LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

• 1538

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, if I may, I would like to say two things before we move to the agenda.

First, I would like to inform you that I learned this morning that our joint chair, Senator Maheu, has had a car accident. She is all right, she will recover, but she may be away for a few days as a result. We will be circulating a card so that you can put in a short message wishing her a speedy recovery.

Second, the meeting was called so that we could discuss section 41 in camera and begin to develop our strategy, but before going in camera, we will hear from the CRTC officials that I have invited. This morning, they announced their decision regarding the issue that we studied, that is the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. If you agree, I will ask these gentlemen to share this morning's announcement with us, and then we can take 15 or 20 minutes to ask them questions, if you have any. It is strictly to bring the house up to date with the results concerning one of the first issues we have dealt with. All right?

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I have a point of order.

I received a notice indicating that the committee was going to meet at a certain time for an information session on section 41 of the Official Languages Act. I have come here for that. I prepared for it. Now, the agenda is being changed without notice. I come into the room and I receive a new agenda. I have asked my colleagues if they had received it beforehand and they told me that they had not.

• 1540

If we want to do our work properly and logically, senators and members of Parliament at least need to know what the subject of discussion will be. We now have this decision dated November 6, which is CRTC Public Notice 2001-115. I have not read it. I am sure that no one here has read it. If you want us to be able to discuss this with the officials, who are specialists...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, I am not asking you to discuss this issue. I was acting out of what I thought was courtesy to the committee. I learned last night that the announcement would be made this morning, and I asked these officials if they would like to come here. If the committee does not agree, I will apologize to Mr. Myre and Mr. Blais. I thought that it would be interesting to have them come and explain the CRTC announcement for just a few minutes out of simple courtesy, since the committee looked into this issue. I wanted us to have the information and explanation as quickly as possible. I was acting out of courtesy to the committee. If the committee does not agree, I will apologize, that is all. There is no question of changing the agenda, and I understand that. It was my initiative, but perhaps it was a bad idea.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not the issue. The problem is that the agenda we were given is no longer valid. You said that Senator Maheu—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It will be valid right after.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... had had an accident. This has nothing to do with Senator Maheu. This agenda was set by the committee. Either we are consulted about future business or we are not. I am told not to worry about it, but that this paper is no longer any good. So I pick up the other one, where I see the CRTC. I am tremendously interested in that. I am interested in reading the decision. I am very interested in reading it, but when are we going to discuss the committee's future business? Will one or other joint chair be deciding what we will be studying as we go along, or will we have a set agenda, with some rules?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am in the hands of the committee. You need to decide whether you want these people to stay or not. If so, we will go ahead. If not, I will step outside with them and apologize. I will also apologize to you and we will work differently. That is all. I was acting out of courtesy to the committee. Do we agree to let these two gentlemen give us an explanation of the CRTC's decision that was made public this morning, yes or no?

Voices: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Good. Do go ahead, gentlemen.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to have been able to accept this invitation on rather short notice. If necessary, we can come back at a later time, when committee members will have had an opportunity to read our decision. Our appearance here today is aimed mainly at tying up loose ends of the presentation that we gave last April, I believe. At that time, we came before you to talk about what had been done regarding this issue.

When we appeared in April, I told you that the commission's decision on French-language services for francophones outside Quebec had been released in February, and that we were going to begin an initiative to examine the broadcasting of House of Commons debates across the country, especially in the second official language. This morning, the results of that study, that is, the decision, was announced. I believe that you have a copy of it. We are here to give you a little explanation about this decision.

Basically, the main message that the CRTC wants to deliver is that it supports giving Canadians access to the televised debates of the House of Commons by broadcasting them in the official language of people's choice. We are talking here about the debates of the House of Commons and its committees, and not necessarily CPAC.

The commission recognizes that this is essential programming from a public interest standpoint and it therefore wanted this programming to be given a place of choice in the Canadian broadcasting system.

As I mentioned last time, one of our problems is that the commission's present regulations did not really require broadcasters to offer the House of Commons channel. Under the present regulations, the major cable companies were told that if they decided to offer this service, they had to provide it as one of the basic channels. So we first had to look at the advisability of giving the House of Commons debates a new status.

In today's decision, the commission has created a foundation for requiring distribution of this service. In our opinion, this is merely a codification of what existed already in practice. The House of Commons debates are widely available in Canada. So this morning's decision only confirms that we are going to codify this reality. So that covers broadcasting of the House of Commons' debates in the official language of the majority. That is the foundation.

• 1545

As a second step, we will be expanding the obligations of cable companies and satellite distributors by requiring that they make these proceedings available in the second official language.

I am going to talk about the different classes, and then provide some side information. We have various categories of broadcasting distribution undertakings, or BDUs. I will later be using the acronyms that will be defined now.

We talk about class 1, 2 and 3 BDUs. Class 1 BDUs have more than 6,000 subscribers. So these are big distributors. Class 2 BDUs have between 2,000 and 6,000 subscribers, and class 3 BDUs are very small companies with under 2,000 subscribers, and in some cases not more than 100. These are really small systems.

The number of subscribers affects the financial and economic situation, and the results of our study reflect this distinction.

The CRTC came to the conclusion that it would require Class 1 and 2 cable distributors to broadcast House of Commons proceedings throughout the country. Furthermore, we will require that they provide the second official language in their marketplace by using secondary audio program (SAP) technology, that is, a second audio channel. Where the clientele is predominantly English-speaking, the SAP will be used to provide subscribers with service in the second official language.

However, we will go beyond that.

[English]

You'll recall that when we issued our decision back in February on service to minority languages, we decided to build on the future. We realized that we couldn't change the past in many respects, so we decided to look forward, and we're going to use the digital technology towards the future. So the decision today

[Translation]

is in keeping with this approach. In the case of systems with a digital capacity of 700 MHz or over, so I am referring to large systems, we will go beyond the requirements I referred to earlier. We will ask that they broadcast two video signals, one in French and one in English. We will go much further for systems having very high capacity.

Cable television distributors serve approximately 7.5 million subscribers in Canada, but we should not forget that there is another large category of distributors in Canada. These are the DTH, or direct-to-home, distributors, who today serve over one million subscribers. We will now be requiring that these distributors broadcast two video signals of House of Commons proceedings, one in English and one in French. That is the situation regarding large distributors in Canada., We have therefore greatly improved access.

I will talk now about Class 3 cable distributors. Their case is always more difficult because, as I said earlier, these are smaller systems and sometimes we have to juggle different interests. We have to remember that House of Commons proceedings are nevertheless available to 60% of Class 3 cable subscribers. That's a significant percentage. However, we realize that they have capacity problems. These systems have fewer subscribers and, consequently, cannot invest as much money.

In principle, we decided to strongly encourage Class 3 cable distributors to continue to carry House of Commons proceedings and, if possible, to offer them in the second official language. But we went even further.

Class 3 cable distributors which are owned by one of Canada's four largest cable companies—Shaw, COGECO, Vidéotron and Rogers— if they are already distributing House of Commons services, will be required to offer proceedings in the second official language as well. Therefore, although as a general rule Class 3 cable distributors are not required to broadcast in both languages, we are making an important exception in the case of the large systems.

• 1550

The second exception for Class 3 cable distributors is that, if they are interconnected with Class 1 or 2 systems, they too will be required to provide House proceedings in both languages using SAP technology.

The third exception, which is also in keeping with our report on French-language services, is that companies intending to use digital distribution with a capacity of 550 MHz or more will be required to provide services in both official languages.

Although our decision does not require all cable distributors and all distribution companies in Canada to provide proceedings in both languages, we have targeted nearly all subscribers in Canada so that, beginning September 1, 2002—because regulations have to be adopted by that date—almost all Canadians will have access to House of Commons proceedings in both official languages.

This represents a step forward. I hope that the public will appreciate having access to House of Commons proceedings, because we know that, in a number of provinces, people in the official minority communities have not always had access to these services.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We have ten minutes or so for questions, because we must return to our agenda at 4 o'clock.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I have a short question, Mr. Chairman.

When we talk about the two official languages, we always have the language spoken on the floor, which may be English or French. A question may be asked in French and the answer given in English. In some regions, this is the signal that is received.

I find that this is the worst signal that one can get. If the viewer does not understand French and the question is asked in French, he's in trouble, and vice versa.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Right; if someone asks a question in English and the answer is given in French, the English and French signal will be available to subscribers. They will be able to choose a signal that is entirely in English or one that is entirely in French. That is the essence of our decision today. People will therefore not have to deal with this problem after September 2002.

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

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa-Orléans, Lib.): This decision was announced this morning. When will it take effect? When can we expect the networks to provide services in both languages where they should do so?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The regulatory requirement will take effect in September 2002. However, you must remember there are many cable distributors who already have the technology to offer the second signal.

You are probably wondering why our decision will take effect in 2002. The reason is that, in order to implement these requirements, we will have to amend our regulations and the Broadcasting Act requires that we hold consultations. Therefore, deadlines are set and that is the most logical time. Remember, cable companies generally rearrange their services in early September or early January. So, we are trying to go along with those dates.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Have you received any reactions from the three levels?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Since the decision was only announced this morning, I have not yet had any reaction. We went through a consultation process in order to arrive at these decisions. Consequently, we are familiar with the positions of the cable distributors and the public.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Were there any who were uncooperative before your decision?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Of course. Some of the players did not agree with our proposing so many regulations, but we believed that, in order to promote achievement of the objective in the Broadcasting Act, that is, to provide services to both of the country's linguistic communities, insofar as the technology is available, the decision that we announced today was the best means of achieving that objective.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Does the decision apply only to House proceedings, or does it also apply to other CPAC activities?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The decision applies only to the proceedings of the House and its committees. As you know, CPAC's licence will be renewed some time between now and August 2002. We will therefore have the chance to discuss the bilingual aspect of CPAC as part of this renewal.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If there are licences renewed between now and the month of August, but the legislation or the new regulations do not come into force until September, could you not run into people who will be waiting for a licence renewal and who might be uncooperative for a year or two until their licence is renewed?

• 1555

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No, I think that both are working fairly well. The CPAC's licence expires on August 31, 2002. We will have enough time to renew this licence between now and August 31, 2002, for the new broadcasting year that begins on September 1, 2002. So everything happens at the same time.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you very much.

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

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a technical question so that I will understand clearly.

On the weekend, I heard about someone who had subscribed to an exclusively digital service and who had no access to cable for a week because the network was down. Those subscribers had no access to the digital service, even with ordinary cable. That is quite odd. If subscribers lose access for several weeks during the year, that means that they will not have access to cable for several weeks. The company told them that to receive analog cable, they had to pay an additional $10 per month, even though it marketed its product as being less expensive. That is quite the trap.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We are aware of the fact that even if a cable distributor is digital above 750 MHz, a subscriber can choose to remain analog and reject the additional offer.

Our regulation protects subscribers like that, because they will continue to receive the services of the House with the second audio channel. If they decide to go digital, they will have access to both video feeds, one in English and one in French. But suppose they decide, to save money or for another reason, to stick solely with the analog service, they will nevertheless receive the service in both languages.

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

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A public notice precedes the decision.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is correct.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the decision apply to both the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No, just to the Broadcasting Act.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So there is no right of appeal.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The right of appeal under the Broadcasting Act deals only with amendments and decision renewals, and your example is not in that category.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have prior experience with that. It is a question of law or jurisdiction.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: There could perhaps be a right of appeal to the Federal Court, but not to Cabinet.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You talked about two video channels.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes. For Class 1 and Class 2 cable distributors, the requirement to provide two video services, one in English and one in French, applies to DTH companies, satellite companies and cable distributors that have a digital system with a capacity above 750 MHz.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not know much about the SAP system, which makes it possible to change the audio channel. It requires a TV that is less than 10 or 11 years old. Who is going to tell Canadian men and women that they can change the sound on their TV instead of complaining to the cable distributor who is a messenger who receives a message that, as you say, must be accompanied by two channels? Who is going to explain that to Canadians who do not have the technical knowledge and who, a bit like me, may not be able to program their TV? Is there an advertising campaign?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes. When the CPAC group appeared before you several months ago, they made a commitment to produce a 30-second video to tell people about this possibility. The commission provides information to the general public on its Web site. Moreover, I think that cable distributors will make a commitment to help their clients better understand SAP technology.

• 1600

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Essentially, the decision will cover the House of Commons, won't it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We are targeting the House of Commons and its committees.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: And not the Senate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What is the answer?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It covers present service for the House of Commons and its committees.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But not the Senate.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: But not the Senate.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what I thought.

A voice: Why not?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: If the Senate is not available, I believe that... There are committees, and CPAC broadcasts them. It is not because we are against it. It is because at this time, what is broadcast...

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

Senator Gérald J. Comeau (Nova Scotia, PC): I would like to raise something that was discussed by Mr. Godin a few minutes ago. It's about the sound. What you are suggesting is that we have either the English or the French soundtrack but not the floor audio.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's correct.

Senator Gérald Comeau: Why not the floor audio?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It is true that when we have the floor sound, people who are bilingual have access to both languages, but we had to balance the various interests and we realize that there are Canadians who do not have access to one or the other.

Senator Gérald Comeau: Okay. There are two official languages in this country and it might encourage people to listen to the second language.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In the system that we are proposing, nothing would prevent a Canadian from listening to the signal in the other language.

Senator Gérald Comeau: Precisely. We would lose the interpretation, of course. When I'm in my region there is nothing more annoying for me than to listen to the House of Commons proceedings broadcast in English by my cable company. At this time, everything is broadcast in English in a francophone region. It is very frustrating. For that reason, I refuse to listen to the House of Commons debates. I would prefer to have the floor language rather than to be forced to listen to it only in English.

Here is another question. If there are technical problems in my region, is there a phone number that I can call? Is it the general number here?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: You can call that number or I can give you my own telephone number.

Senator Gérald Comeau: I would like that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The number is (819)997-4416. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Senator Gérald Comeau: Thank you.

A voice: May I ask a supplementary question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. Ms. Finestone.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone (Quebec, Lib.)): Thank you very much. This is an official languages committee, so we will have a little bit of English at this point.

[Translation]

Is that okay with you?

[English]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: No problem.

[Translation]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): No problem for me either, sir.

Firstly,

[English]

I know that we would all want to express to Shirley our deep regret that she's not feeling well, and in a sense I know that this would be the kind of question Shirley would ask.

My question relates to the fact that the Senate committees are not covered, even when they are videotaped. Is there a reason why? Is there some contract that's short? What is the reason why we can't have the Senate debates?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Whatever the House of Commons broadcasting service provides would be covered by this. So if there's a reason why the service is not being broadcast, it may be with what the House of Commons broadcasting service is providing. I'm really not aware of.... We have no rules that would prevent that.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): All right. It just strikes me that this is the Parliament of Canada, and the Senate is part of the Parliament of Canada. So we will certainly look into that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Just to be clear, none of our rules—

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): There's no bias on your part, is that it?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's correct.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): All right.

My second question relates somewhat to Senator Jean-Claude, Jean-Claude...whatever your name is down there—Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Jean-Robert.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): Jean-Robert.

You said that your decisions were based on the CRTC and its mandate. Within the CRTC's mandate, does the application of the Official Languages Act, part VII, section 41—have I got it right?—not apply to you? There has been no directive from Treasury Board or from any other source that indicates that you have a responsibility based on the Official Languages Act of Canada?

• 1605

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It's our understanding and our view that the Official Languages Act does apply to the commission when it's wearing its administrative hat, but when it's wearing its quasi-judicial hat and makes decisions, a bit like other tribunals, our obligation vis-à-vis the official languages flows from the Broadcasting Act.

It's actually a technical distinction. In fact, in reality it's the same obligation. So it does apply, but only in one respect of our—

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): Well, a tangential relationship doesn't really meet what I think are Canadians' wishes as expressed in the Official Languages Act.

And secondly, it would strike me, Mr. Chair, if I may suggest, if this committee wants a task, that's the task.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's not the tasks that we lack.

Thank you.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. De Bané.

Senator Pierre De Bané (De la Vallière, Lib.): With today's technology, would it not be possible to have three channels for the House of Commons debates: one for English, one for French and one for the floor? How difficult would it be to have three channels?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It increases the difficulty by some degrees.

Senator Pierre De Bané: We are told that we could have 500 channels.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The problem does not lie with the broadcasting, but with the distribution. Technically, it is a difficult challenge for the cable companies. Therefore, we have tried to ensure that all Canadians have access to their choice of service either in English or in French.

Senator Pierre De Bané: When will we have three channels: one for the floor sound, one for French and one for English?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: There are minimum requirements for the cable companies. If a cable company feels that it would be to its advantage, it can offer one, two or three digital channels. We are trying to balance the restrictions on the system's capacity and what can be done in light of the information that was provided in our public notice.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I thought that would be the last question, but this one will be the last. Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: For your information, the contract between the Senate and CPAC expired in August 2000. So there is currently no agreement between CPAC and the Senate.

Secondly, when Ms. Watson, the CPAC director, appeared here, she told us that the company was going to extend its second audio channel system west of Ontario. I called her last week to ask her if that had been done, and she said no. I asked her when it would be done, and she told me that she did not know and that it would be once the CRTC had made its decision. Could we not send her a copy of the report and tell her to keep herself informed in the future?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With pleasure. If I have understood correctly, they will have until September 2002 to do so.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That is correct.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But we will certainly inform them of the decision.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Do you have the percentages for the ratings in English and French in Canada and Quebec?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I do not have them at my fingertips, but I can either try to obtain them, or confirm through the clerk that we were unable to obtain them.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to have that information. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Gentlemen, thank you for coming.

[English]

Members of the committee, I thank you.

I thought it could be useful. This was the file we tackled together, and now we have the decision. So it comes to fruition. At least we made some progress.

We're going in camera now.

[Proceedings continue in camera]