LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 1531

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you here today.

Mr. Milliken, thank you for having made yourself available to appear before us today. Before I formally welcome you, I would like to thank you for your reply this morning in response to a letter sent last week by Senator Maheu and myself requesting a copy of the agreement. Consequently, I would like to thank you for sending the agreement, and I would also like to congratulate the House translators. They only received this agreement this morning but nevertheless managed to translate it in time for our meeting this afternoon. If you don't yet have a copy, I would like to point out that copies are available. A copy will be brought to your table.

I would like to congratulate the translators on their work today.

Having said that,

[English]

today we are here to continue discussions on the matter of retransmission of debates of the House, the parliamentary debates. We welcome today the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Milliken.

Mr. Milliken, we will have you speak first, and then if you're willing to entertain questions from the members, that will follow.

[Translation]

Does everybody agree?

[English]

Over to you, sir.

[Translation]

The Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair. It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to testify before this committee. I would like to point out that this is the first time I have appeared before a committee...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Milliken, may I interrupt you?

[Translation]

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We'll give Senator Gauthier a chance so that transcription can be made.

[Translation]

Speaker Peter Milliken: Of course.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Milliken, please continue.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I would prefer to start over.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to appear before this committee today. This is the first time I have testified before a committee since I was elected as Speaker. I am especially glad to be able to appear before a joint committee of both houses.

[English]

I also want to say I'm delighted to have with me the clerk and other officials from the House, who are here to assist me in answering questions and may answer some questions directly for honourable members and honourable senators, if that's helpful.

I thought I'd perhaps provide the committee with a bit of background on the televising of proceedings, and then I'd be more than happy to answer the questions that you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee members will put.

The television broadcasting of debates was initially discussed in the mid-1960s. On January 25, 1977, after a decade of reflection on the subject, and after numerous debates and a feasibility study, the House of Commons approved the broadcasting of its proceedings in accordance with principles similar to those governing the official reports of the debates and adopted a motion to that effect.

• 1535

At the same time, a special committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. James Jerome, was appointed to supervise the work required to put in place the necessary structure for broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons. There were already some discussions as to whether the proceedings of parliamentary committees should also be broadcast. However, this proposal was not put into effect until April 11, 1991, when the House adopted Standing Order 119.1.

Televised recording began on October 17, 1977, making Canada the first country to film all the proceedings of its legislative assembly.

[Translation]

The broadcasting of House proceedings must be equivalent to an electronic-type Hansard. Various approaches and procedures for video and audio transmission have developed over the years. As a rule of thumb, the camera must focus only on the member who has the floor. Consequently, the televised recording of parliamentary proceedings must comply with strict guidelines.

In the beginning, direct coverage of House of Commons proceedings was only available in the National Capital region, via a microwave system. During the second year of operation and up until October 1979, videocassettes of debates were distributed to the various cable companies, thus enabling the delayed broadcasting of debates throughout the country. It is the cable companies themselves who choose whether to broadcast the House's debates.

In October 1979, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation obtained a temporary licence from the CRTC for the direct broadcasting of House proceedings on two satellite channels, one in French and one in English.

[English]

In October of the following year, the CRTC issued a network licence to the CBC. The official name of the English and French networks was CBC Parliamentary Television Network - Réseau de télévision parlementaire de Radio-Canada.

On August 1, 1986, the regulations respecting broadcasting receiving undertakings came into force. These regulations stipulated what cable undertakings that distributed House of Commons debates had to do so as part of their basic service. On January 1, 1998, these regulations were replaced by the broadcasting distribution regulations, which set out the same obligation.

[Translation]

In January 1989, a consortium of cable companies and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation tabled a joint proposal to the House of Commons for the creation of a new channel entirely devoted to broadcasting House debates and public affairs programming. This new channel was called the Canadian Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC for short.

On the 8th of June 1989, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business, a standing committee of the House of Commons of which I was a member, undertook the study of the CPAC proposal. It also began consideration of issues regarding the television broadcasting of House and committee proceedings as a whole.

On February 23, 1990, the House passed the CPAC proposal.

[English]

In February 1992 the Board of Internal Economy signed an agreement with the CPAC group in which CPAC assumed the costs of the parliamentary channel as of September 1992 for a period of two years.

In April 1992 the television broadcasting of committee proceedings began on a trial basis. This television coverage became permanent one year later.

In August 1994 a new agreement was signed between the Board of Internal Economy and CPAC. It covered a seven-year period and was effective from September 1, 1994 to August 31, 2001. Under this agreement, the House of Commons produces the televised coverage of its proceedings and those of its committees and ensures that the speaker's remarks are translated simultaneously in both official languages.

• 1540

[Translation]

The House of Commons is also responsible for transmitting a video signal and three audio signals (the floor, French only and English only) to CPAC.

As an integral part of these signals, the House of Commons provides real-time closed captioning in English and sign-language interpretation during question period.

Also as an integral part of the signals it transmits, the House of Commons inserts the name of the riding, in both official languages, of the member of Parliament who has the floor.

CPAC undertakes to distribute, via satellite, to all Canadian cable companies the video signal provided by the House of Commons, the audio signal from the floor of the House, and the audio signals in French and in English. All these signals are also available to satellite broadcasting companies such as Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice, and can be picked up using a satellite dish.

[English]

CPAC further undertakes to provide access to satellite distribution facilities with a sufficient broad-band capacity to distribute simultaneously the three different audio signals and the video signal supplied by the House. CPAC must also guarantee that the signals transmitted by the House will have priority access at all times on the national satellite distribution network. CPAC is solely responsible for determining the broadcast schedule for repeat broadcasts of House and committee proceedings, as provided in clause 5 of the agreement.

[Translation]

This clause also stipulates that the House of Commons retains total control over material produced by its broadcasting service. In other words, coverage is subject to rules of parliamentary privilege, in particular, the prerogative of the House of Commons to manage its own business free from outside interference.

The House of Commons already produces its own television recordings of proceedings in both official languages, in keeping with its privileges.

[English]

Furthermore, the following message appears at the beginning and at the end of each broadcast:

The Speaker of the House of Commons hereby grants permission to record the televised proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees for use in schools and for other purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary.

Television and radio broadcasting undertakings, licensed by the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, may make use of recorded excerpts of these televised proceedings in the news or public affairs programs. Any other commercial use or rebroadcast of these proceedings requires the express prior written approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The agreement provides that the signals supplied by the House and transmitted via satellite by CPAC must at all times be identical in quality to those of other cable channels.

[Translation]

The House transmits the audio-visual signals to the Press Gallery and to Bell Canada's Telecommunications Centre. These signals are then sold to the media and any other organization which wishes to buy them.

Canadians are able to pick up the audio-visual signals provided by the House and the French and English signals using a satellite dish. In addition, these signals are available on CPAC's Web site at the following address: http://www.cpac.ca.

[English]

This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions the members may have.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you for coming today, Mr. Speaker.

• 1545

I have not had time to look at the agreement that has just been distributed to us. However, at first blush, it seems to me to be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): It is normally the opposition that has the first question.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I am quite happy to relinquish the floor.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please excuse me, I made a mistake.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Rahim is shy. We just want to get him a helping hand.

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

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thank you, Mr. Milliken, for your presentation. It sure filled in some gaps on the history of the development of CPAC, and how the transmissions of our debates and so forth are transmitted all the way across the country, and as you say, in both official languages.

I guess the concern is that in some areas both official languages are not available, and that has raised concern for this committee. One thing I'd like you to clarify further for me is that if we are fulfilling our obligation under this agreement, as the House of Commons and in terms of the Speaker's role, to provide transmissions in both official languages from this place, then doesn't it become a CRTC matter? In fact, if it's not available in certain regions in both official languages, would they not have to do something about that, as it's not necessarily the House's responsibility? Maybe you could clarify that for me, because it's something I'm having a little problem in understanding.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Certainly, Mr. Jaffer, the House does fulfil its obligation to provide the material, as I've indicated, in floor sound, English and French—three different media, as it were, in terms of the audio sound. It's available across the country if you have a satellite and are able to pick it up on satellite. For those on cable distribution systems, it's up to their cable distributor to decide which, if any, of the three it will take.

Under the regulations of the CRTC, if a cable company chooses to broadcast CPAC, it must include it in its basic service package, but it can include one or two or all three of the services. In other words, it could do floor sound, English and French, if it chose to do so. Most choose to do one, as I understand it, and they choose which one they want depending on the listeners who are subscribers to their cable service.

The House has no control over what cable companies choose to take from CPAC. There are, apparently, between 250 and 500 cable companies across the country that take this service from CPAC. The CRTC has made it a requirement that where a company chooses to take CPAC service it must include it in the basic package. The CRTC certainly would have powers to deal with whatever other things were required in respect of the distribution of CPAC by CPAC, since CPAC has a licence from the CRTC and is licensed by the CRTC on certain terms.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CA): I think this does clarify it, because I wasn't sure whether it would take an act of Parliament to force these companies to comply. If for instance we were going to uphold and go further with the Official Languages Act, is it within Parliament's power to force these cable companies then to make both languages available if in fact there's a demand for it in smaller markets, or is this something that can be just dealt with by the CRTC?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Certainly the CRTC has the power to deal with it, and there is a provision in the Broadcasting Act that requires the CRTC to do what it can to ensure that services are provided in both official languages, as resources permit. I may not have got the exact words of the act in that regard, but there is a provision in the Broadcasting Act dealing with that very issue.

I presume that the House could have it in its power, that is the House and the Senate, to pass an act that would require cable companies to carry this service and thereby bypass the CRTC. But normally regulations dealing with broadcasting, and the licensing of broadcasters and what they distribute, is dealt with not by acts of Parliament, but by the CRTC itself. In any event, I believe that has been our past practice for some time now.

• 1550

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

[Translation]

I am sorry for my earlier mistake.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Jaffer has asked several questions that I wanted to ask you. You have said that, currently, the House has no control over the fact that some municipalities only receive the French signal and not the English. When you say that the House has no control, is it because of the 1994 agreement? Would it be possible to include a clause in the contract which would require cable companies to distribute the product in both official languages when the agreement comes up for renewal, this year, if I am not mistaken?

[English]

Speaker Peter Milliken: Certainly, Madam Thibeault, in the negotiations for a new agreement, which will be commencing I would imagine reasonably soon, the House could include some kind of provision that additional distribution arrangements be made. But the agreement is between the House and CPAC, which is the licensed broadcaster in the terms of the act. CPAC is the licensed broadcaster licensed by the CRTC to broadcast material, and it is not the delivery agent. The delivery is done by the cable companies themselves or by the person who picks up the satellite signal and puts it onto his or her television.

Obviously cable is controlled by other interests that are part of a consortium that has been put together to form the broadcaster, but they are not all signatories to the agreement with the House of Commons. CPAC is a broadcaster of House proceedings and it supplies the proceedings to cable companies, who may or may not pick up the signal. I suspect there are some that don't, but I don't know the details of all that. There are so many of these companies. There may be some that don't take CPAC at all. It may be that we could get agreement from CPAC to insist that all of the cable companies that work through it accept the signal and distribute it on three different channels. It's certainly something that could be included in the negotiations.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much. I would like to give someone else a chance to speak.

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Milliken and Mr. Corbett, I would like to welcome you both here today. It's my duty to inform this committee that last week I was given a piece of homework to do and I completed this homework when I was at home late last week. I pressed the SAP button on my television set and it seemed to work. This button allows you to hear debates in one or other languages. Consequently, the SAP system could be used as an alternative. The acronym means secondary audio... I don't know what the third letter stands for. Perhaps that could be included in the new agreement with CPAC. People could be told that this service is available on their television set. Simply pressing a button allows people to hear proceedings in the other language. That's what I did.

I asked the committee researchers to get a map of this great country of ours, showing the areas where CPAC is broadcast in French or in English or not at all. I don't know if the Speaker's Office, the Research Branch or anyone else has such a thing, but I'm still waiting and I would like to get my hands on it.

There's one thing that bothers me in the 1994 agreement. The final paragraph on page 2 reads as follows:

WHEREAS CPAC is desirous of continuing to make such a service available to all licensed cable television (distribution) undertakings throughout Canada for distribution by them, at their sole discretion; and

This only means if they wish to do so.

If we are to address the concerns of Rahim or Ms. Thibeault, perhaps we should not use this type of vocabulary. If we request that cable companies broadcast in both languages, and we lead them to believe that they are not obligated to do so, they will in fact have no incentive to do it. In your capacity as Speaker of the House of Commons, it is your duty to endeavour to enforce the Official Languages Act and the 1867 Constitution.

• 1555

Indeed, as Honourable Senator Gauthier pointed out to me last week, this is not only an issue of enforcing the Official Languages Act but the Canadian Constitution itself.

In answer to a particular question, you stated that the House and the Senate have the authority to pass legislation, but that they choose not to exercise this authority because it is hoped that cable companies will make programming available in both official languages at their discretion.

I would like to apologize for being a little long-winded here, but you will see the point of my preamble presently. This morning, I attended the presentation by the Official Languages Commissioner on the registration of francophone children eligible for French-language schooling throughout the country. Only 50% of these children register in these schools, and once again, people arestating what they would like to see and counting on everyone's good will to make it a reality. Don't you think then that on this issue we are dealing quite simply with a lack of political will and that if there were in fact the political will to do so, legislation would be enforced?

I am not criticizing you directly, Mr. Milliken, because you have not been Speaker of the House for that long. My criticisms are directed at your predecessors.

When things are left up to people's discretion and when we hear that legislation or a regulation could be passed but is not, I see that as a lack of will. Could you comment on that?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Sauvageau, the issue here is not only one of broadcasting the proceedings of the House in one language or the other; it's more a matter of whether these proceedings are broadcast at all. The clause of the agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC that you read out to us relates to the right of cable companies to choose not to broadcast CPAC in any shape or form at all. They could quite simply refuse to broadcast CPAC at all.

We do have the authority to change Canadian legislation to require all cable companies to broadcast CPAC on three different channels. We can indeed do that, but this might result in cable subscribers losing three other channels. If CPAC is not already included in a cable package, cable subscribers could lose three existing channels. That causes a problem in the House of Commons. It is not my decision alone to take. This is the responsibility of the House of Commons and the Senate or—and I mean or—the CRTC.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Therefore, that means that if we don't think that we can satisfy everybody, we have to accept an illegal situation. We have to let broadcasters flout the law because we think that if we force them to obey the law, they will be unable to comply. That's what you're saying. You're saying that in some cases, we have to live with an illegal situation.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Well it's an issue of law. As you know, the courts are currently hearing one particular case. Even if I have a personal opinion on the case in question, I don't think that it would be appropriate for me to express that opinion before this committee here today. As you know, this case is currently being heard by the courts.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you intend to pay particular attention to terminology such as “at their sole discretion”, or “desirous” or “wish” so that they are not included in the new agreement between CPAC and the House of Commons. The terminology used should be less open-ended and more incisive. If it is not, we will be seen to be supporting the flouting of the law and I don't think that Canada's highest authority, the House of Commons, can do that.

Speaker Peter Milliken: The Board of Internal Economy will of course consider this issue when it discusses the renewal of this agreement. For the time being, the Board of Internal Economy has not yet looked at this issue because the agreement has not yet expired. Your suggestions are worth the consideration of the Board of Internal Economy and, as chair of that committee, I will inform the board's members of your ideas as soon as possible.

• 1600

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To wrap up, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that I have correctly understood what you have said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did in fact say that the House of Commons could table legislation requiring CPAC to be broadcast in both official languages. Let's imagine that the government decided to take this road. You are saying that would indeed be possible.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, I believe so. Parliament can do what it wants. It is a sovereign body.

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you are aware that I am hard of hearing. I was unable to hear the discussions up till now, but I will follow what was said at a later date. I am going to make a brief comment, followed by a question for the Speaker. I will read his reply tomorrow, when the minutes are published.

Mr. Milliken, my question is on a fundamental problem. We are endeavouring to allow Canadians to see what is happening in Parliament in both official languages. In some cases, during question period in the House of Commons, for example, closed captioning is available in English, but not in French. There are other restrictions of a technical nature that should perhaps be addressed.

Perhaps the real solution to this current problem would be to add closed captioning in the other official language to parliamentary programs, such as House of Commons and Senate debates. This closed captioning would not only be useful for deaf people like me, but for other people who experience difficulties, such as young people learning a second language. Closed captioning in the other official language would allow them to follow what's going on and to have the translation of the original. Therefore, there would be the usual video feed, with subtitling at the bottom of the screen and the audio feed in the other official language.

[English]

I can speak both, and you know that, Peter—sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a bit of difficulty with the Speaker's office because last year I wrote to your predecessor about the possibility of including real-time captioning. Monsieur Parent answered on October 18, 2000. I have a copy of the letter, and I suppose you have read it,

[Translation]

in which he says... I just want to quote one particular phrase because I had brought the report by the Official Languages Commissioner on the CPAC issue to his attention. I mentioned the issue of whether Canadians in the East had a right to parliamentary programming in their language, be it in French or in English.

Mr. Parent replied that:

The Commissioner deals with the closed-captioning issue in her report, but the cost of implementing such a service for the whole gamut of activities of the House and committees would be prohibitive.

The key word here is prohibitive.

I am not challenging the judgment of the former Speaker, but I doubt, for example, that the technology that we have today, which enables us to move from closed captioning in one language to another while retaining the same video feed, was not available in October 2000.

Mr. Speaker, would you be open to a reasonable and intelligent discussion on the issue of providing closed captioning for parliamentary programming? You are the decision maker. You are the one who has ultimate control. You are tasked by members of Parliament to provide an oral feed in French and English and a visual feed and also, in my opinion, closed captioning for programming.

If I am off track here, please excuse me, but I can't even hear myself speak.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I am aware of that fact, but perhaps if you face me you will be able to understand what I am saying. I know that you're able to lip-read.

I too have asked this question, Senator Gauthier. There are two issues here. Normally, closed captioning is done after the film or the video has been prepared.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I can lip-read in French, but not in English. I am not able to do this in English.

• 1605

Speaker Peter Milliken: I am speaking in French. Do you want me to speak in English?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I will therefore continue in French, but I will go slowly.

There are two problems. Usually, captions are produced after a video or a film has been made. Captions are produced immediately for question period and that costs a lot of money. I believe it costs between $225 and $250 per hour. It is very difficult to find people who are able to do this. Doing this for the thousands of hours that the House sits every year would be very difficult and would probably cost $3 million over and above what we currently spend to broadcast our sittings.

The Board of Internal Economy may consider making such a change to improve the situation for people who are watching television and cannot hear. That is an excellent suggestion, but at what cost? This is an issue under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy and the solution also depends on whether or not we can find people who are able to do this work.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman? Do you still have parliamentary reporters at the House of Commons?

Speaker Peter Milliken: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I knew the answer. You did away with the reporters. We kept them in the Senate. I am still using them. I don't have any today. For the last two committee meetings I have attended, the service has not been available. I do not know why. Perhaps it is because we are at the House of Commons. The Senate is a special case, but there is one thing that I do not understand. I was told that they would be here today, but that is not the case.

If you don't have reporter services, I understand. It would be difficult to implement such a service at the House of Commons. We have such a service at the Senate and I use it every day. I have a reporter who accompanies me every day, even at committee meetings. The reporter types the proceedings and the text appears on a computer screen, enabling me to follow the debate. I would not say that this is rocket science, but it is useful for someone like me who likes to be part of the debate.

Why not ask the Senate to give you an overview of its services? Instead of telling me that this is going to cost millions of dollars, perhaps you could open... I don't know how much it costs the Senate, on a daily basis, to broadcast. It doesn't cost millions of dollars. We could try this on a limited basis for committees or question period. I do not understand why the anglophones of Canada have access to reporters in real time whereas a francophone like me does not.

I'm told about sign language. Mr. Speaker, I am 71 years old and I am not able to learn sign language, whether it be the sign language used in Quebec or internationally. I have tried to take courses and I think that I can get by a bit, but being deaf is no laughing matter.

At any rate, would you be open to negotiations with the Senate to set up a reporting system with people who are trained in English or in French? Currently there is no school in the region to train francophone parliamentary reporters.

• 1610

I know that we have a problem, and it is not only a question of money.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I can certainly forward your suggestion to the Board of Internal Economy to see whether or not they would consider making such a change. I would be happy to do this.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to welcome you to the committee. We are discussing a topic that is a sensitive issue, especially for me. The people in my region really like politics, since 76% of them voted for me, which is perhaps a record in Canada.

I would just like to make a comment with respect to the Honourable Senator Gauthier. I agree with him; if we do indeed have two official languages in Canada and we want them to be recognized here, I think it is unacceptable that Parliament not be able to broadcast French captioning for television so that the hearing impaired can read what is being said. I think that this is unacceptable.

I appreciate the fact that you are prepared to forward the suggestion to the Board of Internal Economy and I would like you to be forceful when you make the suggestion, so that you convince the Board that this is what Canada is all about, that there are two official languages and that both must be respected. If Parliament cannot respect the two languages, how do you expect the rest of Canada to live with and respect them? We must show leadership here, in Ottawa.

Let's go back to CPAC. We have a problem. There are anglophones and francophones in my region. When the floor is broadcast, the question is said in English, so that the anglophones understand the question, and sometimes the answer is given in French. So the francophones hear the answer. But nobody gets both.

We must not be satisfied with timidly telling the cable companies that they may lose the contract if they do not broadcast in both languages, because we shouldn't perhaps bother doing anything at all if that's the case. We have to be able to come up with a piece of legislation that goes further, not just a law intended for those who are prepared to abide by it and do what that law entails. No, no.

I think that the Government of Canada is capable of imposing legislation whereby any cable company that wants to obtain a CRTC licence for broadcasting the debates in Canada's Parliament must do so in both official languages. Every Canadian should be able to hear his or her members of Parliament. Regardless of whether these people live in Timmins, Wawa or White River—I will name places in Ontario—people like to hear little Yvon when he rises in the House on the CPAC channel, but they can't.

Hence this is an important issue. People who live here, in Ottawa, can go to Parliament in order to listen to the parliamentarians. For all other Canadians, Ottawa represents Canada in its entirety. This is the case for the people in my region, for the people from Quebec, from Ontario or Alberta.

With the technology that we have today, in 2001, it is no longer about negotiating what occurred back in 1970 or in 1980. This is 2001. I think the time has come, in order to ensure that there's democracy in our country, which is supposedly the most beautiful country in the world—although I sometimes ask myself some questions—to negotiate with the cable companies and even to impose a law.

Perhaps this will be one of my projects, as a member of Parliament, to present a private member's motion in the House of Commons saying that, in order to respect the official languages policy here, in this country, we have to give Canadians the opportunity of hearing their members of Parliament in the House in the language of their choice. I think that this is important.

Speaker Peter Milliken: As always, Mr. Godin, I appreciate your opinions. However, I do believe that you have perhaps said something that is not quite accurate. You said that the government should insist that Canadians receive three transmissions via cable all at the same time; namely, one transmission in English, one in French and one directly from the floor.

I imagine it could happen that the government might not want to broadcast the Debates everywhere. One day, the opposition might not want to, another day, the government itself. But the government might not want to all the time. That is a problem. The House certainly can, Parliament can according to law, but if a government wanted to and insisted on it, I don't know what would happen.

• 1615

I imagine that long ago, when Hansard was first published, maybe 100 years ago, it was widely distributed. Many people probably bought and read it. The ideas you have expressed today were perhaps also expressed by members back then, and perhaps we should insist on having Hansard distributed throughout Canada, in libraries and in bookstores, so that people can buy it.

However, does the government have to require every bookstore, for example, to sell Hansard in both official languages? Would it not be possible to buy it in one or the other language? Choice is what matters. The House gives everyone the choice, and it is the cable carriers who decide to limit that choice by choosing one or two channels to broadcast our debates, but not three.

It is a difficult issue that is not very easy to solve. As I said, many cable companies have a limited number of channels for broadcasting their products. If we insisted that three of those channels be used to broadcast the debates, it might cause problems for some communities, where another channel, a sports, art, history or news channel, might be more important to people than CPAC. That is the problem. But I am sure your representative on the Board of Internal Economy can raise the issues you have put forward, and the House can study the committee's report once it has studied the issue.

Mr. Yvon Godin: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

—we can talk about Hansard. There is a difference between a copy of Hansard in a library and television broadcasting of the debates in a language you do not understand. There is a difference between the two. Myself, I see that difference.

But you raised a point that requires verification in your opinion. The CRTC should perhaps say that when a cable carrier broadcasts CPAC, since it is the House of Commons that is broadcast, that does not affect its other programming. It could be considered a freebie, an extra that does not bump the sports channel. It is true that if you take away the sports channel, the movie channel, this, that, or the other channel, people will panic and say they are not interested in that. Maybe that is what we should do if Parliament, in 2001, wishes to move forward. We have an Official Languages Act in Canada and would like people to be able to watch our debates in both languages. It is our Parliament.

I think it is important. We will open the doors to cable carriers by saying that if they broadcast CPAC, that will in no way affect the broadcasting of other channels they would like to broadcast. Perhaps that is the direction we should take.

You were saying I should do it. I thought we were asking things of you today. I thought you might be able to speak to the CRTC or do some looking into whether that might be feasible.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Godin, I think what matters for now is that the House not insist on cable carriers broadcasting CPAC. But if they do decide to broadcast it, that must be part of their basic service.

• 1620

Other channels could be added to other services, but if they decide to broadcast CPAC, that has to be part of the basic service. That is the problem, if we asked them to use three channels for CPAC, that could cause problems for cable carriers who do not have the technical capacity to provide other channels. That is all. Sure, we might be able to find ways of giving more money to those small cable companies to help boost their capacity, but that costs something, and someone has to pay, be it the subscribers of those companies, the CPAC broadcaster or perhaps the House of Commons. It is a problem, and a decision will probably come out of the negotiations between CPAC, the House of Commons and the Board of Internal Economy.

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

[English]

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of problems with the very decision that brought us here—that is to say, the fact that the Commissioner of Official Languages upheld these complaints, and, if I may say, in her attempt to pin the tail on the donkey decided we were the donkey.

My first problem has to do with the logic of the decision. When as Parliament we haven't insisted that as a condition of licence all cable companies have to carry a signal for CPAC, then the issue of whether or not we carry it bilingually falls away. There's a hierarchy of decision. If you don't insist in the first place they carry a signal of CPAC, then you can't really insist they do it in two languages. Maybe you want to comment on that.

My second question goes to the way in which we deal with this within the House of Commons. The commissioner took her preliminary report to the Speaker, your predecessor, who then showed it to the Board of Internal Economy, which then said we think we're fulfilling our obligation.

She then says that you as Speaker can only take action after reviewing the final report. First of all, have we got to that stage? Secondly, if we haven't got to that stage and there is a final report, do you give it back to the Board of Internal Economy for judgment? If you go that route and ask for advice from the Board of Internal Economy, they give you the advice, and then you convey the decision, is that the definitive voice and response of the House of Commons, unless there's an appeal to the whole chamber?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Godfrey, of course I don't know where this may end up.

Mr. John Godfrey: Have you received a final copy of the report?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, we have, and we have not commented on the final copy because, as you may know, there's litigation ongoing concerning this matter. So we're awaiting the outcome of that litigation.

The board will be undertaking negotiations quite soon with regard to a new contract with CPAC, and some of the issues may be discussed in the course of those negotiations. I think that undoubtedly some will, particularly after the suggestions made by honourable members here today.

I don't think I'm in a position to comment on the report, which has been finalized and was sent to the Speaker some time ago. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was back in the fall.

Mr. John Godfrey: Once the court case has been taken care of, the normal course of events for dealing with this report from the Commissioner of Official Languages is that you as Speaker would normally convey it to the Board of Internal Economy and get their judgment. Then that would constitute the response of the House, which you would then convey. Would that in effect close the matter, except for an appeal to the House?

Speaker Peter Milliken: I guess, except for an appeal to the House.

The Board of Internal Economy, I understand, is the body that would be responsible for replying to the report on behalf of the House. I assume if the House were unhappy with it they may have some means of directing the board. But the board has certain statutory powers, as you know. I must say I didn't go looking at the statute today to see if the answer of the board is absolutely definitive, determinative, and final. I suspect the opinion of the House might make some difference, and of course the House can always express its own opinion.

• 1625

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Join Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): The Official Languages Act presents a huge challenge, because under our Constitution, both languages are currently equal; the difficulty is thus significantly increased. Were it not for the Constitution, we could negotiate and get what we could. But when you consider that both languages are put on an equal footing under the Constitution, the equality of both languages is enshrined; whether or not one language is spoken much less than the other, the fact is that both languages are not only official, but equal.

So listening to this debate, I wonder whether we might be more sure of success through legislation than through negotiation. Negotiation turns on arguments, charisma and whatever other tools are available. But an act of Parliament, in my opinion, provides a much more solid foundation.

I am among those who believe the Official Languages Act is mandatory. For example, there is a case before the courts. I appreciate that we cannot discuss it in a parliamentary committee; however, we can say the Official Languages Act is not an ordinary act. In my view, it is definitely mandatory. It is there for a reason. It is there to give effect to the Constitution.

I think it might be better to proceed by way of legislation to achieve a certain equality between both official languages. I am not criticizing anything, for I do know everyone is doing what they can in this area, but I think that might be a better way to ensure respect for the privileges of both houses of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Senator, I do not know whether the act can improve the privileges of both Houses. Both Houses have the privilege of broadcasting or not. Each House may resort to its own privileges and procedures in this respect. As you know, this was heavily debated at the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was held that the House of Commons and the Senate can each choose to allow cameras or not. It is up to each House to decide.

The House is not a broadcaster. The House broadcasts for its own purposes. Our chamber, for example, broadcasts throughout all of the Parliament buildings, but not much more than that. CPAC is responsible for the rest as a broadcaster. If the House wants to make sure all Canadians who have cable get the debates, amending the act will be a more effective way of accomplishing that goal.

• 1630

There are other options, perhaps less clear and effective, such as CRTC orders or the agreement between the House and CPAC. I did not take part in the negotiations with CPAC when the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—I forget the committee's former name—recommended changes in 1990. The agreement was negotiated by the Board of Internal Economy, not by that committee.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There will always be a need for negotiation, even with an act, I think. However, with an act, we do have support from Parliament, from both houses. A federal act is a statute of Canada. I would be inclined to think that this might be the best procedure because we have full control over our legislation. We can promote equality in an act, especially when the Constitution says so in black and white under Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that does answer my question. Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question with respect to the contract. I notice it states in paragraph 2, “CPAC agrees to arrange for and to provide at its expense...”. When you were talking about the costs involved and Senator Gauthier was saying to have closed-caption programming, does it come out of the Board of Internal Economy, does it come out of the government, or does CPAC pay for it? That's question number one.

The second thing you said is that under this contract the cable companies that actually distribute the broadcast are not parties to the agreement. I understand that. So that doesn't make them bound by this contract. But CPAC is also a consortium of cable companies. While it is a separate legal entity, as I understand the purposes of legal entities, there is a relationship between CPAC and the cable companies.

From my understanding of the history, CBC was the broadcaster of these proceedings at one time. The reason CBC and Radio-Canada decided to pull out was that they could no longer afford to do so. My concern here is what is going to prevent CPAC, this conglomerate, from saying it can no longer afford to do that? Have we looked at options through the CRTC, through the cable companies, to perhaps increase their cable rates to each household? Are we trying to find solutions within the context of how we can ensure the debates are televised? If it is a matter of costs, which it was for the CBC, then surely we should be trying to find ways in which we can partner with the private sector and the cable companies to ensure that the moneys are there for us to recover the costs to the cable companies.

Thank you.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Ms. Bulte, I thank you for your question. I'm getting my memory refreshed by the clerk, because I recall the discussions back in 1990, when the CBC was withdrawing its service. They weren't prepared to continue with it because of the costs. That's my recollection.

For a period of time, the House of Commons paid the CBC to broadcast the service, to keep it going. In an effort to save money, because it was costing us about $4 million—this is what the clerk is telling me, because I've forgotten the figures—the House decided to make this deal with CPAC.

Under the deal, the House prepares the live feed to CPAC. We provide the camera operators who actually do the filming; the editing that goes on in the course of the preparation of the video; the titles that are appearing under members' names; the closed captioning that occurs during question period; and the audiovisuals, sign language, and proceedings in French that are part of the package that is sent out for distribution by CPAC.

• 1635

In other words, they may choose to add something to it if they wish, but it is complete in and of itself, and it's ready for broadcast across the country. That's the deal, and the deal is that they can't alter it.

If the current deal continues and we agree to include closed captioning for the entire day's proceedings, not just question period, I suspect we'd have to do it at our expense, since we provide the live feed. Under this agreement, they're not allowed to make alterations in it without our consent, and can do nothing that affects the... Some say it prevents them from putting cartoons underneath pictures of members, or other things that might tend to lessen the dignity of the proceedings.

So that's the answer to the first question.

To go back to the second question, yes, we can look at other ways of covering the cost of this, and no doubt there will be some negotiations. I have no idea what CPAC may be asking for in the course of these negotiations. I don't know anything of their interest, and I don't know their financial arrangements with the cable companies that distribute their product. I'm just unfamiliar with that. I do know there was a proposal put forward by the former head of CPAC to add an additional channel and to provide significant additional services. That proposal has not gone forward, and that person is no longer there. It was not agreed to.

I don't know the state of relations within the consortium, and I'm not in the position to say we think we're going to get a deal along exactly the same lines. I don't know that. I'm unaware.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Can I just ask a follow-up question?

Mr. Speaker, you just told me we provide the cameras, we provide the feed, and we prepare the feed. But in the agreement it clearly says that CPAC will provide “at its expense”. Are we paying CPAC anything, as we paid the CBC? What kinds of costs are involved to CPAC to distribute?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Ms. Bulte, they pay for the distribution and broadcast of the proceeding. In other words, they send it up to a satellite and presumably pay for the cost of the space on the satellite for these stations, so that it can be taken down from there. The cable companies that then take it down and broadcast it would pay for the use of their facilities, and for seeing that it's taken from the satellite and put into people's homes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Do we pay CPAC anything, like we did the CBC?

Speaker Peter Milliken: No, we do not. We provide the live feed, they do the rest. That was the deal.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Do we know what the cost is of taking it to the satellite and then distributing it?

Speaker Peter Milliken: No, we don't.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We hope to have representatives from CPAC with us next week. Those questions could be put to them.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes. I'm unfamiliar with that. Sorry.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have two others on my list: Senator Fraser and Mr. Drouin. Then, we will go to the second round. All right?

[English]

Senator.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Chair, Mr. Speaker. I have one observation and one question, if I may. My observation follows on Senator Gauthier's remarks.

I have the honour of sharing a seat with Senator Gauthier in the Senate chamber, so I get to see the service he gets from the stenotypists. It is excellent. I don't know what level stenotyping was at when the Commons abandoned it, but I can tell you that what he gets is a complete transcription virtually instantly, and probably as quickly as the translation. It may be within a second after, but it's no more than that.

It's not completely perfect. Neither is the translation, nor, I understand, is the sign language transcription. I mean, we deal with human beings here. But it is a superb service. It feeds into his computer and comes up on his screen. I don't see why it couldn't come up on television screens with equal facility. And I'm sure we're not paying $3 million a year for the purposes of having stenotypists to help Senator Gauthier, or $250,000 a year or anything like that. That obviously would not have been on.

So I really would urge you just to have somebody look at that system.

• 1640

I'm troubled by your assumption that adding parliamentary channels would mean diminishing other elements of the basic service. I am no broadcasting expert, but it has been my understanding that the basic service is not a technically determined package, it is, if you will, a financially determined package. But all channels are equal and all cable companies have the ability to provide 60 channels, or 100, or whatever you can get these days. And what goes into the basic package is just an arbitrary decision by, at the moment, the CRTC, but if the CRTC or Parliament were to decide that the basic service should be expanded, I was not aware that there would be any technical difficulty there. Do you know something we don't know?

Speaker Peter Milliken: No. The technical difficulty is that, as I understand it, all cable companies have a limit on how many channels they can carry. It's not, I guess, quite like a satellite, where, if the satellite's big enough, you can get hundreds of channels on it. The cable distribution network will take only so many channels.

Senator Joan Fraser: But a large number.

Speaker Peter Milliken: It depends. Some have a relatively small number, as I understand it. So it's a question of what is included in the total package. If you take every channel you can get—say the maximum is 60—do you divert three of them for House of Commons by law or regulation?

Senator Joan Fraser: Maybe two.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Or maybe two. But it's a question for the cable companies or for the law. And some cable companies with only 60 may choose not to carry CPAC at all. They're under no obligation to do so. The obligation is that if they take it, they must include it in their basic package. That's all the CRTC has said at this point.

So I don't know the answer to your question. We have not done a survey of the cable companies in Canada and the number of channels they offer. But we have left it to them, under this agreement done seven years ago, to make the choice as to whether they wish to carry the channel, on the understanding that if they choose to do so, they must include it in the basic package.

They're free, as I said earlier, to add a second-language channel in any other package, if they wish to do so, or indeed the other two. But my understanding is that most do not. They offer one, and that's all you can get, because all the other channels are taken up with other things that people are buying from them.

I don't make these choices. It's very much market-driven. And I'm not a good person to be answering specific questions about it, because I've never been able to get cable television where I live. I recently got a satellite, but I hardly ever watch television. I watch it here when I'm in my office more than I do anywhere else.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For your information, though, Senator, we're hoping to have, and we have confirmed, the CRTC's presence, I believe next Wednesday.

Senator Joan Fraser: Okay.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I think your questions on that are better directed to them.

With respect to the other issue, I hear what you're saying about this service. We haven't had it in the House of Commons for at least ten years, to my recollection. When I first was elected, I think we still had that service going on, but Hansard soon switched to transcription from audio cassettes, and that service has not been provided for that reason since then.

I was citing to you the cost per hour of doing this. The House of Commons sits for substantially more hours in a year than the Senate does. The difference in cost—

Senator Joan Fraser: But I think you said $1,000 at $250 an hour. I'm sure we're not paying $250 an hour.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I think we're paying $225 an hour for question period, as it stands. Question period is one hour out of an eight- or nine-hour sitting day for us, assuming we're not doing overtime, sitting at night and all that sort of thing. So it would be...

Senator Joan Fraser: Well, I do urge you to take a look down the hall, send a minion down the hall, to check it out.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Oh, I've been in a committee meeting where Senator Gauthier had it going, and I have seen it operate.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clerk, it is much more a comment than a question that I have for you. Mr. Bélanger has just told us the CRTC will appear before the committee. It is rather unfortunate that this did not happen sooner. I am not blaming anyone. Circumstances often get in the way...

• 1645

A lot of questions have been addressed to you and to others, and will be addressed to CPAC, but we first need answers from the CRTC. We need to know the costs to cable carriers, the impact on them and their obligations. Without that information, it is very hard to get anywhere. We are in the dark. I think the House has to discuss the costs, the impact and the obligations with the CRTC before negotiating with CPAC.

If my information is accurate, CPAC represents the cable carriers. It is an umbrella organization of cable carriers. We absolutely need to know what CRTC rules govern them. Can we, for example, add three signals to each cable carrier at no cost, so that every Canadian gets the debates in the language of his or her choice, or the floor channel? That would provide adequate service. We have loads of questions. The CRTC will undoubtedly clear things up for us.

I am confident that the House of Commons will also have—because you probably will not be here when we meet with the CRTC—people taking steps or following the debate here, in order that, when you negotiate with CPAC, you have all that information to ensure that all Canadians get the debates in both official languages.

This is the place where we make laws and regulations affecting the average person's everyday life. In my opinion, it does not make sense for people not to have access to that. As other colleagues have already said, the House of Commons absolutely must strenuously insist on this being done, so that we can examine all of the costs, if any, and decide whether we can bear them without an excessive impact.

Thank you. That was the comment I wanted to make.

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

Over to Mr. Sauvageau. I have two or three short questions to ask after that.

Mr. Sauvageau, by the way, we understand that when the CPAC representatives come, they will bring the map you requested. Is that all right?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You can cross off one question then.

With respect to costs, allow me to get a little bit political. Mr. Dion gave $10 million to the conference on confederation. If we are told it would cost a few million, we must not balk at the cost. That was just one example.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): A little bit—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, I think that when you... Or the federations... Our constitutional expert may correct me.

Mr. Claude Drouin: It is an investment.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think that for francophones outside Quebec mainly, it could be an investment, Mr. Drouin, to put in a few million dollars for them to get our debates in both official languages. I know that is what you mean.

Mr. Claude Drouin: That is what we said.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, when you sit down to negotiate with CPAC, I think the main question you and the members of the Board of Internal Economy should be asking yourselves is whether or not we have to give effect to the act.

You asked earlier whether people would be penalized if we enforced the act fully. I think your priority when you negotiate with CPAC or others is to establish whether or not the legislation must be given effect, namely the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Constitution of 1867, which require you to broadcast everything in both official languages.

I agree with Mr. Drouin and Ms. Fraser that there have been a lot—and this is nothing against you, Mr. Speaker—of "maybes." Maybe if we require them to have three channels, maybe they will have to cut TSN. Maybe if we require them to show this, maybe they will have to cut that. I am sure that when you negotiate, there will be no more "maybes," and you will be sure, as will we, about whether it will involve two or three channels. I think we should have the answer. We will have that answer along with others, but there are too many "maybes." It is not your fault. I cast no blame on you.

The last agreement goes back seven years. If we ask a simple question—where was the Internet seven years ago?—we might be surprised. I think the next negotiations need to take into account the new technology and the new opportunities that come along with it, rather than being based only on the former contract. I am confident that in your office and in the House and Senate, there must be men and women who are perfectly able to discuss this new technology, this new reality. Like all my colleagues on this committee, I urge you to ensure that this is made available everywhere in both official languages.

• 1650

If we found that this might place a greater burden on one part of Canada than on another, that could be a hard decision for us. I do not know, we do not have the map, but if, for example, the debates are available in both official languages in Quebec, but not elsewhere in Canada, and we decide to uphold the legislation so as not to penalize anglophones elsewhere in Canada, I think it would be a hard decision for us to take. Do you understand? That is why I am anxious to see the map.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I think that may be the case. I do not know the details and perhaps cannot give an opinion. But I must say it is for the committee to decide what recommendations to make to the Board of Internal Economy, and I have no doubt the board will take into account all of the representations of this and other committees, if any. We can, in our current negotiations with CPAC and any other potential broadcaster, take into account the committee's recommendations. In my view, it is up to the committee to decide on this issue.

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

If I may, I would like to follow up on that. I have read the contract, and the agreement stipulates that it must be renewed 120 days before it expires. It will expire at the end of August. If we count back 120 days, we come roughly to the end of April. According to what you have said, am I to understand that if the committee wants to make a report, it will have time to do it and the agreement will not be renewed in its present form at the end of April? Can I interpret your remarks in that way?

Speaker Peter Milliken: My information on that, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the negotiations were already undertaken with the former head of CPAC. But he has left and we have not yet resumed negotiations with the new head of CPAC.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we hurry, we can perhaps—

Speaker Peter Milliken: You will have to hurry.

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

My second question is along the same lines as that of Mr. Sauvageau. Could you take into consideration the possibility of webcasting? I will leave that for the moment; that is what he was suggesting.

My third question deals with the comment made by Senator Gauthier about the closed captioning being available in English only. Did I understand him correctly?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, that is true.

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

Fourth, could you explain to us—if you do not have the answers, our researchers will find them—how things worked when Radio-Canada and CBC were in charge of broadcasting? Were they required to broadcast in both French and English, for example? Was that one of the conditions that was imposed on them? Who changed that and how? That question may be important for the members of the committee, if we could get the answers.

Mr. Corbett, it is up to you.

Speaker Peter Milliken: We do have some information. The CBC provided broadcasting in both languages, but according to our information, only a small percentage of cable companies decided to carry the channel. Perhaps the Clerk can answer your question in more detail.

• 1655

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, members and senators, when Radio-Canada and the CBC were broadcasting House debates, there were only three or four American television channels and lots of availability on the dial. A number of channels were free. At that time, a number of companies carried both languages and even the floor, since they had room to spare. But as everyone knows, the situation in the market now, with the new technologies, is such that there are many specialized channels for sports or other things. There is no longer any spare room, and it has become difficult for cable companies to carry both languages or a third channel, and that has always been their decision.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you know, Mr. Corbett, whether the CRTC had any requirements in place at that time to broadcast both languages?

Mr. William Corbett: I may be wrong, but I certainly do not believe so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will ask the CRTC.

Mr. William Corbett: We will look into that and, if I am mistaken, I will let you know in writing, Mr. Chairman.

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

Senator Beaudoin, quickly.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I just have a short comment about the French version. In the English text it uses the words enter into contract. Of course, we see this every day.

Mr. William Corbett: Excuse me, Senator. Are we talking about the agreement?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We are talking about the agreement. In English, you use wording that we see every day in legal language, but I imagine that the words used in French, peut passer des marchés mean can conclude contracts or can conclude agreements. The word marchés—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, the translation was done this afternoon. We received the agreement. It might need some polishing up, but I have already congratulated the translators on behalf of the committee members for getting it done today.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: —

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: As you know, there is always room for improvement.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would just like to thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Corbett. I'm sorry, Senator, please go ahead.

Senator Joan Fraser: It will just take 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, please.

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am impressed by the fact that you don't spend your spare hours in front of a television screen. This is just as a point of information as we go forward, because you may not be aware of what all these channels the cable companies have are devoted to.

There's a channel for blue movies.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Senator Joan Fraser: No, no, we were talking about the vast panoply. There's a shopping channel devoted to commercials. There are quite a number of channels that in terms of the public interest—in my view at any rate—might not be worth quite as much as access to parliamentary debates. I'm not asking you to make a decision on anything here. I understand what you're probably thinking about CRTC's job, but just so you know.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will start again. Thank you, Senator. On behalf of the committee members, I would just like to thank you, Mr. Milliken and Mr. Corbett—

Speaker Peter Milliken: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): —for being here today.

• 1700

I would like committee members to know that there will not be a meeting tomorrow. It is not because we do not want to have one, but because our witness is unable to appear. We hope that CPAC will be there next Tuesday. I believe that it is becoming essential for CPAC to appear. I hope we will not have to have recourse to anything beyond an invitation.

Next Wednesday, we will receive the CRTC.

Thank you and have a good evening.

The meeting is adjourned.