LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

• 1533

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): I would like to welcome Ms. Watson and Mr. Stein, as well as their legal advisor, Mr. Robert Buchan. I would like to also welcome our colleagues from the House of Commons.

Today we will hear the representatives from CPAC, who will tell us about their present situation. Your contract is about to be renewed and we, the members of the committee, have a number of questions to ask you regarding official languages.

Ms. Watson, you may begin.

Senator Gauthier would like to raise a point of order. Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Chair, before hearing the witnesses, I would like to repeat what I said three or four weeks ago. CPAC is before the courts at this time and, even though I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that common sense would dictate that some of the questions prepared by the research assistants from the Library of Parliament should be considered out of order today.

I believe the first four questions are acceptable, but the following three, numbers 5, 6 and 7, are, to my mind, absolutely out of order. We must not deal with substantive issues. We don't want to cause any problems for the CPAC representatives, since their case is before the courts. We must not take the line of questioning too far because we will find ourselves in hot water. I am telling you that we might find ourselves with our backs against the wall.

I would recommend that you not allow honourable members or parliamentarians to ask questions that might put the witness in an awkward position.

• 1535

Ms. Watson, I should probably not interfere because you know your own business, but I would advise you to not climb into a leaky boat.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you. Ms. Watson, I am sure that Mr. Buchan is here to advise you when you answer questions. I would leave it to the discretion of the three witnesses to decide whether or not they should respond. I would also ask committee members to avoid putting the witnesses on the spot.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. Colette Watson (General Manager, CPAC): Thank you.

Our chairman will begin.

Mr. Ken Stein (Chairman, CPAC Board of Directors and Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Shaw Communications Inc.): Madam Chair,

[English]

honourable senators, and members of Parliament, my name is Ken Stein, chairman of the board of the cable public affairs channel,

[Translation]

the cable public affairs network,

[English]

CPAC, as well as senior vice-president, corporate and regulatory affairs of Shaw Communications Inc., whose head office is in Calgary, Alberta.

With me today are Colette Watson, the recently appointed general manager of CPAC; and Robert Buchan, of the law firm of Johnston and Buchan, who is legal counsel and secretary to the board of CPAC.

As representatives of CPAC, we are extremely pleased to appear today before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to provide you with some insight into to the origins and the raison d'être of CPAC, its operations, and the role it plays in the national distribution of the broadcast signal of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees.

What is CPAC? CPAC broadcasts its signal nationally via satellite 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. The programming service of CPAC contains no advertisements or commercials, and CPAC receives its funding exclusively from its network affiliates, which currently include 84 licensed cable television systems and two national direct-to-home satellite distributors.

The CPAC programming service is currently distributed by our network affiliates to approximately 7.5 million cable homes and to 1.1 million satellite subscribers across Canada, therefore approximately 74% of all Canadian residences receive the CPAC service. CPAC's programming service is made available as part of the basic cable or satellite service, at no charge to subscribers.

The costs of producing, uplinking, and distributing nationally via satellite the CPAC service is paid for by the revenues that CPAC receives from its network affiliates. CPAC's expenses currently exceed $6 million per year, and since CPAC's launch in 1992, the cable industry has invested and contributed nearly $40 million to develop and improve the operation of CPAC and its public affairs programming. It's a service of which we are very proud.

The decision as to whether a given cable or satellite distributor will become an affiliate of the CPAC network, and will therefore pay a monthly per subscriber affiliation fee for the right to distribute the CPAC signal, is at the sole discretion of the operator of each cable or satellite distribution system.

CPAC is not a mandatory, must-carry signal. However, if a cable or satellite provider elects to carry the signal, it must be part of the basic service and not as part of a tier of discretionary services for which an additional fee would be paid.

This is the basis of how the CPAC signal is distributed across Canada. I will now ask Colette Watson to describe CPAC's programming.

Ms. Colette Watson: Over the past decade, CPAC has evolved from simply providing the House of Commons feed to a full-fledged national, bilingual public affairs network. Today, CPAC offers a much richer and greatly expanded menu of public affairs programming than it did in 1992.

In addition to the House of Commons proceedings and select Senate committee hearings, CPAC offers 30 hours a week of original programming and 46 hours a week of long format coverage of committees, conferences, hearings, and special events. In fact, as parliamentary proceedings make up only 24% of our programming, Canadians count on us to provide long-form coverage of events that are not available on other networks.

A brief list of our coverage includes the Summit of the Americas; the Walkerton inquiry; the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas; gavel-to-gavel election coverage; landmark Supreme Court cases such as the Latimer and Quebec secession cases; public inquiries, including APEC, Somalia, and Krever; and the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

• 1540

Indeed, in many respects CPAC has a reputation for being the network of record for some of the most pivotal moments in Canada's history. We provide the public with access to information on important issues, framed in a broader context than is typically available in news and public affairs programming offered on other television broadcasting networks. Equally important, CPAC's programming is free of editorialization, allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions from issues and events as they take shape.

[Translation]

As members of this Joint Committee are aware, from 1979 to 1991 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) arranged for the national satellite distribution of the televised proceedings of the House of Commons, to cable distributors across Canada. However, in April 1991, due to budgetary constraints, the CBC announced that it would no longer be able to continue funding the national distribution via satellite of the Parliamentary Service.

Recognizing that a valuable service to Canadians would cease to exist, a consortium of cable companies stepped in to ensure the continued funding operation and distribution of the service.

In 1992, the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons entered an interim arrangement with CPAC to allow for the continued national distribution via satellite, in both official languages, of the proceedings of the House of Commons.

In 1995, the House of Commons and CPAC concluded a formal Agreement whereby CPAC undertook to ensure continued national distribution, in both official languages for a seven-year term, of the televised proceedings of the House of Commons.

As you know, under the terms of that Agreement, the House of Commons Broadcasting Service has complete responsibility for the production and packaging of the television coverage of the House of Commons proceedings, and of the proceedings of certain parliamentary committees. The House of Commons Broadcasting Service is also responsible for the production and insertion of English language closed captioning, and/or LSQ French sign language simultaneous interpretation services which are incorporated into the broadcast signal.

For its part, CPAC receives the broadcast signal from the House of Commons Broadcast Service and then incorporates that programming unaltered into the signal of the CPAC programming service, which is then distributed nationally to CPAC's network affiliates.

As a condition of its Agreement with the Speaker (in his capacity as the head of the Board of Internal Economy), CPAC has undertaken “to distribute all three different language versions of the television programming”—these being the bilingual Chamber and Committee floor sound, and the English-only and French-only sound tracks.

CPAC is also obligated by the terms of the Agreement to distribute all proceedings of the House of Commons “gravel to gravel”, that is live, uncut, unaltered, and as priority programming having precedence over all other programming on the CPAC service.

I should also mention that the Agreement between CPAC and the Speaker of the House is not an exclusive Agreement, and does not give rise to any exclusive programming rights. The Agreement is not one of agency or partnership. CPAC has no authority to contract on behalf of, or otherwise blind the House of Commons.

As members of this Joint Committee are aware, the Commissioner of Official Languages last year received and investigated six complaints regarding the linguistic component of television coverage of House of Commons proceedings. The investigations launched by the Commissioner were not directed against CPAC, or its network affiliates, because, as noted in the Commissioner's Report, CPAC and its affiliates “are not institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada, or agencies responsible for administrative functions under a federal statute”. They are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Official Languages Act.

Nevertheless, CPAC co-operated with the Commissioner and her staff in the conduct of this investigation, and was afforded an opportunity to comment on the draft Report of the Commissioner.

CPAC appreciates the importance of the issues raised in the Commissioner's Report. CPAC believes that there are technical solutions to deal with the situation under review, and we are certainly prepared to continue to work together with the Speaker and the House of Commons Broadcast Service to address these issues.

CPAC believes, for example, that Second-Audio Program (SAP) technology offers a particularly promising way to address the linguistic concerns raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

SAP technology enables the signal of a single television service to include one video signal and two audio signals. SAP technology allows a television viewer, with a SAP accessible TV set, to choose amongst the two audio signals. We believe SAP may provide a low cost, yet equitable solution to the challenges of providing Parliamentary coverage in the language of choice of the viewer.

• 1545

We recognize that the technology is not yet available at the head-end of all cable systems in Canada, and is not available in all television sets in use in Canada. However, CPAC's research indicates that already 37% of all Canadian cable subscribers have access to the SAP option. A further 8% receive CPAC as discreet English and French services. Cable companies are continually striving to increase access.

[English]

I hope that these brief comments have provided the members of this joint committee with some useful information on CPAC's role and operations. Members of Canada's cable television industry believe that CPAC is an important, positive contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system and to the Canadian democratic process. We hope to be able to continue to make this contribution in the future.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Mr. Buchan, do you have anything you wish to add to the comments?

Mr. Robert J. Buchan (Partner, Johnston & Buchan): No, I have nothing, Madam Chair.

I would just note, though, with regard to the legal action that was commenced in the Federal Court in January, that CPAC is not implicated in that litigation. I have a copy of the notice that was served, and it was served on the House of Commons, on the Attorney General of Canada, on the Board of Internal Economy for the Speaker, and on the Commissioner of Official Languages, but CPAC is not a party to the litigation. I just wanted to clarify that for Ms. Watson, because we really hadn't discussed it before we came up to the Hill today.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We'll start with Mr. Jaffer on the first round of questioning.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of you for being here today and for your comments. It definitely did help to clarify some of the questions I had and especially brought light to the new SAP technology, which I think will seemingly help some of the problems that we have when it comes to allowing the procedure here in the House to be transmitted in both official languages to markets where maybe it's not accessible as such.

Last week, when we had the Speaker of the House here as a witness, I asked the Speaker if in fact it was normal procedure or if it's ever happened that the House would change legislation in order to force cable companies across the country to carry CPAC, or whatever it might be that's being done in the House, to markets in both official languages. He said basically that it's not the role of the House to legislate that, and that in fact it's CRTC regulations that would force cable companies to carry or change the way they carry CPAC.

I would like to know, in your opinion, whether or not the best way to go about solving the problem where people would like the choice of both official languages in any market is, as you have suggested here, to look at new forms of technology, or to go down the road of CRTC intervening and forcing cable companies to carry two official languages regardless of the market. What effects would that cause for those particular cable companies? Maybe you can just give us some insight on that.

I know the senator had some problems with this question, but I think we need to have some clarification on this before we have CRTC here next week, or tomorrow.

A voice: They're appearing tomorrow.

Mr. Ken Stein: I can start on this, and I'm sure my colleagues will want to add to certain aspects of this. What I'll do is address it from a policy point of view, and we're very privileged to have Mr. Buchan here as the expert on the regulations, etc.

The Broadcasting Act gives the CRTC quite a wide range of powers to be able to direct broadcasters or broadcast distributors, which we are doing, in terms of the carriage of signals. In fact, there's been a significant shift over the past few years. Up until about the early 1990s, the services that were delivered by cable companies were totally discretionary. A cable company was not required to carry The Sports Network, or MuchMusic, or whatever. It was a total response to the market.

• 1550

Over the past few years the CRTC has made it an obligation to carry all of these services. Where these services are carried, though, they're carried on a discretionary basis, and the commission has in fact been very clear that availability of a service does not mean a subscriber is forced to take it. Therefore, that raises question of the basic cable service.

It's always been our view that the House of Commons proceedings should be made available to all Canadians as widely as possible and should be part of the basic cable service. In fact, when we negotiated the carriage arrangements with the satellite companies, we made it very clear that we wanted it to be carried as part of the basic package and not on the tiers, which were discretionary and for which an additional charge would be made. So we always felt it was very important to distribute CPAC and the House of Commons on basic.

That really leaves a degree of discretion to the cable operator, because it's not a mandatory carriage signal. The commission can make it mandatory. They've done this in two cases recently with respect to the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network—APTN. They made it mandatory, and they also imposed a 15¢ charge on each subscriber, whether the subscriber wants it or not. They now have 15¢ added to their bill. A cable company receives none of that money. Nothing goes to the cable company or to the satellite company; the 15¢ goes directly to the support of APTN.

The other service is the second French-language service, as we call it—the private television network, TVA—which was licensed for national distribution across Canada and made mandatory on basic cable. That was done, but some obligations were placed on TVA. Number one, there is no fee. It's totally free; there's no charge. TVA receives no subscriber revenues, and neither does the cable company. The other aspect of it is that TVA is obliged to make more of an effort to reflect the interest of francophones across the country. Rather than just reporting on events in Quebec, which is what it was previously licensed for, it has to do more of a national job. That was made mandatory.

In both those cases, the services themselves were also obliged to explain that to subscribers. In other words, as the cable companies and the satellite distributors, we said, “Well, this is what we're doing”, and we would work with the program distributors. We essentially tried to avoid the situation where we said, “Well, sorry, we are told to do this; we're under the commission.” That generally doesn't help us; it doesn't help our relations with the CRTC, and I think, in the circumstances with CPAC, it certainly wouldn't help anybody's relations with the House of Commons.

So generally what we've tried to do is.... We're not in favour of mandatory; we don't like it. We feel that subscribers should have the discretion as to what they receive. Our preference has always been to work it out—to basically say we think this is an important service and we think it should be made available to all Canadians, and in the language of their choice.

We don't do that now. We do respond to the market, but if francophones in Calgary wish to receive a service in the French language, they would have to have a satellite dish. So there are certain improvements that we can make. Our preference would be to have a clear indication of what it is that the House wanted us to do and the commission wanted us to do, and then proceed with it on a voluntary basis. That generally results in a much better reaction from our subscribers as well. So that's perhaps a lengthy explanation of it, but I hope it's complete in terms of answering your question.

Mr. Buchan may have something to add.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Very briefly. Time has expired for the first question.

Mr. Robert Buchan: I notice that Senator Gauthier has a copy of the CRTC report that was published in February. It's entitled Achieving a Better Balance: A Report on French-Language Broadcasting Services in a Minority Environment. They're seized of the question, and it addresses CPAC-related issues, so the issue is before them. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, because you asked if that was the appropriate place to deal with it, and they are dealing with it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to congratulate CPAC for the work they are doing in making this service available to all Canadians. Moreover, there's always room for improvement, regardless of the situation, regardless of the location in Canada.

• 1555

There is something quite obvious, and that is, in Canada's capital, a country where we have two official languages, it seems to be impossible to watch CPAC, not in the language of one's choice, but in the language spoken on the floor. If a member rises in the House or speaks English in committee, then we hear the English. But if, suddenly, the same member switches to French, you need to be an expert in technology to know how to quickly use the SAP function on your television set. That is, of course, if you are lucky enough to have a new TV set. How do you think we can solve this technical problem?

Ms. Colette Watson: The SAP technology is available on television sets that are less than 10 years old. Therefore, most television sets are SAP-ready.

Once you know how to do it, it is easy enough to press the “Menu” button to move from English to French.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you think this can be done in the blink of an eye, Ms. Watson?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes, you can do that quite quickly. You need only press the button once. But the set has to be programmed. I did it in Senator Gauthier's office. I would be happy to go to your office to show you how to do it.

You raise a good point. It's a question of training. Our subscribers must be better informed about the use of the technology.

There's also the floor soundtrack. If you and I, as francophones, want to hear the person speaking in the language of origin rather than listen to the simultaneous interpretation, there is also the floor soundtrack that is available on the FM band. You need to have a radio located near the television set. The FM band—I believe it is at 96.1—broadcasts the floor soundtrack in Ottawa. The three options are available to subscribers in Ottawa.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do you intend to use the cable operators to explain to people how to quickly use the SAP technology?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes. We have already taken steps to broadcast a 30-second commercial. We will put it on the air so as to try to show people how to use it.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There are ongoing negotiations between the House of Commons and CPAC, that is to say, yourselves, with respect to the agreement. Do you have any suggestions to make today on improvements that would ensure a better distribution to anglophones, francophones, and to those who want to hear the program in the language of origin?

Ms. Colette Watson: As I am new to my position, I am not yet fully up-to-speed. In the coming weeks, we will be in touch with the House of Commons, and with the Speaker's office, with a view to renegotiating the agreement. These matters will be discussed during the normal course of this process. Our legal advisor might have something to add.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: May I ask another question?

[English]

Ms. Colette Watson: Bob, did you want a supplementary comment? No?

[Translation]

There is nothing to add. Therefore, you may ask another question.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have a final question. Here, in Canada's capital, would it be possible to force Rogers to broadcast in French, in English, and in the language that is spoken?

Ms. Colette Watson: Today, Rogers broadcasts the three soundtracks in Ottawa: English, French, and the floor soundtrack with SAP technology and FM radio.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau, you have the floor.

• 1600

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here.

In your speech, you quoted a number of relatively specific statistics. Among other things, you say that 37% of Canadian cable subscribers, and I am one of them, have access to the SAP option and that 8% of them receive both CPAC services.

I had asked the committee research assistants if you had a big map of Canada on which we could see the areas where the services are available in both official languages, where they are available only in English and where they are available only in French. Do you have a copy for us, please?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This is a request that we had made two weeks ago.

Ms. Colette Watson: I am delighted to provide you with these maps. Would you like me to indicate the areas by province, or shall I simply table these maps?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, because that would take away from my time. You may simply submit them.

Ms. Colette Watson: Excellent.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On page 7 of your presentation, you say, with respect to CPAC and its affiliates,

They are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Official Languages Act.

If you broadcast in both official languages, you are doing that voluntarily. Is that how we should understand it? It says here:

They are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Official Languages Act.

You are speaking about your company.

Ms. Colette Watson: I will ask Mr. Buchan to answer that.

[English]

Mr. Robert Buchan: If I've understood your question correctly, Mr. Sauvageau, what was intended to be said is that in the agreement it states that we are not acting in any way as an agent or as a partner on behalf of the House of Commons.

CPAC isn't in a position to bind the House of Commons in any way. CPAC is independent at law, and is not a representative of the House in that respect. That's all that was intended.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Therefore, sir, if you make it available in both official languages plus the floor, it is because you are such fine citizens. Is that correct?

Ms. Colette Watson: I did not understand the question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will ask it again. Since you are not a government agency, because you are independent, you are under no obligation to respect the Official Languages Act, but you do so anyway.

Ms. Colette Watson: That's correct.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you are doing it voluntarily. You are good people.

Ms. Colette Watson: Well, our agreement with the House of Commons stipulates that we must broadcast what the House of Commons sends us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But you are under no obligation to respect the Official Languages Act. That's what is written there.

[English]

Mr. Robert Buchan: Monsieur Sauvageau, the Official Languages Act speaks to institutions of the government and the Parliament of Canada. CPAC is not an institution of the government or the Parliament of Canada. CPAC is not acting as an agent of the government or the Parliament of Canada. The Commissioner of Official Languages recognized this in her report to Parliament.

But when the Commissioner of Official Languages began her investigation, her officials contacted CPAC. CPAC welcomed the officials and explained what CPAC does and what its relationship is with the House of Commons. It wants to be part of the solution.

It's in the remarks because of this issue as to whether or not there's any agency through the agreement. The agreement makes it clear that CPAC is not an agent of Parliament or the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you. On page 3, it says:

[...] a full-fledged national, bilingual public affairs network.

I did not see the graph, because you have just submitted it, but I understand what you are saying. With that in mind, can you say that it is truly a bilingual national network, available in both official languages, not for the cable distributors, but for those who turn on their television sets? Do we understand each other?

Ms. Colette Watson: CPAC is a bilingual network. Everything we do is done in French and in English.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

Ms. Colette Watson: Therefore, that is where the definition comes from. Of course, as a francophone, I have a different way of seeing it. I do not believe that the fact that a program is simply translated means that it has a francophone or anglophone outlook; it means that it has been translated. Therefore, at this time, everything that CPAC does is translated into French and into English.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am aware of that, but when we say that it is a national bilingual network, does it mean that I can watch in English or in French on my television set? Do I understand correctly? I would like some clear definitions.

• 1605

Ms. Colette Watson: When we say that CPAC is a national network, we mean that we are entitled to broadcast by satellite anywhere in Canada.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I know that.

Ms. Colette Watson: We supply three soundtracks, and the local cable company makes them available according to the market requirements.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is where the problem lies: the choices made by the subscribers. I think we can agree on that. The cable companies broadcasting your signal do this voluntarily.

Ms. Colette Watson: That is correct.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They are under no obligation. There are 84 of them doing it without asking to be paid, and they voluntarily make available one language rather than the other. What would encourage a cable company to broadcast CPAC if there is no obligation to do so? Why did 84 of them agree to distribute the CPAC signal free of charge?

Ms. Colette Watson: I will ask my colleague to answer that. In 1992, the cable industry felt that it was a good idea. We are proud of the contribution that we can make to Canadian democracy. We had to decide who would broadcast the House of Commons' proceedings because the CBC said that it would be too expensive. They wanted the government to contribute an additional sum of more than $2 million. We came to the table and said that we were prepared to do it. Moreover, we said that we would add some public affairs programming because the House does not sit 52 weeks a year.

Therefore, it is voluntary; 84% of Canadian subscribers receive CPAC and 51% of them have a choice of one of the two official languages. The industry will now undertake to make SAP technology available to a larger number of subscribers. I would say that within a year, the 51% could climb to almost 80%, without anyone being forced to do it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a few short questions. You don't need to be an electronic genius to use the remote control to change the audio from English to French. I can do it myself. Even Senator De Bané can do it.

Having said that, is the SAP or second audio program available throughout the country?

Ms. Colette Watson: At this time, it is not available west of Manitoba. We are undertaking today to make it available in those provinces. It is not yet available in Newfoundland or Labrador, but it will be installed in Newfoundland next week.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In fact, the SAP signal is available in Ontario, in Quebec, in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia.

Ms. Colette Watson: Somewhat. Today.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That isn't very much. Is SAP broadcasting expensive?

Ms. Colette Watson: It costs approximately $2,700 per head-end.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: How many head-ends are there?

Ms. Colette Watson: There are a large number. There are about 1,002... It depends on the company.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you have a large enough budget for that?

Ms. Colette Watson: I believe so.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We can say that SAP is available, but that gives rise to a question. In the francophone markets... I don't know how to describe it, but the CRTC uses the expressions “French-language market” and “English-language market” and when we ask them for a definition, they are hard pressed to give us one. Do you have a definition of "French-language market" and “English-language market”?

Ms. Colette Watson: We use the CRTC definitions.

Some Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1610

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Sauvageau asked a question on the charges... I will come back to that later. I had an interesting question to ask. There are certain things that I can no longer remember and I am not able to re-read them.

This is my second question. As Mr. Buchan said, the CRTC has recently tabled a report. One of the recommendations in the report deals with the policy approach. It is in Appendix 1, on page 53, and it reads as follows:

(a) Licensees of distribution undertakings serving more than 2,000 subscribers and using high capacity digital technology [...] will be required to offer all English-language and French-language Canadian specialty services and at least one pay-television service—

That is for the future. Within the next year or two, you will have to provide the signal throughout Canada. You told me today that you were going to make it available to the part of the country that is west of Manitoba. Will that cost you anything?

Ms. Colette Watson: CPAC or all of the French-language services?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In his comments, Mr. Stein said that he was mindful of the interests of the francophone community throughout Quebec and, he added, not only in Quebec. What did you mean by that, Mr. Stein?

[English]

Mr. Ken Stein: Let me go to the question on the CRTC's decision with respect to French-language services. This was pursuant to an Order in Council issued by the Government of Canada that raised concerns about the ability of Canadians across the country to receive services in the language of their choice.

As a result, the Canadian Cable Television Association and others appeared before the commission to discuss how we might deal with this issue. What we proposed was using new digital technologies to make these services available. The commission has basically agreed with that and has required us as distributors to make available across the country all French-language services where we have digital capability.

This is to be implemented in September of this year. It's not going to be in the future or whatever; it's actually going to start this broadcast year. We think it's going to be quite successful and we look forward to doing it, so we have very much supported this kind of approach.

This has also made CPAC quite aware—especially in western Canada, where you'll notice from the map that there's not a lot of French-language capability for CPAC—of being able to offer that service. Now we're looking at the best means by which to do it, and right now that seems to be using the secondary audio program feed. That would deal with it in the short term.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I remember one of the issues that was raised by Mr. Sauvageau. A provision of the cable- distribution licence requires the CPAC signal to be offered on the basic tier. The cable companies cannot charge more than what they charge for the basic service, which might include up to 20 television stations. Therefore, they are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They are required to do so.

Ms. Colette Watson: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: No? Well, can you explain that?

Ms. Colette Watson: If I understand your question correctly, the CRTC orders that the priority services must be made available by each cable distributor, and these services vary according to the market. They must provide the CBC, SRC, and a provincial educational network if one is available. There are also the local television stations. Here in Ottawa, there is CJOH and CHRO. Then, there are the specialty services that the CRTC has licensed, and whose monthly tariff is set by the CRTC. The basic monthly charge is regulated by the CRTC. CPAC is not a mandatory service. If it is added, subscribers are not required to pay it. Therefore, CPAC exists because the cable distributors pay for the service.

• 1615

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, senator. Your time has expired.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a brief supplementary question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I will come back to you during the second round.

Ms. Colette Watson: May I make a clarification? He asked me how many head-ends there were. There are 600 head-ends in Canada, and half of them already have the technology.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would also like to welcome you to this committee.

I believe that if we ask about the history of CPAC, we will find that Canadians like the programming that is broadcast by CPAC, and I think that the more they watch, the more interested they become.

I come from a region where francophones and anglophones live side by side, and to put it bluntly, I am not terribly impressed by the service provided by CPAC. It is not because of CPAC. I don't mean the program itself, but the service. The problem where I come from, in the northeastern part of New Brunswick, stems from the fact that anglophones and francophones live in the same communities. If we are listening to the floor sound, we hear the question in English and the answer in French. Try to make anything out of that. It's impossible to understand. If the question is in French, we hear the answer in English. And we don't know what has happened. That's what we have when we listen to the floor soundtrack.

The cable distributor, which was Shaw and is now Rogers, has tried to please everyone and I believe that the result is that no one is happy. That is one issue.

Secondly, if it is available only in English, in certain regions, the francophone viewers will not have it, and if it is provided only in French, the anglophones won't have it. We have a real problem with CPAC in my region. And if nothing were available, people would be protesting just as loudly. I remember that in the Acadian Peninsula, the CPAC signal was withdrawn and everyone was mad at the cable company. People were calling to complain. So they put it on channel 99. It's a long way to go, but at least it is available. I am saying this by way of explaining the great interest expressed by people from my riding. As an aside, I would point out that in Canada, the voter turnout was relatively low. In Acadie—Bathurst, 76% of eligible voters cast a ballot; therefore, they are interested in politics.

I would like to ask you the following question: given the present state of affairs, how much would it cost to have CPAC if we were ready to pay for the service? I know that the House of Commons or the CRTC said that if CPAC is being broadcast, then it must be free of charge. But we don't have it and people who really want to have it are unable to get it. So how much would it cost? I think you can add a television channel for $2.50 a month. I would really like to know if you can specify a cost for this service...

Ms. Colette Watson: If I understand correctly, you are asking me two questions. I will answer the first one. Let me do so by putting a question to you. Have you gone back to New Brunswick since March 29?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I was there about three or four days ago.

Ms. Colette Watson: I am talking about March 29, last week.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I was home over the weekend.

Ms. Colette Watson: On March 29, we added SAP to your system. That means that you can now have it in English and in French and we intend to add it to the FM band in the next four weeks. That means that you will have the choice of the three sound tracks in your market in order to deal with this problem. I have already had meetings with a group of Acadians who endorsed this solution. So we hope to be working with people in this market to provide them CPAC in the language of their choice.

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking how much it would cost to provide a second CPAC video, a CPAC with the floor and a second CPAC. Is that correct?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. If we are not able to access the service in our language, then a person may apply to the cable operator for this service, at an additional charge if necessary.

Ms. Colette Watson: I see. It's already done, it's free and it's included.

Don't you believe me?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I believe you but that's not the issue. If the person does not have a television with SAP—and not everyone has it—then there is no access.

Ms. Colette Watson: That's true but it's unusual to find television sets more than 10 years old.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I won't mention the make because that would be advertising but some of them don't have it.

Ms. Colette Watson: It's an evolving situation. Over time people buy new televisions with new options and perhaps something can be done for people who are really stuck and are anxious to have SAP. Possibly these people could find or buy a converter if their television is too old.

• 1620

Mr. Yvon Godin: You talked about SAP. Excuse my ignorance but what exactly is it? Is it audio?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes, it is audio.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's audio.

Ms. Colette Watson: If you have a remote control, it is shown on the “Menu”. Press on it...

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can do it when my wife does not take it away from me.

Ms. Colette Watson: ...and then follow the instructions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will give it a try once my wife let's me have it.

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes, do. Find a hiding place next weekend, take a look at the menu and follow the instructions. It's really very easy.

An hon. member: Ask your wife to find it for you.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I will talk to Mr. Gauthier about it, he knows the system. He likes pressing buttons.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Bacon.

Order, please.

Senator Lise Bacon (De la Durantaye, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Some people have complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Among them there were people who were worried of course about the use of closed captioning. I don't agree with what they say but they claim that this captioning will be awkward to read, particularly for seniors—I don't quite agree—and the use of this captioning would not provide equivalent service in both official languages.

As far as CPAC is concerned, we are told that CPAC's view about closed captioning is that it would raise important issues about technology, human resources and production. Apparently, technology is not available right now to provide closed captioning in real time, that is the transcription of all the words spoken rather than a summary to keep up with the rhythm of the exchange.

Secondly, we are told that it would be almost impossible to find qualified people able to do the transcription in the second language in real time and that the image filmed by the camera would not be clear—that is something we heard several times—for television viewers, since the captioning might fill up as much as half of the screen. I would like to hear your reaction live rather than read what the views of CPAC are.

Ms. Colette Watson: As was noted at the beginning, I've just started working for CPAC. I spent the last 11 years with Rogers. I've been assigned temporarily to CPAC by Rogers. So I am still a vice-president with Rogers. For my 11 years with Rogers I was responsible for closed captioning and the hearing-impaired at the national level. I must state now that the person occupying the position with CPAC before me was not familiar with all the information. It is not a matter of technology.

Senator Lise Bacon: This information was not provided.

Ms. Colette Watson: It is not a matter of technology. If you want to provide closed captioning in French or in English, it can be done. It is not a question of technology.

There is however a big question, namely personnel. There is a problem with personnel. Six years ago we approached schools, community colleges offering two-year courses in stenography, and we suggested that they add a third year to train people to provide closed captioning in real time.

We were successful with Langara College in British Columbia but we did not have the same success with French-language institutions. There are fewer than 10 people in Canada capable of providing captioning in French in real time. If we wanted to hire these people, it would cost a fortune.

So this is what we'd have to do. We could approach the Cité collégiale tomorrow in order to obtain a course in stenography as well as a third year to train people to provide captioning. Three years from now, we would have enough people. We would have a group of 30 to 40 people able to offer this service. So if you have children who are 19 or 18 years old, tell them it is worth looking into this branch if they want to get rich because there is a shortage of people. I don't think there is any doubt about that.

Senator Lise Bacon: To take another approach, do you think it would also be possible to require that the broadcasting of CPAC be done in both languages at the time when you enter into a contract with the cable operators?

Ms. Colette Watson: No, we leave that up to the discretion of the cable operator.

Senator Lise Bacon: So it is the cable operator who—

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes. They have the choice.

• 1625

Senator Lise Bacon: Would you not be able to bring pressure to bear or provide some encouragement?

Ms. Colette Watson: The council, whose members are from the cable sector, has made a commitment, as part of today's hearing, to add SAP technology. In our view, that resolves the problem.

Senator Lise Bacon: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): That is the end of the first round.

Mr. Drouin, do you have any questions?

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a short question.

We have just received some cards asking about preferences for English, French, both, etc. Seventeen point nine percent indicate French, and eighty-three point one percent both. Is it possible that the signal may sometimes change? We may be listening to CPAC in French and suddenly it changes to English. Are any measures being taken to correct this situation?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes. Not all the programs are translated. Do you have a figure or percentage of those that are not completely translated?

Mr. Claude Drouin: I am talking about conferences.

Ms. Colette Watson: There may be conferences like the Walkerton hearing we broadcasted. The government of Ontario does not provide us with hearings in English and French. It would be difficult for me to make a commitment to provide translation for everything. I don't know what will be happening in the next 12 months. There may be several inquiries and it would be difficult. That's the reason why things change. I will make a commitment to ensure that the programs produced by CPAC are all translated and provided in English and in French.

Mr. Claude Drouin: It also happens that the signal changes during the course of a program. Sometimes we may have a program in French on CPAC and suddenly it changes into English. The program is taking place in French and then it changes to English.

Ms. Colette Watson: Is it during the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons or the programming...?

Mr. Claude Drouin: If my memory serves me right, it occurred twice when I was watching. Is it due to a change in signal?

Ms. Colette Watson: Normally it should not happen. It might be something taking place at the source but I can check with our technicians to find out what the cause is. I am not aware of this kind of incident.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I would appreciate your looking into it.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): The first round is now over.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have five minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't have any questions but I do have a comment to make. I think it is the right time to do so.

I like to tell you how much I appreciate the answers and the documents you have given us. Your approach inspires confidence. We have had witnesses, and I have heard some at other committees, but it is not often we see someone make a commitment to solve a problem immediately. It's unusual for someone to say that he will contact the technicians to find out what the problem is. When you said in your answer to Ms. Bacon that it was a technical problem, I know that you were not accusing anyone.

Senator Lise Bacon: Well there are some people who thought that that's what it was.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. You were just reporting what was said. Let me say that I very much appreciate the clarity and the relevance of your information. That's all.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Are there any further questions?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a few questions on my second subject.

As you can see, I am accompanied by a lady who does captioning for me in real time. You can read it. It isn't the translation, it is taken from the interpretation of the English remarks and a transcription of the French.

Here is my question, Ms. Watson or Mr. Stein: is SAP available?

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is available in the national capital and New Brunswick, as far as I know. It is not available elsewhere.

Ms. Colette Watson: It is available in Quebec.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Unless a decision has been taken to extend it, it is available in Quebec, in the national capital and in New Brunswick.

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the closed caption were added as... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... collectively for the House of Commons or the Senate, if we were to add captioning to the signal we provide you, would there be additional costs for the cable operators? Would they be able to do this without incurring exceptional costs?

Ms. Colette Watson: There would be no additional cost.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So it would be possible to zap from one language to another, so to speak.

Ms. Colette Watson: Let me explain your question in English to him.

• 1630

[English]

It's about the signal. If he passes the signal, there's no cost to us to receive it.

A voice: Not to us, but there is to produce it.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, but that isn't what I meant; production is our responsibility. We provide you with a signal—

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: —which you transmit by satellite to a cable operator who then distributes it to the subscribers. That is how the system works.

What I was asking you is whether the retransmission of a signal captioned in English and replacing the captions by French ones constitutes a technical or financial problem.

Ms. Colette Watson: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So what exactly is the problem? Is it a lack of good will?

Ms. Colette Watson: Let's say that the problem, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, should be discussed with the Speaker.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Speaker told me last week that it would cost millions of dollars. He mentioned something like $250 an hour.

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes, that is true.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well I know that I would be able to hire a qualified person for $40 an hour.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In Quebec there were two schools that trained specialists in machine shorthand. This is no longer the case. One of them shut down quite recently, Collège LaSalle, and I've been informed that the Institut France Quitard will also be shutting down because the director will be retiring at the end of the year. So there will no longer be any training possibilities.

Ms. Watson has just told us that there are about 10 machine shorthand typists available. I have entered into negotiations with the Cité collégiale here in Ottawa, a post-secondary institution. It would be interested in setting up a program for the training of specialists in machine shorthand. As you say, this should be of interest to people between the ages of 18 and 20. It would be the right time to go into this field because these people make a lot of money.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: She didn't know about it but I've just told her.

I won't ask anymore questions because—

An hon. member: You should stop now because you will lose her.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will give the rest of my time to my friend Senator De Bané. I'm sure he must have a question.

Senator Pierre De Bané (De la Vallière, Lib.): May I, Madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator De Bané, followed by Mr. Sauvageau.

Senator Pierre De Bané: First of all, I'd like to say how happy I am to see Mr. Ken Stein again, I knew him a long time ago. He is an exceptionally capable man.

I'd like to ask you whether, as Mr. Godin said, we will be able to offer francophones and anglophones in Canada programming in their own language. I've heard that about 80% of Canadians should soon be able to receive it in their language.

Ms. Colette Watson: It's a commitment we've made. We intend to buy SAP technology. At the present time, 51% of the 84% of the people who receive CPAC are able to choose to receive it in French or English. We can bring this percentage up to 80% within the next few months through SAP.

Senator Pierre De Bané: So a Rogers' subscriber in the Ottawa area will also be able to listen to CPAC in French.

Ms. Colette Watson: That is already the case.

Senator Pierre De Bané: Yes, but at the present time when a lawyer is pleading his case in the Supreme Court and we hear the interpretation, we are unable to hear him speak his original language. The choice is not available right now, depending on what time you may be watching CPAC. You are not always able to hear the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court in the language he's using. Will this new system enable us to listen to him in the language he is speaking?

Ms. Colette Watson: It will be offered in both official languages, the subscriber will have access to it in both official languages.

Senator Pierre De Bané: Excellent.

Ms. Colette Watson: In other words, everything that we receive from the House of Commons or the Senate, either in French or in English, will be available in French and in English. As for the Supreme Court, if there is interpretation, it will be provided in both languages. But as I think we mentioned to Mr. Drouin, if there are hearings being held in Saskatchewan and they are available only in English...

• 1635

I promise you that we will take a look at how much it would cost us to translate eight months of hearings. It may not be affordable, it may not be feasible. If that is the case, it will only be in the language of the hearing.

Senator Pierre De Bané: May I ask a second question, Madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes.

[English]

Senator Pierre De Bané: Mr. Stein, I understand CPAC is a service supplied and financed by the cable industry of this country. What kind of a financial burden does it represent for all the different cable operators of this country?

Mr. Ken Stein: At the present time.... I don't like to think of it as a burden.

Senator Pierre De Bané: No, but—

Mr. Ken Stein: We've invested, over the past eight years, over $40 million to this point.

I am certain that Colette would join me in welcoming any of you to come and see the facility we have. Like any good business people, we like to run things in a very lean way, but it's a very good facility and they do a job of excellent quality.

One of the challenges we have in the future is to make sure the technology is up to speed, because as everyone knows, it keeps changing quite significantly.

On an annual basis, it's around $6 million to $8 million we contribute to the service.

Senator Pierre De Bané: This is funded completely by the cable industry?

Mr. Ken Stein: Yes, absolutely. There's no charge to subscribers. As the members of CPAC keep reminding me at every board meeting, it's totally a contribution from the cable industry.

Senator Pierre De Bané: And—

Mr. Ken Stein: And also I should admit that satellite distributors pay a fee for the distribution of the service.

It reflects quite a significant investment over a period of time. We feel it's an important service and we want to be able to make sure it's available to Canadians in the language of their choice. That's an important priority.

Senator Pierre De Bané: Monsieur Godin referred to its popularity in l'Acadie.

Can you give us an idea of how many Canadians per day look at CPAC, an approximate number?

Mr. Ken Stein: Colette knows the actual numbers.

It's not so much the ratings. This is a debate we have. It's how many people actually turn it on when given a particular opportunity during a week. These kinds of services aren't going to compete with the TSNs and the MuchMusics and the YTVs, or services like that.

What's important is that people do know it's there. They know that if Mr. Godin is making a member's statement, they'll be able to watch him do it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Between two and three.

Mr. Ken Stein: It's important in this sense. Colette will probably have better information on the actual ratings, on the reach, but it's an important service to Canadians who know it's there.

There is a quite significant percentage of Canadians who take it. We always say the support for services like CPAC or the legislative channels or the city council or government discussions is very strong. A very strong core of supporters exists for these kinds of things. They're very fervent about it.

The gavel-to-gavel coverage is quite important. People like the fact it's uninterrupted. One of the things we didn't talk about is that CPAC is probably the leading innovator in North America in video streaming, its website capabilities, its ability to broadcast. So whenever they cover something like a CRTC hearing or a convention and they have to go back to something else like the House of Commons, for example, they're able to continue the coverage through the web, on the website. That's been very well received, and it's a very high-quality service. Those are the kinds of technologies we want to see.

Really, the people we serve out there are the people you serve, and all the policy wonks who really want to find out what's going on in inquiries or at a convention. Some of the programming CPAC has done...we figure we invented reality TV before Survivor did.

• 1640

I remember when the last election was held, one of the MPs was asked in the Hill Times, “What was the most significant thing that happened to you during the election?” He said “When CPAC showed up in the interior of British Columbia to cover one of our all-party debates.”

We're very proud of the fact that we've tried to do a different kind of coverage, not the two-minute sound bite but long-form coverage, gavel-to-gavel. It may bore you to tears sometimes, but it's always there, and I think that's really what makes it exciting and what is really important to us. So we think the actual numbers are somewhat different from the actual importance of the service. Colette can give you the numbers.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Stein. I'm afraid the senator's time is over.

Senator De Bané, I'm sorry.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have a short question, and then we have two short questions from here.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't want to withdraw my congratulations, I simply want to have one point confirmed.

Everything that is 100% in English should, thanks to your SAP and according to what you told us, be completely replaced in the next few months by 50-50, that is 100% in French and 100% in English, for those with SAP of course.

Ms. Colette Watson: Eighty percent. Some of our networks in the Northwest Territories are small and may not be members of our council. It might be too onerous a burden for them.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I understand. But if you were presenting a sheet such as this a few months from now, it would look totally different.

Ms. Colette Watson: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I gather then that French language minority communities in British Columbia or Alberta would be able to watch the proceedings of the House of Commons using this SAP technology at no additional cost.

Ms. Colette Watson: Exactly.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you. My congratulations still hold.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)): I would like to ask a short and simple technical question. You said that the floor band is available on the radio, on the FM radio band. You said the setting was 92.9, I think.

Ms. Colette Watson: I believe it is 96.9.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you.

Ms. Colette Watson: 96.9.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): I don't suppose it's the same in Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere. What I would like to know is where people in my constituency can find out on what FM band the floor is being broadcast.

Ms. Colette Watson: It isn't on offer everywhere. It is provided in Ottawa—Hull and you find it on the FM band. We intend to add it to New Brunswick in the next four weeks. I don't think that there are any other places providing the third band.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): So it isn't available at the present time in the Montreal area?

Ms. Colette Watson: No. But Montreal does offer SAP.

The Joint Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Yes, but it isn't the same thing. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I have one short question concerning SAP. If a person has only the cable or the dish, is he able to get SAP? Is it available either way?

Ms. Colette Watson: SAP is available if you have Star Choice. With Bell ExpressVu, you have a special channel in French and a special channel in English.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I thought of a question while listening to Mr. Sauvageau. Reference is made here to the audio configuration and 9.6% is mentioned for the floor and French...

Ms. Colette Watson: In the province of New Brunswick?

Mr. Yvon Godin: In New Brunswick. Setting aside SAP, how do we deal with the 35% of the population of New Brunswick that is francophone?

Ms. Colette Watson: You will note here that 57% have the service in English and in French. Then there are 13% who have it in English only. Ten percent have it... That is the present situation. They have the floor and the French feed. For this particular market, we will be adding it on to the FM band. That gives them three options. The figure will be changing. The same applies to the 9.6%. The remainder will become very bilingual as the third band is added on.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I see.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I would like to thank you very much for appearing. Your testimony has been very interesting and I am sure that it is appreciated by all my colleagues.

Ms. Colette Watson: Thank you. Goodbye.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I would like to remind the members that tomorrow the CRTC will be appearing. I have material here that you may wish to take after the meeting. It has already been sent to the senators' offices, I believe. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.