Government Response to the Report of the

Standing Committee on Official Languages

 

Introduction

 

The Committee’s report Role and Responsibilities of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in Developments in the Area of Official Languages in Canada offers five constructive recommendations for advancing the Government’s official languages objectives.

 

The CRTC is an important cultural institution whose work over the years to ensure access to Canadian radio and television programming has been unending. As a key cultural institution which deals directly with individual Canadians, the CRTC has always been mindful of Canada’s linguistic duality. In recent years, it has been especially active in attempting to increase the amount of minority-language services available to viewers and listeners. Its work continues.

 

The Committee’s report did, however, express valid concerns and the Government accepts that there are areas within the CRTC’s responsibility where improvements can be made. The positive suggestions made by the Committee will be helpful in advancing the efforts already underway to achieve these improvements. Action on all five of the Committee’s recommendations is being taken or will be taken, including the addition of the CRTC to the list of designated federal institutions in the accountability framework for the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

 

Recognizing the value of the Committee’s report and the benefits that could come from its recommendations, the Government initially wanted to provide a more comprehensive response as the Committee requested. However, there are numerous efforts currently being taken which are addressing the Committee’s recommendations and the progress being made on the recommendations is ongoing in some instances. In light of this, the Government will monitor and where necessary, follow up on these efforts to ensure that the objectives underpinning the Committee’s recommendations are achieved to the best of the Government’s, the CRTC’s and the broadcasting industry’s collective and concerted ability. The Government will provide a follow-up response on the progress that has been made when the various processes already underway and described in this Response have concluded, and their results known.

 

On the following pages, the Government is pleased to present its response to each of the Committee’s five recommendations together with an analysis of the reasoning behind each response.

 

The Identification of Bilingual Markets by the CRTC

 

Recommendation 1

 

The Committee recommends that the CRTC develop a concept of bilingual market, which would make it possible to provide better service to Anglophone and Francophone audiences comprising a considerable portion of the local population.

 

Response

 

The Government views this as an important recommendation and fully supports the Committee’s objective to ensure that minority-language programming services are available in markets where the official language minority comprises a significant portion of the audience. In the past, the achievement of this objective has posed a formidable challenge to the CRTC and the cable industry. Because of the increased cable capacity offered by digital distribution technology, however, progress is being made to provide a range of minority-language broadcasting services across the country where they have traditionally not been available.

 

The Committee’s recommendation would provide an additional tool to help increase access to minority-language programming services. To this extent, the Government wants to ensure that all available tools are duly considered and where they advance the achievement of the Committee’s objective, used. After careful study of the Committee’s recommendation, the Government believes that the new CRTC policy on cable carriage of minority language specialty services is an equally valuable tool. The CRTC’s approach aims to improve access to minority-language services in all markets, which extends beyond what the Committee has recommended or might even have expected to be possible. The regulations which implemented the new policy came into effect in September 2001, but its actual implementation is gradual since cable systems must negotiate carriage terms and rates with each additional minority-language programming service they are now required to carry.  The CRTC continues to monitor adherence to the new regulations and the carriage negotiations.  The Government intends to provide an assessment of the results of the new policy once it has been completely implemented when it presents its follow-up to the Committee sometime next year.

 

The Government arrived at its conclusion based on the following analysis, which begins with some background information on cable distribution for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with cable distribution and regulation in Canada. 

 

Consideration and Analysis

 

Overview of the Distribution of Broadcasting Services in Canada

 

Broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) comprise cable systems, satellite direct-to-home (DTH) undertakings, and multipoint distribution systems (MDS). MDS is sometimes referred to as “wireless cable”, as these systems send programming signals to homes using microwave, rather than by fibre optic or coaxial cable. In total, there are 9.8 million subscribers to BDUs in Canada, most of whom (80%) subscribe to cable.

 

The two Canadian DTH undertakings are already required to make available to all of their subscribers all Canadian French-language and English-language specialty services. Combined, they have a total of 1.86 million subscribers, or 19% of all BDU subscribers, as at September 2002.

 

There are only 22 MDS undertakings in Canada, serving less than 65,000 subscribers (or about 1% of all BDU subscribers). Such undertakings have very limited carriage capacity compared to cable and DTH undertakings. As a result, the CRTC considers it would be unrealistic to expect such limited capacity systems to assume more onerous carriage requirements. It therefore proposes to deal with any concerns regarding the number of minority official-language specialty services that are distributed on an MDS undertaking at the time of licensing or licence renewal. In any case, MDS systems compete with local cable systems (as well as DTH) so if a subscriber is not pleased with the limited offerings available from an MDS system, he or she can subscribe to cable or to DTH.

 

Classification of Cable Systems

 

The CRTC categorizes cable systems into three classes based on system size, as defined by the number of subscribers a system serves. The largest cable systems are Class 1 systems and are those which serve more than 6,000 subscribers. Class 2 systems are those which serve between 2,000 and 6,000 subscribers, while Class 3 systems, the smallest, are those which serve fewer than 2,000 subscribers. Table 1 provides some basic data on Canadian cable systems as at September 1, 2002.

 

 

Table 1

Canadian Cable Systems, as at September 1, 2002

 

System Type	Number of Systems	% Share of All Cable Systems	Number of Basic Subscribers	% Share of All Cable Subscribers
Class 1	140	7.1%	6,814,379	86.72%
Class 2	104	5.2%	383,000	4.87%
Class 3	1,740	87.7%	660,292	8.40%
TOTAL	1,984	100.0%	7,857,671	100.0%

  Source: MediaStats Cable Database, September 2002. Percentages are rounded.

 

The table indicates that although the largest cable systems (Class 1) comprise only about 7% of all cable systems in Canada, they serve over 86% of all cable subscribers. Class 2 systems represent just 5% of all cable systems and serve less than 5% of all cable subscribers. There are more Class 3 systems than either of the others, and while Class 3 systems account for over 87% of all cable systems, the subscribers to those systems represent only a little more than 8% of all cable subscribers. 

 

Limitations - Cable Carriage of Specialty Services

 

Since DTH undertakings are already required to offer all Canadian French and English specialty services, and since MDS systems are a special circumstance, the objective of achieving an increased availability of minority-language services is necessarily limited to cable systems.

 

The francophone and anglophone market designations apply only to specialty services, and not to local signals. This is because all cable systems are required by the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to carry as part of their basic service: at least one CBC and one SRC signal; all local channels; and, regional channels which are not part of the same network as the local channels. In addition, Class 1 and Class 2 systems must also carry on their basic service, the educational channel for the province within which the system is located. Educational services from other provinces may also be carried, but on a discretionary basis and subject to whatever contractual arrangements are required.

 

Accordingly, the objective of achieving an increased availability of minority-language services refers only to increased availability of minority-language specialty services on cable.

 

CRTC Access Rules

 

The Broadcasting Distribution Regulations established by the CRTC set out access rules governing the carriage of Canadian pay and specialty services. These rules ensure that licensed Canadian pay and specialty television services obtain access to distribution systems to the extent of available channel capacity.

 

For the purpose of ensuring that French-language specialty services are provided cable carriage in French-speaking areas, the CRTC distinguishes between a francophone and an anglophone market. In paragraph 18(4)(a) of the regulations, the CRTC specifically defines a francophone market as one in which “50% of the total population of all cities, towns and municipalities encompassed in whole or in part within the licensed area of the [cable] licensee has French as its mother tongue, according to the most recent population figures published by Statistics Canada.” The regulations then determine that all other markets are anglophone markets. As the Standing Committee noted, the regulations do not recognize the concept of a bilingual market and as such, could not always adequately satisfy demand for minority-language programming services in either market.

 

Prior Efforts to Increase the Availability of Minoirty-Language Services

 

The CRTC has previously given consideration to adopting the concept of a “bilingual market”. In March 2000, the CRTC issued a proposed policy in Public Notice CRTC 2000-38 entitled Increasing the Availability of Minority-Language Specialty Services to Cable Subscribers across Canada–Call for Comments on a Proposed Policy. However, the CRTC did not define “bilingual market” as there was no clear consensus among comments received as to what that definition should be. 

 

Following the publication of its proposed policy, the Governor in Council, on April 5, 2000, issued Order in Council P.C. 2000‑511. The Order in Council requested the Commission, among other things “to seek comments from the public and to report on all French‑language broadcasting services provided in French linguistic minority communities in Canada with a view to . . . assessing the availability and the quality of French‑language broadcasting services in the French linguistic minority communities in Canada.” 

 

Because the March 2000 policy proposal concerning the availability of minority official language specialty services to cable subscribers was related to the issues raised by the Government's Order in Council, the CRTC decided to combine the two processes and initiated a broad consultative process on the two subjects.

 

The CRTC received more than one hundred submissions from individuals and associations representing Francophones and Francophiles of all ages, as well as from broadcasters and broadcasting distribution undertakings.

 

A number of interveners argued that the transition from analog to digital distribution is currently transforming the Canadian broadcasting system and opening up new prospects for Francophones in minority situations.  According to these interveners, digital technology offers the path that would allow universal access to specialty services in both of Canada's official languages.

 

In Public Notice CRTC 2001‑25 of February 12, 2001, entitled Achieving a Better Balance: Report on French-language Broadcasting Services in a Minority Environment, the CRTC published its report on the results of its consultations on the issues raised by the Governor in Council and on the proposed policy set out in Public Notice CRTC 2000‑38. During these deliberations, the CRTC was unable to elicit a consensus from interveners as to how a “bilingual market” should be defined and so the concept was not adopted in the policy. The CRTC adopted an alternative approach to the idea of a bilingual market in part because defining such a market continued to be elusive.

 

The Treasury Board’s Definition of “Significant Demand”

 

In its report, the Committee offered assistance in this regard by suggesting the CRTC could use the Treasury Board’s criteria in paragraph five of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations in defining “significant demand.” These criteria are somewhat complex and dependent upon various different conditions. However, the essential element of the Treasury Board’s definition is that significant demand exists where the linguistic minority comprises at least 5% of the population of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or a Census Subdivision (CSD).

 

The Government understands the reasoning behind the Committee’s suggestion. However, while the Treasury Board definition of “significant demand” has not previously been considered by the CRTC, the definition may not be the ideal tool to identify bilingual markets for the purposes of cable regulation.  After careful consideration of the suggestion, the Government is of the belief that the Treasury Board’s criteria do not easily translate themselves into a situation other than what they were developed for, which is the provision of government services to the public. In the Government’s opinion, it would be almost impossible to apply the Treasury Board’s criteria to the reality of the geographic licensed areas of most cable systems.

 

All the same, this does not make the Committee’s recommendation less valid or its objective impossible to achieve, although perhaps it does underscore the historical difficulty in finding the best tools available to increase access to minority-language services in markets where they have not traditionally been available. The CRTC itself, as evidenced in two prior public hearings on this issue, has recognized that more must be done to ensure the widest possible access to minority-language services.  The Government considers that the CRTC’s new policy on increasing the availability of specialty services in the minority official languages, a direct outcome of those two public hearings, may well be the most appropriate tool to achieve the Committee’s objective.

 

The CRTC’s Requirements to Increase the Availability of Minority-Language Specialty Services

 

The ability of cable distributors to expand the number of services they offer to subscribers had previously been constrained by the costs of upgrading the channel capacity of their analog‑based distribution systems. Now, however, most cable licensees have expanded or are expanding their available channel capacity through the introduction of digital distribution technology.

 

Rather than adopting a specific geographical linguistic approach and thereby limiting access to minority-language specialty services only in markets with “significant demand”, the CRTC has adopted a technological approach to improving access to minority-language services in all markets. The policy, which came into effect on September 1, 2002, is set out in Public Notice CRTC 2001-26 of February 12, 2001, A Policy to Increase the Availability to Cable Subscribers of Specialty Services in the Minority Official Languages.

 

Briefly, the CRTC’s policy requires all Class 1 and Class 2 cable distributors, i.e. those serving more than 2,000 subscribers, using high‑capacity digital technology to offer all Canadian English‑ and French‑language specialty services and at least one pay-television service.

 

All Class 1 and Class 2 cable distributors using lower‑capacity digital technology are required to offer at least one Canadian specialty service in the minority official language for every 10 programming services distributed in the majority official language.

 

The CRTC’s approach makes allowance for the limited carriage capacity size of Class 3 systems, i.e. systems serving less than 2,000 subscribers. The policy requires all Class 3 cable distributors using medium‑capacity or high‑capacity digital technology to distribute at least one Canadian specialty service in the minority official language for every 10 programming services distributed in the majority official language.

 

These requirements came into effect on September 1, 2001, through amendments of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.

 

Approximately 80% of all systems, and virtually all systems serving more than 2,000 subscribers, currently have digital capability.

 

Under the policy, approximately seven or eight minority official language specialty services at the very least would have to be distributed in most markets. Moreover, in most large cities, the policy ensures that all the services in both official languages are offered. Eventually, even small Class 3 systems serving smaller communities will adopt digital distribution technology such that these communities will one day soon have access to a wider availability of

minority-language services.

 

Benefits of the CRTC Policy

 

While the Government appreciates the assistance provided by the Committee in addressing this important issue, it believes that the CRTC’s policy has numerous benefits which make it a more advantageous tool to achieve the wider distribution of minority-language programming services.

 

The CRTC's policy ensures that a certain proportion of all cable licensees’ service offering in all markets consists of minority official language specialty services. The policy takes advantage of the implementation of digital distribution to ensure increased distribution of Canadian English‑ and French‑language specialty services. The Government believes that this technology, and the increased channel capacity it creates, presents the means to enhance the diversity of programming available to cable subscribers, including those interested in receiving programming in the minority official language.

 

The Government believes that the CRTC’s policy goes beyond and achieves more than bilingual designation. Rather than limiting regulatory requirements for carriage of minority-language services in specific and in a limited number of markets, the CRTC’s policy strives for the ultimate objective of making all Canadian specialty services in both official languages in all markets.

 

In addition, the CRTC’s instrument for the provision of minority-language services is an expanding one, in that eventually, when all cable systems become digital and expand their capacity, all French-and English-language specialty services will be offered in all markets across Canada.  In this regard, the policy goes beyond the Treasury Board criteria in satisfying the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

 

Finally, as noted in Public Notice CRTC 2001-25, the CRTC’s policy has wide-scale support from francophone associations as well as from the broadcasting and cable industries.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the preceding, the Government is of the view that while the Committee’s recommendation has merit, the existing instrument to achieve the wider distribution of minority-language specialty services already in place would

seem to not only achieve the Committee’s objectives, but surpass them. Some cable systems are still in the process of implementing the policy and the Government will provide the Committee with an assessment of the results of the policy when it provides its follow-up to this report to the Committee next year.

 

Broadcasting of Regional CBC/SRC Signals by Satellite Service Providers

 

Recommendation 2

 

The Committee urges the CRTC to require direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service providers to carry the signals of the regional television stations of the CBC/SRC.

 

Response

 

The Government agrees with the Committee that the DTH services should carry all CBC/SRC regional stations as this recommendation addresses one of the most common complaints voiced by direct-to-home television subscribers who are unable to receive the CBC/SRC regional service closest to them. (The term “regional television stations of the CBC/SRC” has been interpreted to mean CBC owned and operated (O&O) stations.) Like the Committee, the Government considers this to be an undesirable state of affairs and appreciates the Committee’s recommendation to correct this situation. While the Government will not rule out issuing a direction to the CRTC, it believes that the licence renewal process for the DTH services could address this situation in a satisfactory way and that the CRTC and the DTH services be given an opportunity to address the issue through the licensing process first.

 

The DTH services’ licences expire in February 2004.  As is its usual practice, the CRTC will hold a public hearing on the licensees’ renewal applications. The CRTC is well aware of the importance of having CBC signals available on DTH and recognizes that the DTH carriage of CBC regional stations is an issue that will need to be addressed at the renewal hearing. Prior to the hearing, the applications for renewal will be published for comments and interventions at which time the public and the rest of the industry will have the opportunity to scrutinize, consider and, if necessary, criticize what plans, if any, the DTH companies have for adding CBC/SRC O&O regional stations to their services. The hearing itself will allow the Commissioners to question the DTH licensees about their plans. Ultimately, the renewal decisions will determine whether DTH subscribers will have access to more CBC regional signals.

 

Because of the nature of competing interests in the issue surrounding the carriage of CBC regional stations by DTH undertakings, the Government expects that the CRTC will be particularly mindful in the DTH licence renewal hearings of paragraph 3(1)(n) of the Broadcasting Act that states that conflicts between the CBC and any other broadcasting undertaking shall be resolved in the public interest. After the licences have been renewed, the Government will assess the efforts taken by the CRTC, the CBC and the DTH services on this matter in its follow-up to the Committee.

 

 

Consideration and Analysis

 

CBC/SRC Television Stations Currently Carried by Direct-to-Home (DTH) Undertakings

 

The CBC owns and operates 18 television stations broadcasting in English and 8 television stations broadcasting in French. The CBC English television network also comprises 12 privately owned affiliates while the CBC French television network also includes five privately owned affiliates, all in Quebec.

 

The two companies licensed by the CRTC to provide DTH services in Canada are Star Choice, owned by Shaw Communications Inc.; and, Bell ExpressVu, owned by Bell Canada Enterprises Inc. Currently, CRTC regulations require each DTH operator to carry only one CBC English and one CBC French television station. However, because of market demand, they in fact carry more than one.

 

Star Choice currently carries seven CBC O&O English television stations and one privately affiliated CBC station. Bell ExpressVu currently carries seven CBC O&O English television stations and three privately affiliated CBC English stations.

 

As for the French television service, Star Choice currently carries two CBC O&O stations, but no privately owned CBC affiliated French television stations. Bell ExpressVu currently carries five CBC O&O French television stations and one French television private affiliate.

 

Table 2 illustrates which CBC English and French television stations are carried by each DTH service. The CBNT signal from St. John’s, Newfoundland provided by Bell ExpressVu is actually a hybrid signal, combining the eastern feed of the CBC North Service and local news inserts from the Charlottetown and Montréal CBC O&O stations. ExpressVu also recently added the western feed of the CBC North service. (Star Choice does not at this time carry the CBC North service.)

 

          Table 2

CBC English and French Television Stations Carried on DTH [Feb. 2003]

 

 

	Star Choice	Bell ExpressVu
ENGLISH TELEVISION	Halifax – CBHT	St. John’s – CBNT
Owned and Operated Stations	Montréal – CBMT	Halifax – CBHT
	Toronto – CBLT	Toronto – CBLT
	Regina – CBKT	Winnipeg – CBWT
	Calgary – CBRT	Calgary – CBRT
	Edmonton – CBXT	Vancouver – CBUT
	Vancouver – CBUT
	Peterborough – CHEX	Thunder Bay – CKPR
		Medicine Hat – CHAT
Private Affiliates		Prince George – CKPG
FRENCH TELEVISION
Owned and Operated Stations	Moncton – CBAFT	Moncton – CBAFT
	Montréal – CBFT	Québec – CBVT
		Montréal – CBFT
		Winnipeg – CBWFT
		Vancouver – CBUFT
Private Affiliates	– – –	Sherbrooke – CKSH

 

 

CBC O&O Stations Not Carried on DTH

 

In comments made to the CRTC in August 2000, the CBC noted that francophone audiences in minority communities were unable to access regional services because DTH undertakings were not required to carry CBC regional signals. The CBC believes that, subject to channel capacity, DTH undertakings should distribute the programming services of all CBC English- and French-language regional television stations to ensure that Canadians receive local and regionally relevant CBC programming wherever they live.

 

Table 3 illustrates the CBC and SRC O&O stations that are currently not carried by the DTH services.

 

As the table shows, Star Choice francophone subscribers living on the west Coast, in the Prairies and in Ontario do not have access to the provincial regional programming provided by Radio-Canada. In addition, the SRC signal from Québec City is not available to Star Choice subscribers. Francophone subscribers to Bell ExpressVu who live in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta are denied the opportunity to receive the SRC stations serving their provinces. The SRC stations in all these cities originate their own local and regional programming. 

 

Table 3

CBC English and French Television Stations NOT Carried on DTH [Feb. 2003]

 

	Star Choice	Bell ExpressVu
ENGLISH TELEVISION	St. John's  CBNT 8	Corner Brook CBYT 5
Owned and Operated Stations Not carried	Corner Brook CBYT 5	Charlottetown CBCT 13
	Charlottetown CBCT 13	Sydney CBIT 5
	Sydney CBIT 5	Fredericton CBAT 4
	Fredericton CBAT 4	Montréal CBMT 6
	London CBLN	London CBLN
	Ottawa CBOT 4	Ottawa CBOT 4
	Windsor CBET 9	Windsor CBET 9
	Winnipeg CBWT 6	Regina CBKT 9
	Saskatoon CBKST 11	Saskatoon CBKST 11
	CBC North –East	Edmonton CBXT 5
	CBC North – West
FRENCH TELEVISION
Owned and Operated Stations Not Carried	Québec CBVT 11	Ottawa CBOFT 9
	Ottawa CBOFT 9	Toronto – CBLFT
	Toronto – CBLFT	Regina CBKFT 13
	Winnipeg CBWFT 3	Edmonton CBXFT 11
	Regina CBKFT 13
	Edmonton CBXFT 11
	Vancouver CBUFT 26

 

 

 

As for English television, Star Choice carries the full service of the CBC’s Montréal signal, CBMT. Bell ExpressVu is listed in the table as not carrying the signal since it carries only local news inserts, not the full service.

 

However, as the table shows, there are many CBC English signals that are not available to DTH viewers. Star Choice does not distribute the stations from Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, St. John’s, Charlottetown, or Fredericton although they all offer regional programming; nor does it carry the CBC North service. For its part, Bell ExpressVu does not distribute the regional television stations from Charlottetown, Fredericton, Ottawa, Windsor, Regina or

Edmonton-although all offer regional programming-nor does it offer the full signals from Montréal or St. John’s.

 

DTH Carriage of Public vs Privately Owned Stations

 

Presently, Star Choice carries 17 network-owned private English-language stations of the CTV and Global networks, and five stations owned by CHUM limited. Bell ExpressVu carries 18 network-owned private English-language stations of the CTV and Global networks, and six stations owned by CHUM limited.

 

In French television, Star Choice carries the signals of seven affiliates belonging to the two French privately owned networks, TVA and TQS, while Bell ExpressVu carries the signals of eight affiliates belonging to these privately owned networks.

 

The CBC contends that at the very least, the DTH companies should be required to carry as many CBC O&O signals as network-owned private stations. The CBC believes that the two DTH services satellite are unlikely to include additional CBC O&O signals unless directed by the CRTC.

 

The Broadcasting Act

 

Subsection 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act establishes the broadcasting policy for Canada. It sets out numerous objectives for the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole, and in particular, for the CBC.

 

The CBC’s mandate is established in paragraphs 3(1)(l) and (m). Paragraph 3(1)(l) states that “the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains”.

 

Paragraph 3(1)(m) of the Broadcasting Act states, among other things that the programming provided by the Corporation should “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions”, and “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”.  

 

The Broadcasting Act recognizes that the broadcasting system comprises both public and private ownership, and so provides in paragraph 3(1)(n) that :

 

where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out in paragraphs (l) and (m) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in paragraphs (l) and (m);

 

In its licensing decisions and in its regulatory oversight of the broadcasting system, the CRTC must take into account the Act’s objectives, including the CBC’s mandate as established in paragraphs (l) and (m). Balancing the various objectives of the Act, especially when competing interests are at issue, can be a delicate process. However, the Act provides guidance to the CRTC in this balancing game through paragraph 3(1)(n) such that should any conflicts arise, it must resolve the conflicts in the public interest and in so doing, the CRTC must take into account in particular the CBC’s mandate.

 

Conclusion

 

The public hearing to renew the Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu broadcasting licences has yet to be scheduled. This public hearing will directly address the DTH carriage of CBC regional televison stations. The Government considers that action is being taken by the CRTC to address this issue as the Committee urged it to do. The Government will monitor the renewal process, but for the time being, will take no further action until the CRTC publishes its decisions on the renewal of the licences, including the programming that they will distribute. At that time, the Government will provide an assessment of the efforts taken by the CRTC, the CBC and the DTH services on this matter in its follow-up to the Committee.

 

The CRTC’s Obligations Under Part VII of the Official Languages Act

 

Recommendation 3

 

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada add the CRTC to the list of designated federal institutions in its accountability framework adopted in August 1994, in order to ensure the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

 

Response

 

The Government of Canada supports this recommendation in view of the important role the CRTC plays for official-language minority communities. As the Committee is of course aware, on March 12, 2003, the Government released a new accountability and coordination framework, setting out the manner in which the commitments contained in particular in Part VII of the Official Languages Act and the responsibilities of each federal institution in this regard are to be fulfilled. In this new policy statement, the Government of Canada renews its commitment to supporting Canada’s linguistic duality.

 

This makes the Committee’s recommendation particularly timely, and given that the CRTC is a public institution which is so important to Canada’s cultural development, particularly worthwhile.

 

The Government shares the Committee’s desire that the CRTC be designated as a key organization within this framework. It appreciates the Committee’s past efforts to make this happen and the Government is now prepared to implement the recommendation.

 

Consideration and Analysis

 

The suggestion that the CRTC be added to the list of designated federal agencies and institutions has been made several times since 1998. The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages in fact adopted a motion on May 12, 1998, put forward by co-chair Sheila Finestone, that the CRTC become a designated agency under section 41 of the Official Languages Act (OLA).

 

Under section 41 of the OLA, the federal Government is committed to fostering the vitality of anglophone and francophone minorities in Canada and promoting the full recognition of the use of English and French in Canadian society. Section 42 of the OLA makes the Minister of Canadian Heritage responsible for coordinating the implementation by federal institutions of the commitment to promote English and French. The accountability framework for the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the OLA applies to key federal institutions whose missions involve economic, cultural and human resources development.

 

On April 25, 2001, the Prime Minister gave the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion, the mandate “... to consider vigorous new measures to continue to foster the vitality of official-language minority communities and to ensure that Canada’s languages are more fully reflected in the culture of the federal public service.” [Translation]

 

Following extensive consultations, the Government released on March 12, 2003 a new accountability and coordination framework, setting out the manner in which the commitments contained in particular in Part VII of the OLA and the responsibilities of each federal institution in this regard are to be fulfilled.   In this new policy statement, the Government of Canada renews its commitment to supporting Canada’s linguistic duality.

 

Once designated, the CRTC will be required to prepare an annual or multi-year action plan. These plans normally provide a list of activities the agency intends to undertake to achieve the objectives set out in Section 41 of the OLA.  To this end, it must first consult official-language minorities to identify their needs. The CRTC will also be required to produce an annual review of its accomplishments.

 

The designation of the CRTC and the resulting new obligations will reassure Parliament and Canadians about the way in which the CRTC will address language-related issues in exercising its powers pursuant to the Broadcasting Act.

 

 

Conclusion

 

In the Government’s opinion, the CRTC has already made significant progress in communications with and consultation of minority communities. In May 2000, at the Government’s request pursuant to an Order in Council, the CRTC undertook a major public consultation on the status of French-language broadcasting services in francophone communities in Canada. The report tabled in February 2001 entitled Achieving a Better Balance is a major policy instrument and demonstrates the CRTC’s will to more fully reflect the reality of francophone minorities. The development of an action plan pursuant to Section 41 of the OLA will no doubt further these efforts.

 

Licence Renewal for the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) by the CRTC

 

Recommendation 4

 

The Committee recommends that the Governor in Council by order direct the CRTC to make it mandatory for all broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), without exception, to distribute to all their subscribers the video and audio signals of the debates of Parliament via CPAC in both official languages.

 

Response

 

CPAC is a valuable and significant component of the broadcasting system. Its coverage of the House of Commons provides, in the words of the CRTC, “a unique and vital service.” CPAC is available to 100% of DTH subscribers in both official languages, and the Government agrees that every effort should be made to make the service available in both official languages to 100% of all cable subscribers. The Committee’s recommendation advances this objective.

 

On one hand, the Government shares the Committee’s concern that a person may be forced to pay for CPAC, but still not be able to receive it in the language of his or her choice, and supports the Committee’s efforts to ensure this does not transpire. On the other hand, the Government is concerned about the financial impact the Committee’s recommendation could have on small cable systems. While the Government agrees that all cable systems should carry CPAC, it would be reluctant to issue an order to the CRTC if it meant financial hardship or ruin for some systems.

 

Accordingly, a direction will be issued to the CRTC to require Class 1 and Class 2 cable systems to distribute CPAC on two separate video channels, one for each official language.

 

Consideration and Analysis

 

The CRTC now requires all distribution undertakings (except the smallest Class 3 analog cable distributors that serve approximately 3% of all subscribers) to distribute CPAC as part of their basic service and in both official languages.  Whether the minority language service is distributed on a separate video channel and/or a secondary audio programming (SAP) channel depends on the size of the cable system and its use of digital technology. In most instances, cable companies distribute the video channel with the majority language audio channel, and provides the minority language service on the same channel using SAP.

 

However, the use of SAP has been criticized: it is not easy to use for subscribers and is only accessible with the latest models of television sets. Thus, it does not place both languages on an equal footing.

 

In Decision CRTC 2002-377 of November 19, 2002 which renewed CPAC’s licence, the CRTC authorized, starting March 1, 2003, the introduction of a monthly fee of $0.07 per subscriber to fund CPAC’s public affairs programming, to enable to maintain this part of its service, improve the programming, and provide more programs in the French language. Distributors might not pass all of this amount on to their subscribers, at least initially. As well, distributors will pay to CPAC another $0.03 monthly per subscriber to cover the costs in providing the televised proceedings of Parliament.

 

In spite of the measures taken by the CRTC aimed at reaching the goal of having the televised Parliamentary debates available to all broadcast distribution subscribers in the official language of their choice, Committee members understandably still have some concerns about the gaps that remain before this goal is reached.

 

For example, the CRTC “strongly encourages”, but does not require, small cable systems to distribute CPAC, meaning that some cable subscribers do not have access to CPAC in the language of their choice, if at all. Committee members are also concerned that there could be situations after March 1, 2003, when a subscriber might be paying $0.07 monthly to receive CPAC, but still not be able to receive it in his or her official language of choice.        

 

The problem of the non-availability of CPAC in both official languages on smaller systems will eventually be solved once all Class 3 systems have adopted digital distribution technology. However, as the Committee noted, during that transition to digital, there may be instances, albeit limited, where a subscriber will be paying for the CPAC service, but will be unable to receive it in the language of his or her choice. As well, there are still some Class 3 systems which are not carrying CPAC at all.

 

The Government recognizes that the Committee’s recommendation would provide a solution to these situations. However, the Government is concerned about the financial implications such a requirement would have on the smallest Class 3 systems who do not now carry CPAC. There are more than 1,000 such systems which combined, serve 253,000 subscribers, or 2.6% of all subscribers. These systems are among the smallest in the industry with an average of 219 subscribers, and many have less than 100 subscribers. Statistics Canada data (2001) indicate that the average annual subscription revenue for a Class 3 system not currently carrying CPAC is just $61,000. Moreover, the small Class 3 systems, because of their small size, their limited capacity of 24 or 36 channels, and the analog-only technology they employ, bear the brunt of the competition posed by DTH, which is able to offer a far greater number of channels than an analog cable system. The cost of adding CPAC in the two official languages for these small systems would be particularly onerous given their limited annual revenues.

 

Conclusion

 

A direction will be issued to the CRTC to require Class 1 and Class 2 cable systems to distribute CPAC on two separate video channels, one for each official language.

 

With regards to the distribution of CPAC by smaller, Class 3 systems, the Government will monitor the progress made in the distribution of CPAC.

 

CPAC Availability in Hotels

 

Recommendation 5

 

The Committee recommends that the CPAC signal distributed as part of the basic cable service be protected from displacement by closed circuit video programming, and that the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations be amended in this regard if necessary.

 

Response

 

The Government is pleased to report that this recommendation is in effect as a result of amendments made to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations which took effect in September 2002. However, the CRTC is following up on the amendments to ensure that hotels which provide their own in-house video programming service are aware of the amendments and that they are required to adhere to them. The Government will provide the Committee with an assessment of the compliance to the amendment in its follow-up to the Committee.

 

Consideration and Analysis

 

Many hotels now provide a closed circuit, in-house video programming service instead of regular cable service provided by the local cable company. The hotel video service does include, however, a number of television signals received from the local cable company together with the hotel’s own channels of pay-per-view movies, video games channels, and usually, at least one channel devoted to information about the city and the facilities of the hotel. Such internal video services usually replace some programming signals received from the local cable company to make room on the internal system for some of the hotels’ own video channels. In its report, the Standing Committee on Official Languages noted that the CPAC service was not available in either language in hotels (and motels) in which some Committee members have been guests.

 

Evidently, Committee members noticed that CPAC may have been one of the cable channels being dropped (or, “notched out”) in favour of an in-house hotel channel.

 

In-house hotel video services are considered to be broadcasting undertakings by the CRTC but are exempt from licensing and regulation by virtue of the CRTC’s Exemption Order Respecting Closed Circuit Video Programming Undertakings, provided they meet certain criteria. One of these criteria is that the undertaking does not operate “in a manner that prevents a hotel or motel guest...from receiving any programming service...when that service is provided to the owner or operator of a hotel as part of the basic service of a licensed cable distribution undertaking”. In other words, when a hotel displaces cable channels on its in-house video service with its own video channels, it cannot displace programming services which are carried on basic cable by the local cable company.

 

Since September 2002, almost all cable systems in Canada have been required to carry CPAC on their basic service in both official languages. (Until that time, not all systems did.) As a result, since September 2002, to comply with the terms of the Exemption Order, hotels are no longer able to replace CPAC on their in-house service with one of their own video services.

 

Conclusion

 

In essence, what the Committee recommends in its report concerning the availability of CPAC in hotels is already in effect. However, hotels may not be aware of the regulations change. The CRTC is in the process of contacting all licensees and exempt distribution systems to ensure that they notify their hotel and motel customers of the changes to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations which took effect September 1, 2002, and the requirement that they must now distribute CPAC in both official languages on their in-house, closed circuit video programming systems. The Government will be pleased to provide the Committee with an up-to-date assessment of CPAC’s availability in hotels when it provides its follow-up to the Committee.