LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 3, 2002

1535

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.))

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

1540

1545

1550

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Reid

1555

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Reid

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

1600

1605

The Joint Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

1610

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1615

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Réjean Myre (Director, French-language Radio and Television Policy)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1620

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1625

Mr. Claude Doucet (Director, Distribution and Competition Policy, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

1630

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

1635

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

1640

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1645

Mr. Réjean Myre

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1650

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1655

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1700

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Viola Léger

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1705

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1710

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 041

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Now that we have a quorum, we can start the meeting.

Colleagues, welcome. Mr. Blais, Mr. Doucet and Mr. Myre, I would also like to welcome you to our committee here today. The committee will allow you sufficient time to make your presentation. If we give you between 15 and 20 minutes, would that be enough?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Perhaps even less.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Less, if possible, so that we will have time for questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Just to put those people who are in the audience here today, or those who might be tuning in later, in the picture, I would just like to say at the outset that we are currently undertaking consideration, analysis and review of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and more particularly section 41. We are meeting with specific departments and with agencies that report to these departments. We are meeting with them to get their input on the issue, and to allow all the members of this committee to ask questions on this particular issue and other related topics. Our questioning today might not always specifically deal with Part VII, because we realize that having the CRTC here today is a wonderful opportunity for us.

You have the floor.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Blais.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank you for inviting us to appear before this committee here today.

We have prepared a brief that we are handing out now. Unfortunately, we got it back from the printing somewhat late, but I think that you all now have a copy.

Consequently, we would like to use this opportunity to summarize the results and the implementation of our report on French-language services in a minority environment.

I am the Executive Director of Broadcasting at the CRTC. With me today, are Réjean Myre, who is Director of French-language Radio and Television Policy at the CRTC, and Claude Doucet, Director of Distribution and Competition Policy.

[English]

At the end of our presentation we will be very happy to answer your questions, and if we don't have the answer right away, we'll undertake to follow up with the answers.

On page 2 of the presentation you'll see the overall approach I intend to take today. It will be in two parts.

[Translation]

In the first part of my presentation, I will set out the principal sections of the report and, I will then go through the follow-up action that we have taken since the report was published.

On page 3, you will see the key dates concerning this report. In April 2000, the government asked us to undertake a study and to draft a report on the status of French-language services in minority situations. In the fall of 2000, we kicked off a public consultation process, which included public hearings. We also decided that it was important to travel throughout Canada. We went to Vancouver, Saint-Albert, Saskatoon, St. Boniface, Toronto, Windsor, Sudbury and to Cornwall. We also visited the Vanier area of the City of Ottawa, as well as Moncton and Halifax. At the very end of this process, we held a central public hearing here in the National Capital. Industry associations, the Official Languages Commissioner, groups such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française and many others took part in this major public hearing.

The title of our report, Towards a more balanced future, demonstrates recognition of the fact that in the past shortcomings in our regulation process did exist, and that we are now looking to the future.

We have seen that the advent of digital technology has provided major opportunities for us, especially in the area of cable distribution. Before this technology was available, cable networks were analog. The analog-based structure of the cable distribution networks meant that all services were provided. This literally meant that you had to go into each cable box and install what were known as traps, to block specific channels. The analog-based distribution system meant that cable companies had much less capacity and cable subscribers had much less choice. People had to subscribe to whole bundles. Digital technology has the advantage of offering greater capacity. Consequently, a greater number of radio stations and television channels can be distributed on the cable system. In addition, subscribers have much more choice because digital technology is addressable.

Despite the fact that we realized that digital technology did provide opportunities, our initial task was to look at the analog system. We decided to try to hold on to the gains that we had made. For instance, we froze the number of non-English channels for class 1 cable distributors, i.e. those with over 6,000 subscribers. We also froze these same channels for class 2 cable distributors, that is to say, those with between 2,000 to 6,000 subscribers. We are talking here mainly about French-language channels, because the problem area really is the francophone minority market. We decided also to maintain the status quo in terms of the availability of Radio-Canada outside Quebec. In addition, we protected the distribution of ARTV, which is a new arts and culture channel, developed by a consortium, which includes Radio-Canada. We did this to ensure that this channel would be offered on a free basis to minority communities outside Quebec. We also decided to continue offering TVA on a national basis.

In the report, we also comment on CPAC. I will come back to that issue in a few minutes time, at the end of my presentation.

In terms of digital distribution then, we saw this as an opportunity for us. We would like to point out that in the future, digital distribution systems will gradually gain ground everywhere. We will all be using digital technology in our homes.

Section 3(1)(k) of the Broadcasting Act reads as follows:

(k) a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;

This is one of our goals. However, digital technology enables us to go further and to really push the envelope.

Right now, satellite television companies, such as ExpressVu and Star Choice, are operating a totally digital system. Currently, they are required to carry all Canadian French-language channels. There are approximately 1.6 million households in Canada using satellite TV. However, we have gone further than that. We have said that cable providers with large capacity distribution systems (over 750 MHz), with over 2,000 subscribers, are required to provide French-language channels to minority communities.

¹ (1540)

Currently, that represents approximately 1.7 million households, but this figure can vary as time goes on. In addition, we have said that we intended to require those cable distributors with under 750 MHz capacity, but who have moved over to a digital system, to carry a certain number of French-language channels in minority communities. That represents approximately 4.3 million households. Consequently, we have said that in such cases, cable distributors will be required to carry one French-language channel for every 10 English-language channels.

In terms of class 3 cable distributors with fewer than 2,000 subscribers, there is a very specific challenge. These cable companies are much smaller and are the most negatively affected by the advent of competition from satellite networks. These smaller companies provide cable services to a small number of people. Nevertheless, we have said that if a class 3 cable distributor can afford to convert to a digital system, then, they will also be required to comply with the one-to-ten ratio that I mentioned before. This rule will also apply to distributors, which are interconnected with the major cable providers in Canada, let's say Shaw or Rogers. In any case, class 3 cable distributors that are covered by this policy, only account for a very small number of subscribers, around 45,000, compared to the other cable companies.

The report also deals with programming. Despite the fact that programming is an important issue, it is the whole distribution system which enables cable companies to expand their service and to make French-language programming available to those residing outside majority French-speaking communities. Nevertheless, we took a look at the programming issue and we reiterated the fact that Radio-Canada is specifically required to reflect the regions, including minority language communities. We reasserted the need for TVA to be made available to people throughout Canada. Our report also deals with the requirement for the Réseau de l'information and for ARTV to reflect minority communities outside Quebec. This is part of the conditions of their licence. Our report also broaches the issue of new digital channels which are only available in a digital format.

The current system also has one other major shortcoming. As you are perhaps aware, people in Canada pick up a lot of American channels, often English-language ones, but there are not many foreign French-language stations available in Canada. Consequently, we have decided to promote the distribution of foreign French-language channels, in an attempt to provide television viewers with a better choice.

On the issue of radio stations, our report also deals with the need for Radio-Canada to expand French Radio One to the whole country. The results of our discussion on this issue are interesting, and I will talk about that in a couple of minutes. In addition, we have recognized that the very large French-speaking minority here in the national capital region warrants particular attention. Indeed, since our report was published, we have awarded a new French-language licence for the national capital region.

Following the publication of our policy, in September 2001, we passed enabling regulations. Since then, we have implemented various parts of this policy. As I have already mentioned, the whole distribution issue was the most important one for us. Eighty per cent of cable subscribers are now served by digital systems. Consequently, if these minority channels are to develop, it is important to use the capacity of digital systems. As a result, we contacted the various distributors in an attempt to ascertain whether they were indeed complying with our regulations. On the whole, we were very satisfied. At the same time, we decided to monitor the channels, because it's not sufficient just to tell distribution companies that they are required to provide French-language channels, but the company itself has to actually carry those particular channels. We undertook a monitoring process with channels, such as Télé Astral, RDI, Canal Évasion and other stations mentioned on page 10 of the handout. We wanted to make sure that these channels had indeed struck agreements with the various cable distributors with a view to providing subscribers with access to their particular channels.

Page 11 of the handout summarizes our action on the issue of access to the CBC signal. Before our report could be published, all the major class 1 and 2 cable distributors were required to carry Radio-Canada channels throughout Canada. Class 3 distributors, as I've already said, are smaller cable companies, which face specific challenges relating to their size. They were not required to carry Radio-Canada except where it was available over air.

¹ (1545)

However, we found that up to 35% of Canadians do not have access to the CBC signal. Consequently, we decided that all cable distributors should provide this signal. In light of the associated costs, we encouraged Radio-Canada to provide set-top boxes to allow people to pick up the signal provided by cable distributors.

In terms of CPAC, I recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to talk to you about the issue surrounding this particular channel, just after we published our report. I would like to point out that in the case of CPAC, the situation is somewhat more complex, because there are in fact two channels. The public affairs channel is covered by a licence. However, the House of Commons debates channel operates under an exemption. In the past, before publishing a report, we encouraged cable distributors to carry CPAC. However, they were not required to do so. Indeed, 95% of cable distributors did indeed provide this channel. However, there were shortcomings in terms of the French-language distribution of this channel; consequently, we amended our regulations. We decided to require them to carry the parliamentary debates channel and for them to provide SAP technology, so as to enable subscribers to use the second audio position function on the television set. This became a statutory requirement for class 1 and 2 cable distributors and also for class 3 cable providers, who had made the jump to a digital system. In addition, class 1 and 2 cable providers, with a digital capacity of 750 MHz, were required to carry two video channels, one in English and one in French, in an attempt to ensure that the debates of the House of Commons would be available throughout Canada.

As far as the cultural channel is concerned, the commission's wish list, set out in its February 2001 report, has been answered. Quite recently, the commission gave Radio-Canada permission to build towers, which means that the cultural channel is available, or will be, because these towers have to be built after all throughout Canada. These towers are being built in Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Charlottetown, St. John's, Newfoundland, Regina, Saskatoon, Windsor, Barrie, Fredericton, Edmundston, Dolbeau, Mont-Laurier, La Malbaie, Baie-Saint-Paul, Matane, Sept-Îles and Rivière-du-Loup. That covers the entire country, except for those areas which don't already have access to this station.

I would now like to move on to the issue of TVA, which is our nationwide private channel. This was made a statutory part of the basic package in 1998. It is important to point out that the commission recently extended the licensing conditions, whereby TVA has specific obligations in terms of francophones living outside Quebec. It is specifically required to broadcast six programs per year and to carry a weekly program dealing with the reality of francophones outside Quebec. In addition, TVA has committed to reinvest 43% of non Quebec-based distribution revenue into programming. Consequently, we strongly encouraged TVA to take part in an advisory committee looking at ways of more effectively targeting programming to meet the needs of francophone communities outside Quebec.

I mentioned earlier foreign French-language channels. Recently, we authorized the distribution of five European channels, Paris Première, EuroNews, Planète, Muzzik and Tropic. We hope that the first three channels will be available this fall on cable in Canada.

I am aware that this presentation has been a little longer than planned. Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to say that we were very pleased to see the Official Languages Commissioner say in her press release that she considered that our report marked a major shift, insofar as it sets out clear guidelines to provide all Canadians with better access to French-language television and radio stations. The report and the follow-up that we have done that I spoke about, demonstrate that the commission is resolved to take ongoing action.

¹ (1550)

The digital broadcasting covers 80% of Canadians, the vasr majority. We believe that it could be used to the benefit of minority communities. Francophones could, through digital television, access a vast range of French language programming, no matter where they live in Canada. We would like to think that minority francophone communities will take advantage of this opportunity and support French-language channels.

Of course, this was a rather rapid overview of the status of our report. We are more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

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

Mr. Reid, would you like to start?

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

In your report that came out about a year ago entitled Achieving a Better Balance: Report on French Language Broadcasting Services in a Minority Environment, one of the things you proposed was that the way in which the market would be defined ought to be changed. The suggestion was it would no longer be based on the census figures for mother tongue but rather on those people who are capable of speaking French as reported in the census. I wanted to ask if you had followed through on that, but before I get to that, I want to ask if this doesn't lead to a problem, in that presumably the purpose of minority-language broadcasting is to reach members of the minority, and when one identifies people who are simply speakers--those who are capable of understanding the minority language--you are encountering a market that consists of those who've been involved in French immersion classes, for example, and you would get numbers that would less and less reflect where the actual minority itself is and would more and more reflect other extraneous factors, thereby making it harder to ensure that services are concentrated, given the limited pool of resources you are drawing upon, where the actual minority rests. I'd be interested in your comments on my concerns.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: You're right, the proposal that went out originally with our proposed policy was based on using definitions, whether it's knowledge of French or French at home. There were a lot of comments on that. It ended up being rather complicated to come up with a definition. We also looked at it and said it's true that our old rules were like this, but the availability of digital technology made it possible for French speakers, wherever they were, even francophiles, wherever they were, to have access to it, and because of a larger capacity, instead of going by language--and based on the excerpt from the act I read to you--we decided to do the cutting line not based on how many French speakers there may or may not be in a particular area, but based on technology, so a large-capacity system would have to furnish the services.

The consequence of this is that however you define that French speaker, let's say in Toronto--and in terms of percentage it's rather small, but as Canadians they have as many rights as a francophone anywhere else in the country to receive services--Rogers now offers all the French services to those communities. We went from three French-language services on the Rogers system in Toronto to nearly 20. All of them are available now, and that's important, however you count those francophones.

Mr. Scott Reid: I wasn't disputing the importance. My concern is with the ability to focus resources where they're actually needed. It seems to me that given a limited pool of resources available for this purpose and given different ways of calculating the market, fundamentally, once one uses some measure other than the mother tongue, one is no longer really servicing the minority. One is now trying to do something else, perhaps to foster better language retention among people who have learned a second language in childhood or whatever, but it's now a deviation from the original mission statement. I can't see how one gets around that.

One can point to the examples you mentioned in Toronto, but I still don't think that deals with the basic problem that fundamentally, when you have limited resources, you're either going to focus them where the minority language community is or you're going to focus them somewhere else, and in fact it seems to me this change would have the result of focusing the resources away from where the actual viable minorities, which are best measured by mother tongue or home language, are actually resident.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The new regulation is not based at all on a notion of knowledge or language. It's a straight obligation across the board. We're not trying to focus on whether there are enough francophones or not enough francophones. The proposed policy was not in the end adopted.

What we said is, if you have high capacity, 750 MHz or more, you must offer all the services. If you are between 550 and 750, you have the 1:10 ratio. That's how we approached it, precisely to avoid having to come up with a definition of where the community is appropriate or not. The capacity of our systems, because it was no longer analog, made it possible for us to actually spread the service to francophones across the country without having to make the compromise of asking, are there enough francophones, however you count them, in that particular area?

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier, are you ready to question?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is somewhat regrettable that the commission did not see fit to be here today. I wouldn't want to offend you in any way, Mr. Blais, but you are the executive director, and not the commission itself. The issues that we are looking at here today deal with policy and not regulation. We are talking about addressing a paper and an order in Council which requests that you... I know this issue inside out.

The decision by the CRTC to turn down TFO's application has raised the ire of many people, especially those sitting on this committee. This was not a management but rather a policy decision. One thousand five hundred and fifty people said they wanted TFO in their area. Twelve said that this channel had no place in Quebec. Consequently, 99.3% of people supported the expansion of TFO into Quebec, and 0.7% said that they did not support this move. The CRTC rejected TFO's application. Of the five commissioners, three were in favour and two were against. I don't want to dwell on that issue however. I have spent a lot of time and money on it, and I have always come up empty-handed.

In the few minutes that I have for my question, I would like take a detailed look at this issue with you. I have read and reread the paper since it was published, almost a year ago now. It is a good report and I congratulate you on it. It goes a long way to addressing my concerns, but there is the issue of captioning that you failed to deal with in your report. I will come back to that in a minute.

I would like to congratulate you on your report entitled Achieving a Better Balance. I take my hat off to you. However, I think that we should take the time to look at this report in greater depth. I don't think that five or six minutes suffice. I don't want to get in into a discussion on the reason why the CRTC is not one of those federal institutions which is required to regularly report to Heritage Canada on how they are meeting their obligations under part VII. This is also a political matter, which does not fall under our ambit, nor yours. It is up to the federal government to designate the CRTC as a federal institution, which is required to report on a yearly basis on its official language-related activities.

I would like to talk to you about real time captioning.Captioning should be done in real time. In 1995, the CRTC laid down a decision which reads as follows:

The Commission requires stations with advertising income and annual network payments of over 10 million dollars to provide captioning, by September 1, 1998, of all local news programs, including live segments and that they use real time closed captioning or other techniques to produce quality closed captioning for live programs.

In 1998, so four years ago now, the CRTC stated that:

The Commission also requires stations to close caption at least 90% of their daytime programming, by the end of their current licensing.

This licensing period came to an end this year.

In terms of mid-sized stations, those with annual advertising revenue of between 5 and 10 million dollars, the CRTC states in its regulations that:

The Commission expects that, by the end of the current licensing period, stations provide closed captioning of at least 90% of their daytime programming.

As far as smaller stations were concerned, those with revenue of under 5 million dollars, the CRTC stated that:

The Commission also encourages smaller stations to provide closed captioning of at least 90% of daytime programming, by the end of their current licensing period.

I am one of the three million deaf Canadians. Anyone can develop hearing problems. Therefore, I am sure you understand my personal interest in this issue. Real time closed captioning is crucial for me, because otherwise I just can't function. I have this type of service here today in this committee and I use it in the Senate and in other committees. I would like to thank all those who enable me to use this service, because it's very useful for me. However, my current experience in terms of television is extremely frustrating.

º (1600)

In my opinion, the major channels do not meet CRTC requirements. Yesterday, an event of some concern occurred. I was totally unable to find out what had happened until 10 o'clock, on the national news, which is close captioned, but not in real time however. This closed captioning is added after the fact. Consequently, I was unable to get any information on the event until then. I am a politician and I've been in this job for 40 years now. It's very frustrating. Yesterday, it was impossible for 3 million Canadians, no matter what channel they zapped to, an English channel or a French channel, it made no difference, they just couldn't get the information they wanted. I checked yesterday, and there was no closed captioning available from 3:30 p.m. until the evening news. For deaf or hard-of-hearing people, this is quite a difficult situation to deal with. However, in 1995 the CRTC developed a policy and a few weeks ago now, you renewed broadcasting licences for another seven years.

Mr. Blais, I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from here. What can you do now that you have renewed these licences, to clamp down on broadcasters and require them to comply with the regulations and provide real time closed captioning on the national networks? I would like to throw out a proposal to you, because I don't have much time, and you can tell me what you think about it. It reads as follows:

Introduction

At the present time there is a real inequity of treatment betweenfrancophones and anglophones, when it comes to real time closed captioning. Despite standards established by the CRTC, the service provided by the major television station owners is no longer equitable.

Recommendation

Whereas the CRTC has just renewed the licences of the major Canadian broadcasters; whereas the situation with regard to real time closed captioning is unsatisfactory; the committee therefore calls upon the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to investigate this matter and study the entire issue of investment in the language industries in order to meet the requirements set down by the CRTC Regulation adopted March 24, 1995.

Do you think that it is a reasonable suggestion , Mr. Blais?

º (1605)

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, Senator, but your time has expired.

[Translation]

Mr. Blais, could you be as brief as possible in your answer?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Of course. I well understand your concerns and I share them. Indeed, last week, you sent a letter to our president on this issue. We are currently drafting a reply to it. We have set out requirements for broadcasting companies. The fact that the licensing period runs over seven years does not prevent the commission from monitoring licence holders to ensure that they are complying with CRTC requirements.

I am somewhat disconcerted to hear that you have discovered shortcomings even on the English side. Generally, we have found—and this is due to the investment that has been made over the past few years—that the quality of French-language closed captioning is somewhat worse than on the English side. This is only because English-based recognition technology is much more advanced and English grammar rules lend themselves more easily to voice recognition software. However you're telling me that there are problems across the board. The fact is that on the basis of the information that you have given me, we intend to monitor licence holders to ascertain whether they are indeed complying with the requirements of their licence.

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

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I would like to thank Mr. Blais and the others for their presentation.

My question may be somewhat unusual, but I would like some information from you about La Soirée du hockey on Radio-Canada. Can the CRTC, through regulation or otherwise, force or urge Radio-Canada to ensure that francophones throughout Canada can continue to watch a program that has been on the air for 50 years and that they pay for through their taxes? The interest of francophone minority communities in keeping the Saturday night hockey game has been apparent in various newscasts and public forums. Can the CRTC take any action in this regard—I can suggest some solutions, but I am not an expert in this field—and make RDS available on cable throughout Canada? Can we agree on this, as was done in the case of the Formula 1 race, where RDS and Radio-Canada signed an agreement whereby the two partners could use the same crews, and thus make it possible for everyone to see the Formula 1 races? Is there any way in which the CRTC could respond favourably to this request? If so, how?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: At the moment, it may be rather early for the CRTC to adopt a final position, but I can perhaps make some comments that will guide your thinking on this matter.

I think one of the main mandates of the committee has to do with francophone minority communities. First of all, RDS is available through the satellite companies, Star Choice and ExpressVu, throughout Canada. The result of our report was the provision of cable systems. Thus, RDS is available as well. It is becoming increasingly available. This is particularly true in the case of systems subject to the 1 out of 10 rule. A service such has RDS has some appeal for cable companies in anglophone majority communities, because it does provide possible access to sports, where language is a less important factor, as in the case of hockey games.

I know that you will be hearing from other witnesses later this week. According to the information I have, I understand that the contract signed with RDS would allow for the broadcast of hockey games on conventional television despite the fact that broadcasters often purchase many rights and sell off some of them so as to maximize their returns.

I know that your concern focuses on the difference between the service to anglophones and the service to francophones, however, the trend whereby professional sports tend to move to specialty channels or theme channels, as they are called in France, is universal.

In the United States, NBC recently decided not to renew its contract to broadcast basketball games. The fact of the matter is that the market share for conventional television compared to specialty television is declining. Conventional television has only one source of revenue, namely advertising, while cable networks often have revenues from both advertising and subscriptions.

In the current economic context, conventional television is facing some unique challenges. I would invite you to take up this issue with your witnesses this week to find out more about what is actually happening. I do not have all the facts at this time.

º (1610)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for your answer. I appreciate that. I will now move to a different topic.

It was mentioned previously that the CRTC was not one of the 28 or 29 organizations or institutions required to file a report under part VII of the Official Languages Act. Could the CRTC do so voluntarily or is it waiting to be forced to do so before filing such a report? In light of the fact that it is off to a good start with its report entitled Achieving a Better Balance, and in light of the comments made to the CRTC by Ms. Adam, why is the commission not tabling voluntarily this annual report on official languages?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The fact is that the CRTC does produce an annual report. You are right when you say that it does not do so officially under part VII, but the CRTC does table, through Canadian Heritage, reports on two matters. First, as an administrative tribunal, sometimes a quasi-judicial tribunal, the CRTC would have to deal with two issues under part VII if it were subject to these provisions. There is of course the administrative aspect, that is the fact that CRTC documents are bilingual, that the CRTC goes to hearings, provides simultaneous interpretation, and within the commission itself, meetings can be held in both official languages. Beyond that, there are the decisions of the CRTC, and we report on the way in which the CRTC advances these objectives. While the CRTC is apparently not officially subject to part VII, it meets the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act, both part III and subsection 5(2). So the fact of the matter is that although the words are different—and we will not get bogged down in the legal mechanisms—we are already reporting on our broadcasting activities, as the report states, so as to demonstrate how we promote or assist francophone minority communities.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My colleague from Quebec City, who is a member of the Canadian Heritage Committee, is more of an expert than I on the CRTC.

If you are already doing this unofficially, why would you not do so officially, and thus set an example for other institutions or organizations? You could say that you are not waiting for a recommendation from the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages or a call from Ms. Copps, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to do so, but that you had decided to do so voluntarily. In this way, you would prove that you are acting properly and you would be setting an example for other agencies and institutions. You tell me you are already doing this. I have not seen that, but I believe you.

º (1615)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The problem is that the Broadcasting Act contains a whole list of objectives, some of which may prove contradictory. It also happens that we are unable to meet all the objectives. There are problems when slightly more weight is given to a particular objective. Let me give an example. Let's say there is a community with a significant francophone minority, but one that also has a large multicultural and multilingual population, and we have only one frequency left. The Broadcasting Act allows us to strike a balance among several objectives. We have to ensure that we do not focus too much on one particular objective, otherwise we lose the flexibility of the Broadcasting Act. In this regard, I think Parliament realized that some situations were difficult, and that it was not always possible to make a decision beforehand. For these reasons, we hesitate to say that we would want to be officially subject to part VII. As I said, we carry out quasi-judicial activities and we draft reports, although they may not be distributed as widely as they should be.

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

Your time is up, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I would like to make a comment and ask three questions, Mr. Blais. First of all, I join with Senator Gauthier in saying that it might be appropriate when we invite witnesses from the CRTC, to have the CRTC commissioners here as well. I believe they turned down our invitation the last two or three times. I think it would be appropriate that this practice be reconsidered. I am not saying that you are unable to answer our questions, but as Senator Gauthier was saying, you are somewhat restricted in what you can say on behalf of the CRTC.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Up until now, I was under the impression that my sole presence was sufficient, but I will pass that message along to our new chairman, who would be pleased to come.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. As an opening question, Mr. Blais, I would like to ask you what the purpose of a licence is. Why does the CRTC grant licences?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I believe that it comes under section 32, which states that no one in Canada can broadcast unless they have an exemption or are a licence holder.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there conditions in respect of obtaining this licence?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Often.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): And when there are conditions, does the CRTC expect that they will be complied with?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What happens when they are not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The commission has several choices. If we are talking about a real breach of a licence condition, before finding anyone guilty, we obviously ask the parties to make their comments so that an inquiry can be undertaken, considering the available evidence, the applicable rules and how we must interpret these rules. Our powers are quite broad. In some situations, we grant short-term renewals and in others, we issue mandatory orders.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I noticed that in your presentation, on page 14, concerning Groupe TVA, you specified that the CRTC encouraged Groupe TVA “to work with the advisory committee representing francophones outside Quebec in order to offer the best possible reflection of those communities”. What led the CRTC to include this in its presentation?

Mr. Réjean Myre (Director, French-language Radio and Television Policy): During the public hearing, representatives from the existing advisory committee were present. The advisory committee was set up when the TVA national distribution licence was granted. During the public hearing dealing with the report on services to minorities, within the framework of TVA's activities, people from the committee gave us clear indications that they were working closely with TVA to ensure that programming of different regional events would better reflect local reality, in the Maritimes and in the west. At the same time, representatives from TVA recognized that TVA was working closely with them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Does the commission acknowledge that some of the TVA conditions have not been met?

º (1620)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We have to be careful here. In a given decision, all things are not necessarily licence conditions. Earlier we talked about different language and expectations. It is not just an issue of the language of a condition. The commission often takes things in stages. Sometimes, we expect certain things, and other times we require.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am going to change the subject, or I will run out of time. In your report of February 2001 entitled Achieving a Better Balance, in section 103, you allude to the broadcast by the Star Choice and ExpressVu satellite companies, of programs produced by the local networks of the French service of Radio-Canada. If I am not mistaken, the CRTC issued Public Notice CRTC 2001-103 in 2001, and last September undertook a study on this issue. Am I correct? Can you tell us when the CRTC will publish the results of this work?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I said before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage during our discussions on the subject, this is a problem that came up with the arrival of satellites. This had unforeseeable effects on some markets as well as an impact not only on Radio-Canada, but also on some private broadcasters in small markets. I do believe we have started a process. The parties are trying to develop regulations and have asked us for a bit more time to negotiate a solution. We hope they will find a solution.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to give the context once again for the people listening to us, if I may, Mr. Blais. If I understand the problem correctly, the satellite broadcasters have one condition: they have to use the French-language service of Société Radio-Canada.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is correct.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): And, at the moment, some have decided to use the Montreal service, as in the case of Star Choice, but not those of Moncton, Ottawa-Gatineau, St. Boniface in Manitoba, Regina in Saskatchewan or even Alberta's. Have I understood correctly?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes. For reasons of capacity, the satellite companies made certain choices.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But in Saskatchewan, for example, Star Choice could broadcast the local Radio-Canada station, could they not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Technically speaking they could, except that if they take all the local stations, they have a problem, because it all has to be on the satellite and that would swallow up a great deal of their transponder capacity.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But I thought we were moving towards the satellite network because there was a great deal of capacity.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I do not want to say that I do not agree with you. The process is underway and the parties are trying to negotiate a solution.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right. I have some 30 seconds left. My final question, unless I am able to come back during a second round, is the following. How does the CRTC intend to meet the requirement of section 41 of part VII of the Official Languages Act on this issue in particular, which requires that federal agencies do what they can to promote official language communities living in a minority situation? This would be an ideal way to oblige the satellite broadcasters to let these communities see their reflection. If that is not what the CRTC intends to do, how can you explain it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I said earlier, the commission has to balance several objectives. It is true that, amongst other things, we must promote the status of minority communities. We have other objectives that we have to examine as well. We have a capacity problem in the system. I cannot tell you if we will do so or not because I have a certain right to decide, but the issue is before us and we are studying it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will try to come back later on. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.

Earlier, you spoke of the licence and primarily of CPAC, which now has the SAP program. In several Canadian regions, there are many people who do not have access to SAP. Therefore, they are excluded. Not all television sets have it. What stage is this program at?

º (1625)

Mr. Claude Doucet (Director, Distribution and Competition Policy, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): To give you some idea, I would say that the SAP does not depend entirely on the television set. You can also use video cassettes, because those systems sometimes have it, or you can also buy a separate decoder in order to get SAP. Therefore, it is not just an issue of the television set.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have trouble understanding that. I will give you the example of a region like Bathurst, where we only get the floor version of CPAC. If the question is in English and the answer is in French, or vice versa, a unilingual anglophone or francophone will not understand part of the discussion.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In that particular case, I do not know what the size or the capacity of the system is, but we can find out.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Normally, would it not be fair to provide the service in both languages, given that in a region like Bathurst, the population is roughly half and half as regards the language spoken?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: When you asked this question the last time I appeared, I believe I gave the same answer: choices must be made. I understand that there are bilingual people...

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, a choice cannot be made when both languages are in the same program: the question in French and the answer in English. What choice is there to make? You have to learn the other language?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The commission's policy is to allow people to have access to it in the version... In minority francophone communities, the English version is inevitably broadcast and the secondary technology is used to access the French version. I do not know why that is not available in your area, but we can enquire. It may be because of the equipment or because of the capacity. It is impossible to offer a bilingual signal, as some people would like, because one has to choose between one signal or another. We cannot have what is commonly referred to as the floor.

Mr. Claude Doucet: As of September 1, 2001, the distributor was to offer both: an original version, be it in English or in French, and the other language on the second audio program.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You offer both on cable?

Mr. Claude Doucet: You will have one video channel on the cable, but both languages should be available.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Both languages are available through the SAP. If it is not on the person's television or video, then they have lost that capacity.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, as my colleague has stated, the digital set-top box allows it. Many television sets, even those built during the 1980s, have that capacity. VCRs also have it. We have a brochure that may help consumers to find their way through all of this.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Your report is entitled Achieving a Better Balance. Earlier on, my colleague Mr. Sauvageau was talking about hockey games. With that example, how can we say it is balanced when the English CBC is broadcasting hockey games and the francophones are going to lose them in certain parts of the country where they have been broadcast for 50 years? Does the CRTC have any direct input in this, or do they have no say as regards programming?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I will repeat what I said earlier. I do not think all the facts are in. Furthermore, RDS has obtained the rights.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You have to have cable to get RDS. If you do not have cable or if you only have a television set with an antenna aimed at a tower, you cannot get RDS.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: My understanding of the contract between the sports teams and RDS is that certain games would be available for conventional distribution. It is under negotiation. The offer is there.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Can you explain to me what you mean when you talk about the games that are being negotiated? Is it an issue of some games or is it all the games?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I do not have any more details than what you would see in the papers, but it seems that RDS has bought the rights to approximately 120 games. They have the possibility of reselling some games to off-air television.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but as things stand, we are not headed towards achieving a better balance. CBC is going to have all the games whereas Radio-Canada and the francophones of this country will only have some. Where is the balance for the francophones? Radio-Canada is supposed to be there to represent Canadians across the country, not only those in Montreal. Radio-Canada exists to represent Canadians across the country. As Radio-Canada is subsidized by the government, they should have some input. Once again, francophones are footing the bill.

º (1630)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: You should put that question to Mr. Rabinovitch.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will, but right now I am speaking to you, representatives from the CRTC. Do you have responsibilities as regards programming in order to ensure that we achieve a better balance in the future? We are talking about achieving a better balance, but here is a program that has existed for 50 years and it is being taken away from us, just like they took away our regional programming. There is nothing left in our regions. They cut back, cut back, and cut back. All of the shows come to us from Montreal. Montreal is very nice, but we want Radio-Canada to represent the regions as well. It is Radio-Canada. It is not Radio-Montreal. The network should represent Canadians across the country. That is not what they are doing at the moment. Does the CRTC have something to say on that subject, since they are talking about a more balanced future?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Since our report was published and in several subsequent decisions, we have obliged licence holders such as ARTV, RDI and others to reflect regional realities. A business decision was made. I do not have all of the information or the documents on the subject, but as a member of an administrative tribunal, I must show some discretion.

Mr. Yvon Godin: As I have already told you, RDI and all those channels are not available over the air. There are francophone regions in the country that have neither cable nor satellite. Radio-Canada is there to represent Canadians everywhere in Canada. The CRTC has a role to play in this. They wash their hands of it, saying that others have the responsibility.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am not washing my hands of it. I am telling you that as part of an administrative tribunal, we cannot issue judgments before hearing from the parties.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Your time has expired, Mr. Godin.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to follow in the same vein, but from a legal perspective. You make a distinction between the two official languages. I my opinion, there is none, because they are two equal languages. Multiculturalism is one area and official languages is another. I will ask the same question tomorrow. I will admit that the Constitution distinguishes very clearly between the two. As regards language, there is always equality. Numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it. As regards multiculturalism, that is another story. We have two languages and two legal systems, and it works very well.

We cannot take the same principles that we apply to languages and transfer them to multiculturalism. It is not the same. It is not I saying this, but the Constitution. You cannot beat the Constitution because it is the law of the land. I feel this is a basic argument. If there are two linguistic networks in Canada, then it is obvious that they are equal. If they are not equal, there is an imbalance. It is the precise reverse of your document, which by the way is very well done.

I think this argument must always be used, because it applies from sea to sea. It is not an issue of a scattered population because that does not count. Both official languages are equal in Canada, at the federal level, and that equality is absolute. I would be pleased to argue this before any tribunal, administrative or otherwise. This is what must be realized. It will not be done in the space of a day or a week, but it has to come about at some point.

It really struck me when you made a distinction between multiculturalism and multilingualism. It is bilingualism and multiculturalism. These are two different things.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I will not get into a discussion on constitutionality, Senator Beaudoin, but I find it interesting that when the Broadcasting Act refers to the Corporation, it states:

(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should

Here I am skipping over a few subparagraphs.

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

Therefore, we have exactly the same objectives as you do.

º (1635)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What document is that in?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is in paragraph (m) of the Broadcasting Act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It is well said, but I would like to see it well done. That is all I am saying, no more, no less.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Put the question to Mr. Rabinovitch.

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

Madam Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you very much. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

The committee, of course, is particularly concerned about francophones living in a minority situation. Perhaps I could create a little diversion today and talk about anglophones living in a minority situation.

Several years ago, we had TVOntario in Quebec, via cable or otherwise. At some point in time, we were told that the CRTC had decided that we would no longer have this in Quebec. I was very frustrated at that time. When I came here, in 1997, I rediscovered TVO. But I also discovered the Quebec equivalent on the public network, which is Télé-Québec. Here in Ontario, I have both and in Quebec, I only have the right to one. Could you comment on that please?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: First of all, I may have cut some corners earlier on. In fact, our regulations are entirely parallel, except that the question is asked less often for minority anglophones, who are rather well served in their second language. But our regulations are absolutely parallel.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: That is quite normal. I understand completely.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: If they are available at the cable operators' head-end over the air, they are obliged to carry them. If there is a transmitter near the Ontario-Quebec border and the signal affects the head-end, as is the case for Rogers here, for example, there would be obligations.

As concerns TVO or Télé-Québec, there is a certain availability of these services above and beyond this possibility, but it could be that it is in a higher tier.

Mr. Claude Doucet: I would like to clarify this somewhat. These services can be carried. We have said nothing to stop their being distributed in Quebec. This is a choice made by the cable operator, as to whether or not he will carry these signals.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: In the end, you are telling us that it is the Montreal-based companies that are making that choice.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No, not necessarily. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. When, for example, Télé-Québec and TVO try to buy the rights to educational programming, they want to protect their territory. And when we put the signal into the other's market space, that creates problems with the right because national rights are even more costly. It is not that easy. It seems complicated, but there is an impact on the rights because they have obtained territorial rights. It complicates the situation, and it is possible that they themselves have in the past restricted their own availability.

In the report, we take note of Télé-Québec's commitments, whereby they offer to be carried everywhere. They agree with this and they want it now, whereas that was not the case a few years back. With the new capacity, the issue is for the cable operators to do it.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: All right. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Do you have any questions, Ms. Gagnon?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is in the middle of a tour on broadcasting. From what we have heard, the CRTC issues licences, but does not intervene when there is a breach of the licence conditions. This is what we have heard. I found the situation for francophones outside Quebec to be alarming. For example, there are people who have not had the Radio-Canada signal for a very long time.

Senator Beaudoin has just spoken about multiculturalism and official languages. People always say that in part of the country, only 2 per cent of the population is francophone, but for someone who has chosen to come and live in Canada, bilingualism is speaking their own language and English. This is what we hear. Whereas some francophones are poorly served on television in their own language, this other person believes that it is quite legitimate to ask for a licence to be granted for services in their own language, and not in the second official language. That is the problem. Francophones outside Quebec are completely isolated. If I was in their shoes, I would be unhappy to not have services in French. People say that the CRTC gives out licences, but there is no follow-up on the way in which the licence is applied. We heard this in almost every province outside Quebec during our tour. Francophones living in a minority situation outside Quebec feel that they are poorly served and abandoned. They feel that the CRTC is not doing its job as regards the protection of minorities outside Quebec. I told them to stop saying that they are only 2 per cent of the population and to stop referring to themselves in terms of a percentage, because when we say that we are only 2 per cent, we do not carry much weight in Canada. I advised them to say that they spoke the second officially recognized language of the country instead. At the same time, the CRTC is not working to help them.

I am going to speak about the community radio stations' case. For them, the issue is communicating amongst themselves. You say that this is an economic problem. If we were to give money to a certain region in Canada so that they could have community radio stations, that would probably solve the problem. In fact, there would have to be several in order to serve all of the francophones communities within a single province. Therefore, it is an issue of frequency. I believe the CRTC allows for five watts.

Given that community radio is probably one way to express yourself and to develop, what solution could you provide to the problem of these communities? This problem has existed for year. People are waiting to get licences and the licences are not being granted. They feel that they would have to have an extended frequency in order to be able to broadcast outside of their own francophone community.

º (1640)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I am rather disappointed to hear that people think there has not been any follow-up. I would like to think that it is a misapprehension. I do not know why it exists. The fact is that a large complement of my staff deals with the follow-up on decisions. As a matter of fact, we recently had an important hearing relating to allegations about Vidéotron's failure to comply with its obligations. We get to the bottom of the matter, if necessary.

With respect to access for francophone communities outside Quebec, we were behind the report and all the measures that were taken. I do not deny the fact that in the past the commission may not have done enough but as for this particular decision, we even required class 3 cable companies to distribute outside Quebec the entire services of SRC even if the service was not available at their cable head-end. We urged everyone to provide service in French. They do not want to take into account francophones outside Quebec. We told them that all francophones have the right to have access to service.

As for community radio outside Quebec, admittedly on-the-air service is not efficient. It only covers a certain territory and it is expensive to operate because whenever there is an increase in the wattage, there are direct electricity costs for the transmitter. That is one of the defects of the system. Unfortunately, small groups do not always have access to funding for such activities. The role of the commission is limited to granting licences. We can grant licences. We can support groups. We have made our regulations for the community sector more flexible but the fact remains that money is necessary to set up a business. We do not give out money to community groups. We give them authorizations as well as a great deal of flexibility. We provide support to them. We show them how to prepare their files. Unfortunately, money is necessary to operate a system.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Would it be possible for you, for example, to increase the authorized wattage so that these radios could have a greater coverage? Is that part of the decisions that you can take?

º (1645)

Mr. Réjean Myre: Quite recently, the ARC du Canada and the Réseau francophone d'Amérique, which brings together community radios outside Quebec, held their annual assembly. We arranged to have a teleconference with them. We set out the situation. There were about 20 developing community radios involved in a special subgroup. We tried to explain to them that they should not let themselves be held back. The developing five-watt stations are a very simple mechanism allowing a community to determine its capacity to set up a sustainable community radio station, one that can develop over the long term. When they cover a large rural area, then they require a greater number of watts. The administrative and even the technological aspects are not as complicated as people think outside the big centres like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or close to the American border. There are lots of territories where this can be more easily done.

Over the past year, through various briefing sessions, we have attempted to help community radios throughout Canada to do a better job and work more efficiently with us. We explain how our forms are to be filled out and how they can simplify all their operations to make a go of it. We encourage them not to get too hung up on the question of five watts, among others. For the time being, I think that we are heading in the right direction with the Canadian ARC and the Réseau francophone d'Amérique.

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

I am sorry, Ms. Gagnon, your time is up.

Senator Léger. Then we will start our second round.

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): Good afternoon, I just have a small question.

Is it too early, in the evolution of the two official languages policy, to replace the term “every francophone” by “every Canadian”? Can we already replace the term “francophone” by the term “Canadian”?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In an ideal world that is what we would like to do but in the world of regulations, unfortunately, we must reflect the reality. In the future we are heading towards a better balance but we have not yet reached that stage.

Senator Viola Léger: Keep up your work.

That is all, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I do not know whether we will ever get there.

We will now begin our second round. Senator Gauthier, you have the floor.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a few comments to make. First of all something on your comment about digital television. This is a fine prospect, we have often heard about it but it is far from being the reality for ordinary Canadians. It is not accessible to everyone. Am I mistaken when I say that?

You could maybe give me some figures about the breakdown between analog and digital modes. Since I only have two or three minutes, would you please send me the information?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: At the present time, and this is something quite recent, almost 2.9 million households subscribe to digital television. That figure would have to be multiplied by the number of persons in each household. I do not know what the number would be. So these are households that not only have access to digital mode at the present time but also subscribe to the service. Reference is made to 7.6 million households as the potential number of subscribers to digital television. So the numbers will be increasing. It is almost universal.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I see. I did not have that information. I thought it was the opposite.

I would like to return to closed captioning. You may think I am persistent but I do not intend to give up. For years now I have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a clear and precise objective. You can call the President of the Canadian Association of the Hearing Impaired, Mr. Colin Cantlie, if you would like to hear something about closed captioning in English. I think he is in Calgary. Give him a call.

You said earlier that the technology available on the English side was better than that available for the French language. I agree with you that it is difficult for a francophone, because the industry is not as well developed, but that does not prevent Mr. Cantlie from agreeing with me. I know him well.

The situation at CTV is a disaster, Mr. Blais. Take a look at what is happening at CTV and that will give you an idea of what is taking place in English-speaking Canada with respect to those who have hearing problems. It is worse than anywhere else and it is not because it is not an English-language situation, CTV is an English network. When you see what is happening in the United States, it is not bad at all. The Americans have excellent real-time closed captioning.

At the present time the American Senate is studying a bill calling on the country to make investments in the language industry. This is the United States. In Canada, we do not have anything similar. I already presented a proposal that I will be putting to a vote here today. I hope that it will be adopted because the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is present here, will be working on it and would like to have your cooperation. It is important for us to know the facts and additional information.

As far as the training of the closed captionist is concerned, there is no training being provided at the present time in French in Canada. English-language training is provided in Vancouver and Edmonton. There is also a school in Toronto. Langara College in Vancouver will be shutting down. Why? Because the customers, the national broadcasters, are not interested in this kind of training.

Anglophones are going to start complaining and this will be quite justified. They may start saying that Gauthier was right when he asked the CRTC to do something. When I asked you what you were going to be doing now that you had renewed the licences, you said that you could do something. Can you give an indication of what you can do to stimulate activity?

º (1650)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: You mentioned to me the poor quality of the closed captioning on Sunday. We can ask for the recordings to monitor the situation. We can take whatever measures are necessary. We do have the power and we can make use of it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are a few small problems. If you attempt to follow the closed captioning on CTV, it is physically impossible. The lines go by so fast that you cannot read them, it is impossible. If you want an objective report, discuss the matter with Mr. Cantlie.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: People from my staff have already met Mr. Cantlie.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have the information about how to get in touch with him for you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I see.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Chair, can I ask you to present my motion to the committee so that we can debate it and vote on it if possible?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me, Senator, but we'll have to wait before proceeding. As a matter of fact, we did not receive 48 hours' notice as is required in the Standing Orders. I'd prefer to do it a bit later.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a second, this isn't a question of 48 hours! It's an important issue. When we talk about 48 hours, it means that it will take until the month of September or next year.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Blais, you said that you granted licences and that you were disappointed to find out that some people thought there was no follow-up. Do you have the power to withdraw licences? If so, has this ever occurred? If not, what powers of coercion do you have?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: First of all, I should mention that when we carry out an investigation, we discover in most cases that the licence holders are complying with our regulations. The problem of non-compliance is very exceptional.

Yes, we do have the power to withdraw a licence but it is very seldom used because we have many other powers that we can exercise before we come to that stage. As I already mentioned, it can be as simple as an informal telephone call from me, which often seems to have an effect, or a compulsory order and short-term renewals.

It should be remembered that sometimes people are in a situation of non-compliance unintentionally. It is up to us to make them understand the regulations and help them to comply with them. If it is a case of true recalcitrance, we can, as I mentioned, call these people to a public hearing for a renewal before the renewal date, that is during the licence period, to discuss the problem. We can also call them into a hearing to discuss the issuing of a compulsory order. This is an injunction tabled in the Federal Court which becomes an order of the Federal Court. We can also take action with the Federal Court. There are all sorts of avenues open to us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So generally speaking, your recommendations are followed and this is a rather erroneous perception. So, listening to you and to the President of CPAC, who told us that it is very simple with the computer device to make the French broadcast of CPAC available throughout western Canada as required in the legislation, and as the CRTC was involved, I can conclude that at the present time in Saskatchewan and in Alberta that viewers of CPAC are probably able to receive the service in both official languages.

º (1655)

Mr. Claude Doucet: That depends on the system.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But it is available.

Mr. Claude Doucet: It will be available starting September 1st, 2002.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I now come to a question that is in our paper but that is also something that annoys me personally. There are two things that sometimes happen in hotels. First of all, when hotels replace French-language stations with their in-house systems, do you have any power to intervene?

Secondly, in Quebec—I live in Gatineau—when there are exclusively English film networks, is this considered an internal decision of the hotel? Do you have any power over the matter? I do not know.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In-house circuits in hotels operate under an exemption and do not come directly under our regulation. We have intervened in the case of apartment buildings, particularly in Toronto. I can remember several cases when the security circuit replaced TVA. We did exert pressure and the matter was rectified because it was not in keeping with the spirit of our regulation that required TVA to provide national distribution and then have it taken away in certain apartment buildings.

I do not have any answer about what exactly we can do in the case of hotels but I can look into the matter.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I have any time left, I would like to obtain some information for the committee. Since we are reviewing part VII, I would simply like to note that this morning on the radio... There was a meeting of the provincial ACFO over the weekend in Kingston. Mr. Dion was present and he was introduced as the minister responsible for official languages. So perhaps we should amend section 42 of part VII of the Official Languages to identify who exactly is responsible for this legislation because for the time being we do not know.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Bélanger.

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

If there are people here in Ottawa living in buildings where the owner is setting up a security circuit and removes the Télé-Québec station to do so, then the CRTC can taken action and tell the landlord to cease and desist, if I have understood correctly.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In the case of Télé-Québec, I am not sure of the answer. I refer to the case of TVA because we issued a national order for its distribution. The detail of the regulation escapes me for the time being but we can follow up on this matter.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : I would appreciate it if you did so.

Let me come back to this matter of the satellite distributors and local CBC stations.

I previously mentioned Star Choice that only broadcasts Montreal on the entire network. If I am not mistaken, Bell ExpressVu broadcasts Moncton and Vancouver. Did anyone in the CRTC ask Bell ExpressVu why it was not broadcasting Ottawa-Gatineau Radio-Canada, for example, with its population base of one million inhabitants and which is the only local Radio-Canada station with a local news program at noon? Did the CRTC ask Bell ExpressVu or Star Choice why they chose not to provide this service?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In 1996, before satellite television got off to a quick start, the only requirement was to provide a Radio-Canada and a CBC service. Since then, we have been hearing this comment. The licences we granted in 1996 are being renewed at the present time and this is exactly the kind of question that we are asking during the renewal hearings. The situation has evolved. We talked previously about the other body but in the case of Star Choice and ExpressVu, these questions are being fully discussed at the present time because the licences are up for renewal.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : There is another phenomenon that is found mainly in western Canada. If I am not mistaken, there are places in Saskatchewan and Alberta where more than 40 per cent and, in some cases, more than 50 per cent of television viewers receive their signal by satellite. You are aware of this situation. In such cases, since it does not require satellite distributors to broadcast local stations like Regina or Calgary Radio-Canada, is the CRTC not contravening the requirements of the law?

Even the CRTC is subject to the Official Languages Act, it is a quasi-constitutional act.

» (1700)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I mentioned, when we set out the licence conditions, the requirement...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You were the one who told us that this is a quasi-constitutional act, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, I do not dispute that. As I mentioned, the problem is that in 1996, the reality of satellite service was quite different from the present situation. It developed far more quickly then we had anticipated and now you are quite right, there are distribution problems.

There are also problems relating to capacity and profitability because there is a limit to the number of transponders on the satellites.

Since Star Choice and ExpressVu have now come up for renewal, we do have an opportunity to ask questions. With an experience of five or six years, should we not give closer consideration to priority service, as is done in the case of cable TV?

In the case of cable, the local Radio-Canada or CBC services are given priority. Should we not use the same model for satellite television? That is the question. I do not have an answer because we are dealing with it at the present time but I do agree with you that it is a cause for concern, particularly in some regions of the country. In some areas of the west the cable penetration is far lower than... there are areas where it has reached 40 per cent, 45 per cent and more. In Kingston, as a matter of fact, the percentage is very high.

So we must examine this situation and determine whether Canadians are able to see themselves reflected in the distribution system and this something we are doing during the renewals.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger) : In Kingston, it is 30 per cent and in Pembroke, 48 per cent.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I had heard a different figure for Kingston.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is the information I have.

Do I have time for one last question?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): No.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can come back to it.

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

Senator Viola Léger: It is just a small question I ask out of curiosity. You are the ones with the specialized knowledge.

When mergers take place with big names like Rogers, now present in New Brunswick, and the companies become bigger so that they can make more profits, do the CRTC powers not decrease? Do you have as much power as they do?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The fact that the companies are larger does not affect our balance of power with them when it comes to regulation. For years now we have been regulating companies like Bell Canada and we have always been able to do so appropriately.

Senator Viola Léger: As customers we can often find it very confusing and upsetting. I do not mean that we do not get the services but we may feel that they are a lot more powerful and we cannot do anything. That is why I ask the question.

Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Before we go to the last two questions, on Senator Gauthier's motion, on top of not having it early enough, we do not have quorum to take the vote. So we can handle it tomorrow, or Monday if we can't do it tomorrow, as long as the committee is willing.

Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Chair, I am going to be mean and ask you to quote the standing order you are referring to because there is no such order relating to a joint committee. It is certainly a provision of the standing orders of the House of Commons but this is not the case for the Senate. As a senator, I am simply asking you to be open to this possibility and not to postpone the matter indefinitely by saying that we can consider it in 48 hours, knowing full well that we will not be here 48 hours from now.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator, may I respond, please?

[Translation]

On March 13, 2001, the committee accepted a series of rules. In order to vote on a motion, except with unanimous consent, a 48-hour notice must be given. Those are not the rules of the joint chairs but rather the rules chosen by the committee on March 13, 2001.

» (1705)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not calling the rules into question. I wish to table my motion and I am asking the committee to entertain it. That is all I asked.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator, we cannot vote because we do not have a quorum.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is in written form.

Mr. Blais, do you have any statistics about RDS? In Embrun, 30 miles from Ottawa, if you do not have the cable or a satellite dish—and there are people who do not—and if Radio-Canada does not settle this matter, people will no longer be able to watch the Saturday evening hockey game. There are lots of French-speaking Canadians who live in this area, but in Quebec and in Ontario, who do not have the cable or a satellite dish. What are these people going to do? What can you do to help them?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: RDS is a specialty network available only on cable or by satellite. I do not know what the cable penetration rate is in this area but I can find out. The rate varies from one region to another.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Take my word for it: there are lots of people in eastern Ontario who do not have cable and who cannot afford to buy a dish; they get the Radio-Canada signal from their antenna. They will no longer be able to watch the hockey game on Radio-Canada.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is, if the rights are not sold in some way or another to Radio-Canada.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu) : Mr. Bélanger.

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

Mr. Blais, here are some more questions on the role of the CRTC.

Does the CRTC report, Achieving a Better Balance, recognize that the issue of costs must also be dealt with for a better balance among the various communities receiving these services?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Cost is a factor that we occasionally weigh. I mentioned earlier that in general, the regulations for class 3 cable distributors have been relaxed because we recognize that those are small systems. However, if they are interconnected with systems like Rogers or Shaw, that is different. So we do weigh that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I hope someone from the CRTC will be here tomorrow when we hear from Radio-Canada executives on the La Soirée du hockey issue. It is an issue that could become quite troubling and very complex. I am asking the CRTC this question, and I guess Radio-Canada can deal with it tomorrow.

Why does a French Canadian have to pay to get La Soirée du hockey on public television, but not an English Canadian, who can watch Hockey Night in Canada? Is that of concern to the CRTC?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: When we renewed Radio-Canada's licence, we heard a lot of negative comments about hockey on CBC. It was surprising. People felt the English network placed too much emphasis on hockey, often at the expense of the news at certain times. On the French side, there was far less comment. It was not an issue. In fact, people said they appreciated the quality of sports coverage on Radio-Canada. Apparently, market forces led Radio-Canada to make the decision it made. I do not know all of the ins and outs of that decision, so it is very difficult for me to comment.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Allow me to quote from paragraph 230 of the Radio-Canada licence renewal application:

At a time when having professional sports teams in Canadian cities is becoming more and more of a political, economic and social issue, when Canadians are discovering new sports heroes who inspire them to try to outdo themselves, their national broadcaster has to provide them with images and ideas from this facet of the world around them.[Translation]

And now I am quoting from paragraph 231:

French television has a policy of giving priority coverage to the Olympic Games, national sporting events that have taken on a social and cultural value, like National Hockey League matches...[Translation]

Is the CRTC going to take that into account in the coming days' discussions?

» (1710)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We will be very interested in Mr. Rabinovitch's presentation. As I said, I like to think there are clauses that would make hockey available if the contract could be signed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): How is it that the CRTC accepts the fact that half of the population of the city of Ottawa pays more than the other half for the same service? You know what I am talking about. West of Bank Street, in Ottawa, basic cable is less expensive than east of Bank Street. At some point, that should perhaps be cleared up.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The situation has changed somewhat. Rogers is now deregulated and could, without our authorization, charge the same amount on both sides. The reason for the imbalance is that in the past, subscribers on one side of Bank Street paid higher basic rates because the system was different.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could the CRTC force them to do so?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I said, the rate is now deregulated because there was sufficient competition.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I repeat my question: Could the CRTC force them to change this?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: To do that, we would have to amend our regulations. We said that as soon as a certain level of competition is reached, competition would determine prices. Besides, companies have a strategy that calls for harmonizing their prices in such regions. This is why they are asking for deregulation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But they have not done that yet.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: They have not done it, and I do not know why they have not done it yet.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, gentlemen, for your time and for answering our questions. As the joint chair, I hope that the CRTC will be here for the hearings.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.