LANG Committee Report

    In accordance with its mandate under section 88 of the Official Languages Act, the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages has conducted a study on the question of the broadcasting and availability of the debates and proceedings of Parliament in both official languages. As a result of complaints filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages between October 1998 and September 2000 concerning the unavailability of House of Commons debates in one or the other official language, the Committee thought it appropriate to summon the main stakeholders in this issue and to submit a report on its findings to Parliament. The Committee is aware that one of the complainants decided to put his case before the courts in response to the investigation report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, and therefore, wishes to emphasize that the purpose of its work was not to focus directly or indirectly on those specific complaints but rather to study in a general manner the television broadcasting of the debates and proceedings of Parliament in both official languages.

    Part 1 of this paper provides background on, and an overview of the roles of each of the parties involved. Part 2 contains a review of the testimony heard by the Committee. The Committee’s observations and recommendations can be found in Part 3 and Part 4.

PART 1: BACKGROUND

    A.         Issue

    From 1979 to 1991, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) rebroadcast television coverage of the debates of the House of Commons by satellite to all cable companies across the country. In April 1992, as a result of budget cuts, the CBC announced that it wanted to terminate its commitment. That same year, a consortium of cable companies, Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) was formed and took over from the CBC. A few months later, CPAC reached an interim agreement with the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. In 1994, the two parties signed a formal seven-year agreement that will expire on August 31, 2001.

    Under the agreement, the House of Commons, through its Broadcasting Service, undertakes to transmit live to CPAC one video signal and three audio signals of the House’s debates and proceedings — the floor signal, the English signal and the French signal. CPAC in turn makes the video and the three audio signals of parliamentary debates and proceedings in both official languages available to the member cable companies of its consortium.

    The issue before the Committee is primarily one of distribution in English and French by the cable companies than of the availability of audio signals in both official languages. The cable companies, which are not in any way bound by the agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC, may choose to broadcast only one of the three audio signals retransmitted via satellite by CPAC. It is also important to add that the cable companies are not required to broadcast CPAC. If they choose to do so, it is understood that CPAC is required to be part of the basic service offered to subscribers.

    As a result of the limited number of analogue channels available, it appears that very few cable companies choose to offer their viewers the English and French versions of CPAC. Consequently, unilingual anglophone and francophone viewers are not able to fully understand the debates and proceedings of Parliament, when these are not broadcast in their language.

    B.         Subtitles for parliamentary debates and proceedings

    The Committee also considered the question of subtitling in both official languages. For the moment, subtitling of debates by the House Broadcasting Service is available only in English and in simultaneous French sign language (LSQ). These two versions are incorporated in the broadcasting signal transmitted by the House Broadcasting Service. It should be noted that subtitling is available only during Question Period.

    PART 2: OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONY

    Four institutions appeared before the Committee on the issue of the broadcasting of parliamentary debates and proceedings in both official languages: Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages; the Honourable Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons; Mr. Ken Stein, Chairman of the Board of Directors, CPAC; Ms. Colette Watson, General Manager of CPAC; and Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

    A.          Commissioner of Official Languages

    In her appearance on March 21, 2001, the Commissioner outlined the main findings of her investigation report in response to the six complaints concerning the broadcasting and availability of House of Commons debates and proceedings in both official languages. The complaints had been filed by anglophones and francophones from the National Capital Region and various regions of New Brunswick and Quebec. In her investigation report, Ms. Adam determined that the six complaints received were founded. It should be noted that a preliminary investigation report by the Commissioner was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Commons, to the complainants and to CPAC in June 2000.

    Pursuant to the investigation conducted by her office, the Commissioner concluded that the broadcasting system did not comply with the requirements of section 4 of the Official Languages Act, which states that English and French are the official languages of Parliament. She further noted that the onus was on the House of Commons to ensure that the broadcasting services provided to the Canadian public through a third party, CPAC in this instance, meet the linguistic requirements under sections 22 and 25 of the Official Languages Act, which concern the languages of communications and services and the delegation of services to third parties. In her testimony, the Commissioner stated:

       In conclusion, the Commissioner made two recommendations to the House of Commons to correct the current problem:

·        That the House of Commons immediately take, with all interested parties, all the measures
      and steps required to ensure the implementation of the rights of members of the public to
      access televised debates in their preferred official language, pending the advent of more
      effective technology;

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

    B.          Speaker of the House of Commons

    The Honourable Peter Milliken appeared before the Committee on March 27, 2001, accompanied by the Clerk of the House of Commons, William C. Corbett. During his testimony, Mr. Milliken recounted the history of the television broadcasting of House of Commons debates and proceedings since 1979. He then outlined the main provisions of the existing agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC.

    In his testimony, the Speaker of the House said he felt the House of Commons was meeting its obligations by providing the video signal and three audio signals, one in French, one in English and one in the language of the parliamentarian speaking (floor).

    Mr. Milliken explained that, in his capacity as Chairman of the House Board of Internal Economy, he was not in favour of the House adopting coercive measures to force cable companies to broadcast the English and French versions of parliamentary debates. He contended that the CRTC is the organization with authority to regulate this matter, stating:

    On the matter of the unavailability of subtitling in French, the Speaker explained that there were two major problems preventing the House of Commons from correcting the existing deficiency: the costs involved in making subtitling in French available and the difficulty involved in recruiting qualified personnel to perform the task.

    In conclusion, Mr. Milliken reiterated that the Board of Internal Economy would take the Committee’s recommendations and suggestions into consideration for the purpose of the upcoming negotiations on renewal of the agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC on the televising of the House’s debates and proceedings.

    C.         Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC)

    At the April 3, 2001 sitting, Ken Stein, Chairman, CPAC Board of Directors, was accompanied by Colette Watson, General Manager of CPAC, and Robert Buchan, CPAC’s legal counsel. In their presentation, the witnesses first informed Committee members about the nature of CPAC’s activities. Mr. Stein indicated that CPAC’s programming is distributed to approximately 7.5 million cable subscribers and 1.1 million satellite subscribers, which represents approximately 74% of Canadian households. Apart from the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings and debates, which represent 24% of its programming schedule, CPAC also televises political and legal current events, conferences and public hearings.

    The witnesses reaffirmed CPAC’s undertakings under the agreement signed with the House in 1994, thus indicating that, under the agreement, CPAC did not hold exclusive rights to broadcast the proceedings and debates of the House of Commons.

    In the course of their appearance, CPAC’s representatives reacted to the investigation report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Acknowledging the importance of the issues raised by the Commissioner, CPAC’s general manager expressed the opinion that technical solutions could make it possible to correct the problem of televising parliamentary debates in both official languages. In CPAC’s view, secondary audio program (SAP) technology enables the House of Commons Broadcasting Service to incorporate a video signal and two audio signals in its signal at all times. Television viewers with a television set or a video recorder with SAP technology can thus choose either of the two audio signals. According to CPAC, 37% of cable subscribers across the country are currently able to use SAP technology and 8% of subscribers are already receiving the English and French versions of CPAC through their cable companies.

    Since SAP technology is not available on all head-ends of cable distribution systems,[3] particularly west of Manitoba, CPAC undertook at the meeting to offer SAP technology to a larger number of cable companies. Ms. Watson testified that this could mean that, within one year, nearly 80% of subscribers receiving CPAC would be able to use SAP technology, as long as they have access to a television set or a video recorder with SAP capability. She also emphasized the need to promote SAP technology to the Canadian public.

    Mr. Stein observed that, in analogue mode, SAP technology was still the best short-term solution. Digital technology is apparently much more promising in terms of the number of available channels, which makes it possible to ensure that the debates and proceedings of the House of Commons are available in both official languages.

    With respect to the availability of subtitling in French, Ms. Watson testified that the problem was the responsibility of the House of Commons and a matter of recruiting qualified francophone personnel. Apparently no institution currently provides training for stenographers in French in the country. Ms. Watson explained that there are fewer than ten people in Canada capable of providing captioning in French in real time.

    D.   Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Executive Director, Broadcasting, CRTC, appeared before the Committee on April 4, 2001. During his testimony, Mr. Blais referred to various notices issued by the CRTC having an impact on the regulatory framework in which CPAC operates. Mr. Blais testified that the CRTC had renewed CPAC’s licence in 1994 for a seven-year term, that is until August 31, 2002. Only the portion of CPAC’s programming which does not include the House of Commons’ debates and proceedings is subject to the requirements of the licence granted by the CRTC. In 1992, following a public consultation process, the Commission decided that it was not necessary that services broadcasting parliamentary debates be subject to the obligation to hold a licence.

    Under the Broadcast Distribution Regulations, the cable companies belonging to the CPAC consortium are required to include the CPAC channel in their basic service at no additional cost. However, as a result of the capacity constraints of cable companies operating with analogue technology, the CRTC has thus far not thought it appropriate to require CPAC to be broadcast in both official languages.

    In the report it made public on February 12 last on French-language broadcasting services in the minority communities, the CRTC stated that it would undertake a separate process to determine whether the distribution of CPAC needs to be altered. The Commission will issue a public notice on this matter by the end of April, to encourage the Canadian public to express its views. Following the consultation process, the CRTC will render a decision in the fall of this year.

    Mr. Blais did not rule out the possibility that the CRTC, following the process it is preparing to undertake, might make it mandatory for CPAC’s English and French audio signals to be broadcast. He also noted:

    Mr. Blais pointed out that the objective of ensuring that the francophone minority communities are provided with services in both official languages is set out in subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, and that the CRTC is obviously bound by this statutory requirement.

PART 3: OBSERVATIONS

    Based on the testimony it has heard on the televising of the parliamentary debates and proceedings, the Committee wishes to submit a number of observations. The Committee finds that broadcasting of the debates and proceedings of Parliament plays an essential role in the democratic process in Canada. Having observed that the distribution of CPAC by cable companies is the heart of the problem, the Committee finds that Canadians have a right to access to the debates and proceedings of their Parliament in their preferred official language.

    It is the Committee’s view that, under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 16 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and sections 4, 22 and 25 of the Official Languages Act, Parliament is required to ensure that its debates and proceedings are broadcast across Canada in both official languages. The Committee finds it necessary that subscribers already receiving the CPAC signal be able to access parliamentary debates and proceedings in their preferred official language.

    The Committee takes note of the process undertaken by the CRTC respecting the distribution of CPAC in both official languages and is pleased with the intention the CRTC expressed before the Committee to act in the public interest and to take into account the objective stated in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act respecting the provision of services to the official language minority communities. The Committee also notes the numerous opportunities afforded by digital technology in terms of the number of channels that may be broadcast by cable companies.

    The Committee is pleased with CPAC’s commitment to put in place the infrastructure that will enable the vast majority of cable companies to use SAP technology as soon as possible and thus allow more subscribers to access parliamentary debates and proceedings in both official languages.

    The Committee notes that the agreement between the House of Commons and CPAC terminates in August of this year and that it will be the subject of negotiations in the coming weeks. The Committee is of the view that the negotiations should take into consideration the process begun by the CRTC. The Committee is concerned by the fact that the agreement will be renewed before the results of the CRTC’s actions are known.

    The Committee finds it unacceptable that French-language subtitling is not available for Question Period. The Committee is also troubled by the shortage of specialized personnel who could produce subtitles in French.

    Finally, the Committee notes that House of Commons proceedings are available on the CPAC Internet site in both official languages and encourages CPAC to promote them.

PART 4: RECOMMENDATIONS

1.      1.    The Committee recommends to the CRTC that it require cable companies to broadcast the debates and
        proceedings of Parliament in both official languages.

2.       2.   The Committee recommends that CPAC’s commitment on installation of the infrastructure permitting
        cable companies to adopt SAP technology be made an integral part of the agreement now under
        negotiation between the House of Commons and CPAC.

3.       3.   The Committee requests that the CRTC and CPAC take the necessary steps to make SAP technology
        better known to cable subscribers as soon as possible.

4.       4.   The Committee recommends to the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons that it
        conclude an interim agreement with CPAC until CPAC’s licence renewal by the CRTC, scheduled for
        August 2002.

5.       5.   The Committee recommends that the term of the next agreement between the House of Commons and
        CPAC not exceed five years.

6.       6.   The Committee recommends to Parliament that it take the necessary steps to produce subtitling in
        French for Question Period in the House of Commons without delay.

7.       7.   The Committee recommends to Parliament that it take the necessary steps to make subtitling available
        in both official languages when the proceedings of Senate committees are televised.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Committee wishes to re-emphasize the importance of offering the Canadian public broadcasts of the debates and proceedings of Parliament in their preferred official language. It ardently hopes that the stakeholders involved in this issue will conclude that they must reach a solution that achieves this objective as soon as possible.