct the cable distributors as to which language they should use. Why not?

Thirdly, with respect to renegotiating the contract we're talking about, I understand that the cable distributors are not parties to the agreement. Is this something we could solve by making them parties to that agreement?

Last, but not least—and I understand that you may not be able to answer this question—on page 13 of your report you talk about the CRTC and that you decided not to look in your investigations into the CRTC because it is a quasi-judicial body. You state in the second paragraph, however, that it is your intention to inform the CRTC of your concerns during their public consultation processes, which were undertaken following the Governor in Council order of April 5, 2000.

I wonder if you could comment. Have you made those recommendations or concerns known to the CRTC—if you are at liberty to say that? Could you tell us what those concerns were? If it is a question of the CRTC, is this something that could be corrected by an Order in Council of the government with CRTC?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The first question was with respect to obligation, why cable television does not have any obligation to distribute the CPAC signal, and whether this obligation can be imposed, either by CRTC or any other body. No comment.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I hate this situation.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So do we.

[English]

Ms. Dyane Adam: The second one was a sub-question.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I asked why they cannot direct which language.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, this is not fair. The Commissioner is in a situation where she is being asked to answer questions that she should not answer. You should not allow these questions.

A voice: And she is not answering either.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): She has advisors; she is well served by her advisors.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's fine if you can't.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I know I have a very understanding crowd, so I will certainly be more open.

Those members who were here before know I can speak out. Those who are new may think I'm excessively cautious.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I can leave if you like.

[English]

Ms. Dyane Adam: The second one was whether we could force or impose that they distribute the two signals or at least make them accessible. I guess we're in the solution phase. All your questions are like that, so I don't think I can comment.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's fine.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): I don't want to comment. I will not ask you any questions because they would be the same ones that have been asked by Mr. Sauvageau and Ms. Bulte. To those questions you answered “no comment.” I might say that the entire issue of precedents or legislative preference is important.

• 1610

I understand the position in which you find yourself. As a legislator, if the committee or the government, through its legislative power, sees that there is a problem, it will be dealt with. Whether the problem relates to the Official Languages Act or to the CRTC, it will be settled. That is what I understand. Without putting you in a position that could be detrimental to any legal actions, I can tell you that we can read between the lines, while waiting for things to be settled, and that, if necessary Parliament will act—as for the government, I don't know—but Parliament will act to ensure...

There is also the whole question of technology. I think it is just a matter of time. We have the blameless CRTC, the lack of obligation by the cable companies to distribute CPAC, etc. As far as I am concerned, I think we just have to push the right buttons.

What I really liked in your report is the fact that one of the complainants—I don't know where that one was from—made some interesting points, relating, for instance, to the CRTC. You have, quite rightly, distanced yourself from the CRTC and from the acts that govern your work.

Mr. Chairman, I have no questions because I know that these elements won't necessarily hang the Commissioner and her people, but they could cause her some legal difficulties. One thing is clear, and that is that you would like the committee to ensure some type of follow-up. If necessary, the committee could make suggestions to Parliament as to amendments that should be made to the legislative measures that must be taken to guarantee that this will be respected.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the few remaining seconds that I have to change subjects. Can a member of Parliament complain to the Commissioner of Official Languages?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, it is possible.

Mr. André Bachand: I don't know if you follow the debates in one of the official languages. There is a motion, motion no. 2—I will be submitting this complaint in writing, of course—a government motion that was passed in the aim of avoiding what we might call, in Parliamentary lingo, a filibuster using large numbers of amendments. Now, the Speaker can rule on the amendments based on tradition, that is, based on what is done in the United Kingdom. We know that the documents in London are all in English. I rose, in the House, on a point of order. The Speaker responded, for the most part, by telling me that I was wrong. However, according to the documentation that I have, this prevents me and all parliamentarians from doing our work. I wanted to tell you about that. I will be in touch. As you know the Official Languages Act cannot be used solely to blame the people who watch television. There are also those who would like to appear on television but whose rights may have been breached.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Bachand, I have to comment. This is the first time that I have been co-chair of a committee. I want to give committee members as much latitude as I can. However, I hope that members will not take advantage of this latitude.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Chairman, you know me. Rest assured that I will always stay within the bounds of what is reasonable.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Would any members on this side like to...

Ms. Bacon, you have the floor.

Senator Lise Bacon: Unfortunately, I have to leave. I apologize to the Commissioner.

On page 2 of your investigation report—I don't know if I can ask you this question, because we are all on thin ice—you mention the issue raised through complaints and you say:

The issue raised by the complaints is to determine whether or not the House of Commons has the obligation, pursuant to Part I or Part IV of the OLA, or to the spirit of the act or the intention of the legislator to ensure that the broadcasting of House of Commons' debates is available in both official languages throughout Canada. In other words, does the OLA give the Canadian public the right to access the televised debates of the House of Commons in the official language of their choice?

If possible, I would like a short answer to this question. Is it the type of question that I can ask you?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, I can answer that one. As it involves the fact-finding report, I am allowed to answer it. Since the complaints were determined to be well founded, the answer would be yes.

• 1615

Senator Lise Bacon: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Have you any other questions, Ms. Bacon?

Senator Lise Bacon: No, that's fine.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Yes, I do have a question. You've said that there is no obligation for a cable company to carry the proceedings. Have I got that right?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Mr. Grant Hill: However, if you go after the companies and say they are not carrying the proceedings in the proper language, in both languages, why wouldn't the company then say they're not going to carry them at all and be rid of this concern?

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam: I don't think I can answer that.

[English]

I hate to say this to you, because it's the second time I have to say no to your questions, but I'm sorry I cannot comment. Don't take it personally, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: I have no other questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm having this difficulty in understanding the logic of your upholding the complaint.

It seems to me that it's in the spirit of both the Constitution and the practices of the House of Commons to diffuse things; that is, to make them available. Whether there's a take-up rate by other institutions that help re-diffuse them is another issue. In other words, if you go back to the historical precedent of texts, we print debates, we make them available, but we can't force public libraries to take them in one language or another.

We can do the diffusion part right, which is the equivalent of publishing the debate—that is to say, we print them, we make them available, but we can't force people to read them or other institutions to stock them. For instance, we can't force universities to take our printed debates. Now technology has overcome that through the Internet, but basically it's the principle of diffusion.

I think there's a whole hierarchy of decisions that have to be made before you can sustain that complaint. The first decision we would have to make to allow logically the complaint to be sustained is to say that because this is so darn important we're going to oblige, as a condition of broadcast, all carriers—whether they do it by satellite, whether they do it by cable—to carry CPAC.

Once they are obliged all over the country to carry CPAC then we can get into the issue of whether they have to carry CPAC in two languages. But if they don't have to carry it in one language, I don't think there's a case there. I don't see how one can justify the complaint. It's a negotiated, non-mandated decision to carry CPAC in one form or another, and people don't do it in some places.

I'm having problems with the logic of the initial decision. When we clear up the first problem, which is forcing the CRTC to make it a condition of broadcast to carry CPAC, then we will have something to talk about. Am I being unfair?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Godfrey, I'm not sure if I will respond directly to your question, but I will refer you to something in my report.

First of all, you seem to want to debate the investigation report, and I will not enter to this. But I would like to read page 9:

...just as the House ensured, through its agreement with CPAC, that the latter would make its debates available to cable broadcasting companies in three audio formats (English, French and floor sound), it was also required to take the measures necessary to ensure that the television broadcasting process as a whole permits the effective implementation of the right of members of the public to have equal access to televised parliamentary debates in their preferred language.

In short, we believe that the House of Commons cannot divide or fragment the process of broadcasting its debate into various contractual parts and thereby ultimately evade its linguistic obligations.

That's the limit of my answer. I refer you to the document.

• 1620

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to make sure I understand what the suggestion is here, if we think this is of such primary importance, then we need to exercise some kind of parliamentary override over the CRTC, over the cable companies, over the satellite companies, in order to get this thing done. Maybe that's not the conclusion we come to, but that is basically the logic of what you're saying. You can't fragment, you can't say you only get the signal to this part of the building and then you're on your own, kids. The logic is you have to take it all the way down in both languages, for the whole country, by whatever method of diffusion is available. That's the logic.

Ms. Dyane Adam: According to my report there is an obligation on the House of Commons to ensure that. It's like if you send—

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau and then Senator Gauthier.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My question is to Ms. Adam, but perhaps also to the clerk. Would it be possible to supply the committee with a map of Canada showing the CPAC broadcasting network, indicating where both official languages are broadcast and where they are not? Is there a problem that is particular to British Columbia? Or is the problem more widespread?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe that CPAC could provide you with that information.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Through the clerks? Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As I mentioned, they will be appearing next week.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But could we have it beforehand? That is my question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will make the request.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: These comments are interesting because, for all intents and purposes, CPAC is the messenger. We must not kill the messenger. It might be that the message itself is not clear. As Mr. Godfrey suggested, the CRTC could certainly require that CPAC... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... when their licence comes up for renewal in 2002, but as long as the House of Commons sends a clear message to CPAC. That is where the problem lies.

The Speaker of the House of Commons is responsible for broadcasting the signal. CPAC is responsible for transmitting the signal. It does not have the financial resources that would allow for a national network. It is up to us, as parliamentarians, to see that it has the necessary means to transmit the message from Parliament.

I don't really care whether we choose CPAC or some other company, but I think that the licence that comes up for renewal in 2002 should include a clause requiring the distributor to broadcast the message in the country's two official languages. That much is clear.

Now, I have been told that there is a technical problem. But I have a human problem: I am deaf. I can't even hear myself speak. It is because I was so used to talking that I can still do it.

My question is the following: Will the CRTC be appearing before the committee, Mr. Chairman? If so, do you know when? It is when we deal with the CRTC that the debate becomes very interesting and of outmost importance. You could call Ms. Watson to appear for three days, but we will get no further than we have today.

The question is sub judice. It is before the courts. Let us stay as far as we can from that issue for as long as possible if we don't want to get involved.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Pagé.

The Joint Clerk of the committee (Mr. Jean-François Pagé): For your information, the CRTC is scheduled to appear during the week of April 2, since next week the representatives will be in Montreal to study the Quebecor/Vidétron merger. Therefore, they will not be available. But during the week of April 2, someone from the CRTC is scheduled to appear.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could we be told in advance? It would be nice if the members and senators had a schedule of committee business so that we might be able to prepare for committee meetings. We need a few days to draft questions and study the files. So, if the CRTC has been invited to appear on April 2 and if that has been confirmed, I would like to be told in writing.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Jean-François Pagé): It has not yet been confirmed, but it would be the 3 or the 4.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The Senator's request is in order and reasonable: that we be made aware, as far as possible in advance, of the schedule of witnesses to appear before the committee.

Senator Losier-Cool, do you have any questions?

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): No. Senator Gauthier asked all of my questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

• 1625

Mr. Sauvageau, do you have another question?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, that will be all.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If I may, I would like to ask the Commissioner a question.

Could you tell us a little about the beginning of the broadcasting of the House of Commons' proceedings, tell us how things were done in the past and how we have come to the situation in which we find ourselves today? It might help us to know some of the background history. I would hope that you can tell us about that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: There is a section in the investigation report...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can we adjourn?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We are not adjourning yet. I have asked a question.

Ms. Dyane Adam: There is a section in the investigation report entitled "History of broadcasting of the House of Commons proceedings". During the investigation, our fact-finding staff learned that the decision by the House of Commons to approve—and this goes back to 1977—the radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons' proceedings, as well as those of committees, was based on principles that are more or less similar to those governing the publication of written texts and official reports.

From 1989 to 1991, as I mentioned briefly in my presentation, Radio-Canada and the CBC were responsible for broadcasting the House of Commons' proceedings in both official languages on parliamentary channels set up for that purpose, thanks to a temporary licence that had been granted by the CRTC at the time.

In April 1991, ostensibly because of budget cuts, neither the SRC or the CBC could afford to fund the parliamentary networks. That is when the change occurred. In 1992, the House of Commons' Board of Internal Economy agreed to allow CPAC to assume the cost of operating the parliamentary network for a two-year period. In 1994, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the House of Commons and CPAC; this MOU still applies with respect to CPAC's obligations to transmit the video and audio signals of the parliamentary proceedings.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Madam Commissioner. When Radio-Canada and the CBC were the broadcasters, were all cable companies required to distribute the signal?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Do we know that? We don't know. Only 50% of the cable companies did so, as I mentioned earlier. But were they under any obligation to do so? I don't think so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: But I would have to check that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead, Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know because I was here. There were two transponders, and that was expensive. The Radio-Canada budget was cut. They told us they could no longer continue to broadcast our parliamentary proceedings. As far as I know, and unless things have changed recently, we have a transponder that is used for a number of purposes: Look TV and the various rebroadcasting networks.

The real question, Mr. Joint Chair, should be put to the CRTC when it appears before us, as well as to the organization called CPAC, and perhaps even to the Speaker of the House of Commons...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... who controls the signal.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, if I am not mistaken, according to the schedule for next week, we are expecting the Speaker of the House and his advisors on Tuesday at 3:30 p.m.. The room has yet to be determined. Next Wednesday, we will hear CPAC and the following week, the CRTC, with the exact date to be determined. Those are the next three witnesses. These are the people we have agreed to hear. Perhaps after that we might be able to conclude our hearings and draft something. Maybe. For the time being, those are our witnesses. Is that OK?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I add a brief comment?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.

• 1630

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like the committee to study the Commissioner's annual report as soon as possible. I think that if we meet only once a week, we will never be able to finish. We will only be able to hear the Commissioner again next fall.

I would suggest that you organize a meeting of the CRTC, CPAC, and all the stakeholders. I used to chair that type of committee and it worked quite well. Witnesses were asked to make a 15-minute presentation, we were allowed to ask questions, then they would leave and we would make our decisions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there any other comments?

[English]

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm having a problem understanding our jurisdiction on this question. The Board of Internal Economy, a committee of the House of Commons, has said “We don't think this is right; we hear what you say, and we reject it.” So where does that leave us, as a joint committee? Are we on an equal footing with them? I'm curious about the constitutionality of us investigating, or seeming to.... I'm having a problem understanding the relationship of our committee to the Board of Internal Economy. That House board determines these things in a more legalistic fashion than we do. Can you help me on that?

[Translation]

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: This involves the committee's mandate, but the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages must study how we... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... the Official Languages Act. That is the committee's mandate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will see if the committee draws any conclusions, Mr. Godfrey. It may make a recommendation that will be rejected by the government or the Board of Internal Economy; that is a possibility. Or our recommendations might also be accepted. I believe it is incumbent upon the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to examine this important issue, the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. That is part of our mandate, and we are trying to do our job. We understand the Commissioner's position; we know she cannot comment on a matter that is before the courts. We must be cautious, but caution does not absolve us of the obligation to respect our mandate, which involves, among other things, ensuring that the Official Languages Act is properly implemented. Thank you and goodbye.

The meeting is adjourned.