LANG Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

1620

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

Ms. Andrée Wylie (Vice-Chairperson, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)

1625

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1630

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Réjean Myre (Director, Broadcasting Policy, French-Language Radio and Television, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Réjean Myre

1635

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Réjean Myre

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1640

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

1645

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

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

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Réjean Myre

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Andrée Wylie

1650

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

1655

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

1700

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

1705

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Claude Doucet

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

1710

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Doucet

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Myre

1715

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Réjean Myre

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1720

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Réjean Myre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Réjean Myre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Réjean Myre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Andrée Wylie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Claude Doucet

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1725

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

1730

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

Ms. Andrée Wylie

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 003

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1620)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): We need a quorum of four, and I hope that others will be joining us. Since we are running a little late, I would like to get the meeting underway now.

I would ask you, Ms. Wylie, to proceed with your presentation and to introduce your colleagues.

First of all, I would like to thank you for accommodating our schedule. Our committee was established just two or three days ago, and we are trying to get going on some of our work.

I see that two other colleagues are joining us. So we will be able to operate properly.

I would like to thank the CRTC, and particularly Ms. Wylie. I know that it has been difficult, as it will be next week as well. Mr. Easter has confirmed for 4:30 p.m. next Monday, but we will discuss that at the end of the meeting.

You have the floor, Ms. Wylie. After your presentation, we will move to questions and answers.

Ms. Andrée Wylie (Vice-Chairperson, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Deputy Chair and committee members.

My name is Andrée Wylie and I am the Vice-Chairperson, Broadcasting, at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. With me today are Mr. Claude Doucet, who is the Director, Distribution and Competitive Policy at the CRTC and Mr. Réjean Myre, the Director, French-language Radio and Television, Broadcasting Policy. They will help me out with the questions.

[English]

We thank you, of course, for your invitation, and we're pleased to be the first witnesses called to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[Translation]

On November 19, 2002, hardly a week ago, the CRTC issued decision number 2002-377 on the public affairs channel, CPAC. It stated that it would renew CPAC's licence for seven years. This afternoon, I will give you a brief overview of the main points of the decision. You will find them described in the text that we distributed at the beginning of the meeting. The three of us will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[English]

The CRTC considers that CPAC provides an important window on Canadian civic life and contributes to the fulfillment of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. Therefore, with the exception of the smallest analogue cable distributors, Canadian broadcast distributors will have to distribute CPAC in both official languages throughout Canada, meaning that direct-to-home distributors, that is, satellite distributors, or DTH, as they're often referred to, are required to distribute CPAC in both official languages. All distributors with more than 2,000 subscribers are required to make available a second audio feed of CPAC in the official language of the minority in their market, using second audio programming technology, which is usually referred to as SAP technology,

[Translation]

and which is called in French SPA, or seconde piste audio.

[English]

All distributors with more than 2,000 subscribers who use digital technology with a capacity of 750 megahertz or more are also required to make available a separate video channel of CPAC in the official language of the minority in their market on either a digital or an analogue basis.

All smaller distributors, with less than 2,000 subscribers, using digital technology, that is, with 550 megahertz or more, are required to provide CPAC in both official languages. These undertakings are granted, however, flexibility with respect to the technical means, either analogue or digital, by which they distribute CPAC in both official languages.

Any smaller distributor, with less than 2,000 subscribers, whose system is fully interconnected must distribute CPAC with the same distribution status in both official languages as a system to which they're interconnected. That is, when there's a major add-in and a smaller add-in, they have to do what the major add-in does, no matter how small their system is or how few subscribers they have, unless they can show to the commission that they don't have the channel capacity to do so, despite the interconnection. So it's an attempt to make sure that the small systems that are interconnected and often owned by the large systems follow the same requirement.

CPAC has a commitment, which is an advantage in the decision, to assist smaller distributors with the purchase of the technical equipment that allows one to distribute a second audio, or SAP, channel to subscribers. CPAC is also committed to developing and funding a marketing campaign to increase the awareness of subscribers of the CPAC programming possibility. The CRTC has expected in the decision a progress report on this matter of helping small distributors to purchase the equipment by December 31, 2003.

These distribution requirements, it's important to note, mirror exactly the requirements for the House of Commons service that was described in the 2001-115 public notice and was implemented through amendments to the distribution regulations. So the decision we issued last week mirrors what we decided before with regard to the two official languages and the carriage of CPAC, and the House of Commons as well, with the added advantage that we now have CPAC with some funding, having committed ourselves to helping the extension of the equipment used for SAP.

[Translation]

Let us now look at programming issues, and particularly the conditions imposed by the Commission to ensure that CPAC's programming reflects Canada's linguistic duality.

Consistent with CPAC's new status as a service that will be paid for in large measure by subscribers, and that has rights to mandatory distribution by distributors, the Commission considers as vital CPAC's commitments and objectives regarding the provision of service to francophones.

As a result, the Commission has set certain licence conditions, which is the most effective power we have. We have said that beginning on September 1, 2003, CPAC must include a minimum of 20% of events that must originate in the French language, provide simultaneous interpretation for 100% of its licensed programming, and produce and broadcast not less than 25% of its in-depth public affairs programming in French in the course of the broadcast year.

The Commission further expects the licensee to adhere to its commitment to ensure that a minimum of 25% of the amount it spends on licence fees for documentary programming is spent on licence fees for documentaries produced in the French language.

º (1625)

[English]

There are, of course, other programming elements relating to the nature of the CPAC service. No less than 70% of CPAC's programming each broadcast week is to consist of long-form programming, that is, coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons or coverage of committees of the House of Commons or of the Senate of Canada. Long-form programming is to be programming that provides extended coverage of public speeches, political conventions, conferences, commissions of inquiry, public hearings, proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Federal Court of Canada, proceedings of legislatures other than those of the Parliament of Canada, press conferences, public ceremonies, federal and provincial general elections, and other similar public events of regional or national importance.

[Translation]

In English this is what we term the wrap-around programming.

[English]

Also, the service is to reflect all the regions of the country. CPAC is to broadcast events from every province and territory of Canada, and a minimum 90% of CPAC's day and evening programming is to continue to be Canadian, as it was before.

A change, of course, is to ensure that the services are maintained and that the programming is improved, especially with regard to serving both official linguistic groups. CPAC will receive 10¢ per month per subscriber for the distribution of the licensed and exempt services, that is, the wrap-around service and the parliamentary service together in both French and English. This amount will increase to 11¢ in the third year. Of these amounts subscribers will be required to pay 7¢ for the first two years and 8¢ starting the third year, and the distributors will pay the difference of 3¢ to fund CPAC's coverage of the proceedings of Parliament out of their own revenues. Until now there was no fee levied.

[Translation]

That completes my presentation this afternoon. We would be pleased to answer any question you may have about CPAC.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Official Languages Committee. Last week, I made a slip and referred to the joint committee.

With your permission, and that of the chair, before asking my questions, I would like to tell the committee about another victory of ours. I believe you have all received from our clerk a letter from Air Canada which says that there will be a stamped, pre-addressed form that would include a part on language matters. That was a recommendation made by our committee, one I am proud to have supported. I do not know whether the clerk has a copy of the original form, because the photocopy is not that clear.

The Chair: We will have it when Air Canada appears before us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm very pleased about another achievement of this committee. For those who wonder how useful committees are, I would say we helped find a solution to the problem involving the broadcast of the hockey game on Radio-Canada. There is now the Air Canada victory, and we are going to keep it up. There is also the issue of fines.

I come now to my question, Ms. Wylie. I would like you to tell me whether I have understood the document and your presentation correctly. We met with the CRTC previously, and we made certain recommendations in May 2001. Among other things, the committee recommended that the CRTC require the cable companies to broadcast the debates of Parliament in both official languages. If I understood you correctly, in the new contract or the new agreement, this recommendation has been followed as well.

º (1630)

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, it was followed beginning last year, because the CPAC decision reflects that fact. Of course, some accommodation was made for the very small cable companies, for whom this is more complicated. The staff can tell you the approximate percentage of people who will have at least two tracks.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're referring to people who will get the English and the French using the SAP system on their television set?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: That is correct. In the case of the large companies that use digital technology, there will be not only two audio tracks, but also two video tracks.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is CPAC now available west of Manitoba? The woman from the CRTC who came to meet with us in May told us there was a problem west of Manitoba with the signals in the case of cable companies broadcasting by satellite. She told us that within a year, it would be possible to ensure that all cable companies located west of Manitoba could make the service available in both official languages. Has that been done as well?

Mr. Claude Doucet (Director, Distribution and Competitive Policy, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): As far as we know, that is the case, because the decision now states that cable companies must broadcast in French and in English. So they must comply with this regulation.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Throughout Canada?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Throughout Canada. This regulation has been in place since September 1 of this year.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is wonderful.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: The decision had been made, but, naturally, it takes some time to implement an official regulation. It has been in effect since September 1.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I was referring to Colette Watson.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, the president of CPAC.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How will this agreement prevent situations such as the Quigley case? Do you think that with such a comprehensive, strict agreement, now that you have met the committee's recommendations and you will be ensuring that this service is available in both official languages throughout the country, with the exception of very small cable companies, we will be able to avoid cases such as the Quigley case in the future?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: In my opinion, Mr. Quigley should now be sure, thanks to the regulation, to have access to at least the sound track in both languages. Unless, of course, he lives in an area with a very small cable system, that does not have the technology required to do this. He should be satisfied.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am not asking you to give me the exact percentage to the last decimal point, but could you tell us whether a very small percentage would be approximately 5 per cent? Of course we cannot get 100 per cent coverage, that is entirely rational and logical. But what would the small percentage be, roughly? Three per cent? Five per cent?

Mr. Claude Doucet: It would be about 5 per cent.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Right, great.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: And this could even improve, of course, with CPAC's project to help small cable companies get the equipment they need to offer the second track.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to make one final comment. You will tell me that this is part of the negotiations. One of the committee's recommendations was that the agreement not exceed five years, and yet this agreement is for seven years. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Réjean Myre (Director, Broadcasting Policy, French-Language Radio and Television, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): We must distinguish between the Commission's decision to renew CPAC's broadcasting licence, and the agreement CPAC has with the House of Commons or the agreement CPAC will have with the Senate.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are right, it is an agreement with CPAC. I am asking my question of the CRTC.

Mr. Réjean Myre: At the CRTC, the term of a broadcasting licence is seven years.

º (1635)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are right, I made a mistake. Thank you.

The Chair: In fact, I believe the term is the same for all three...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: That is the maximum length of time allowed under the act. We do not always grant a licence for seven years, for various reasons, but that is the maximum term allowed under the act. After that, a renewal is required.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two brief questions.

When I started sitting on this committee, we had the honour of having senators with us. We no longer have them. As far as broadcasting goes, do you have a preference for the proceedings of the House or the Senate? Who will be making the decisions?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: You are asking whether we have a preference?

Mr. Gérard Binet: Yes, do you have a preference? And how will the decisions be made about the proceedings?

The Chair: You are not required to answer this question, Ms. Wylie.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I have no preference. I like all of you!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gérard Binet: Yes, but how will these decisions be made?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Mr. Myre would like to add something. He likes you a lot as well.

Mr. Réjean Myre: I am sure that you appreciate that it is not up to the commission to decide what will be broadcast at what time. I believe there are some agreements in place. The agreements between the House of Commons and CPAC already exist. Now, other wrap-around programming will be added, since there is now the option to broadcast the Senate proceedings. I therefore think that it is not up to the commission to make these decisions. We said that under the terms of CPAC's licence renewal, there should be coverage of the Senate proceedings. However, it is certainly not up to the commission to decide what will be broadcast when, because there are also broadcasting and other issues involved.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Our decision explicitly recognized the bicameral nature of Parliament, and we also mentioned the fact that CPAC itself and the people from the Senate who came to us agree that the House should have priority. We will let you work it out among yourselves as to how to determine the number of hours and so on. It is not unusual for us not to be involved in these micromanagement issues, particularly in the case of Parliament Hill.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Fine. I would like to ask another question. I represent one of the regions of Quebec, and I received a letter from one of the many municipalities in my region. It is a beautiful region, but quite mountainous. In the letter, I was asked whether Radio-Canada could boost its signal. Is that something you can answer?

The Chair: You should ask that question when we have the Radio-Canada representatives before us.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Is it possible to increase or boost a signal?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Yes, the strength of the signal may be increased, but within certain parameters set by Industry Canada. As far as we are concerned, we approve based on Industry Canada's authorizations.

Mr. Gérard Binet: So I should ask the question of Industry Canada?

Mr. Claude Doucet: You could start with Radio-Canada, because those people may know better why they could or could not increase the strength of the signal in these circumstances.

Mr. Gérard Binet: That is all I have.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome the representatives from the CRTC. I would like to have some clarification, because there are some things I do not understand.

You said that the CRTC's decision on the licence renewal required distribution in both languages. Then you spoke about the audio track. I am confused, because I see an image, and the rest is the interpretation, depending on which language is being spoken in the House or the Senate. I would like a clear explanation of the act and the regulation. At what point does the regulation come into effect, and what is different from what we had before?

º (1640)

Mr. Claude Doucet: Perhaps an example might be helpful.

In an English-language market, beginning on September 1, 2002, on their basic service, which is available to all subscribers, cable companies must offer the audio and video signal to all their subscribers. So, in that market, the people would be receiving the English audio track. That is, comments made in French would be interpreted into English.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Please explain what you mean by that: what is in English will be translated into French.

Mr. Claude Doucet: Let us step back a little. The House of Commons provides CPAC with three audio tracks.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The floor, the French and the English.

Mr. Claude Doucet: That is correct. So in an English-language market, a subscriber would have the English track first.

At the same, subscribers in this market would have, on the second audio track...

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is what I do not understand.

Mr. Claude Doucet: This technology is available on most television sets and VCRs. It allows viewers to choose a second audio channel.

Mr. Yvon Godin: So if you do not have the right television set, you are out of luck.

Mr. Claude Doucet: If people do not have the right television set, they can get access to this track using a VCR, or they can purchase a decoder just to have access to the signal.

I agree that some things have to be done in order to receive this.

Mr. Yvon Godin: And it's the cable subscribers, not the cable companies, who have to do these things.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: But it may be as simple as choosing track 2 on your remote.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There have been arguments about that, and I remember just how easy it was. I have been trying to do this for two and a half years, and I still have not managed. And my television is quite new. I will invite you over to give me a hand.

Does it apply to cable companies with 2,000 or more subscribers?

Mr. Claude Doucet: That is correct.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm wondering whether there will be two CPACs, and whether people...

Mr. Claude Doucet: I will continue with my example. I agree with you that this may seem very complicated, simply because there are many conditions and a number of factors on which this depends. So, in the case of analog service, subscribers have the video feed and the audio in their own language, that is the language of the market, and if they have the second audio channel, they can get the audio track in the other language. Now, if there is digital service and it meets certain criteria, we tell the cable companies that they must also offer a second video and audio channel in the minority language. In order to get it, people must have access to the cable company's digital service.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: In that case, subscribers would not have to go to another audio track, they would, rather, go to a different channel.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let me give you an example. There are 13,500 people in Bathurst, and the big cable company is Rogers. It can be included among the large companies. We get CPAC. When I ask a question in the House in French, people hear me in French on television, but they get the answer in English. I have never seen people so mixed up: either they do not understand the question or else they do not understand the answer. I'm talking about unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones.

Mr. Claude Doucet: Beginning September 1^st, 2002...

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is now November.

Mr. Claude Doucet: If they are still doing that...

Mr. Yvon Godin: They are.

Mr. Claude Doucet: ...we will investigate.

Mr. Yvon Godin: All right, I will file a complaint right away.

Mr. Claude Doucet: We have taken note of that. Beginning on September 1^st, 2002, the proceedings were supposed to be broadcast in either French or English, depending on the market. In the case of Bathurst...

Mr. Yvon Godin: In that case, since we have digital service, should the two not be available?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Yes, but on the analog service, one line would be available, and the other would be available on the second audio feed.

º (1645)

Mr. Yvon Godin: I think we have the digital service in my region. If that is the case, the two channels should be available.

Mr. Claude Doucet: That would be true if they had a capacity of at least 750 MHz. I do not think there is a 750 MHz system in Bathurst. Consequently, the company may simply have to distribute the analog service in Bathurst, that is an audio feed in the language of the minority and another feed in the other language.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That may mean that in fact the problem Mr. Justice O'Keefe had has not been dealt with. In his case, would your decision deal with the problem?

Mr. Claude Doucet: If the company complies with our regulation, yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Otherwise, we will be taking this to court again.

Mr. Claude Doucet: No, because it would be a case of non-compliance with a regulation.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: If the company complies with the regulation and if Mr. Quigley selects the second audio track, the picture will stay the same and the audio track will be in the other language.

The Chair: You may come back on the second round, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to apologize to our witnesses for missing their presentation. I am going to be referring to the Quigley case again, because it concerns me a great deal. We are clear about this: what Mr. Quigley gets at home is what we call the third track, the floor.

In the newspapers this week, there was reference to the new agreement with CPAC. The report said—and I hope I read this wrong or I hope sincerely that the newspapers made a mistake—that because of the new agreement, people might possibly be getting the third track in more and more places. Please reassure me about this.

Mr. Claude Doucet: That is not at all the import of our decision. What our decision says is that the service must be available in English where English is the majority language and in French where French is the majority language, and that the second audio track must provide service in the minority language. So, our decision does not refer to the floor feed. That is not what we are advocating, that is not what we recommended, and that is not what is in our regulation.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Good, because otherwise, we could have Quigley cases throughout the country. That is why I reacted the way I did, when I read that.

Mr. Réjean Myre: If I might, I would like to come back to the example I was mentioning earlier. In the Quigley case, the decision was based on the reality of broadcasting the House of Commons debates. This reality was dealt with in last year's decision, which was implemented by the change to the regulation in September of this year. The commission's decision on CPAC on November 19 has to do with non-House of Commons proceedings, or wrap-around programming, and does not affect the substance of your remarks.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: We are told that in future cable subscribers will have to pay 11¢ a month more. In the past, cable subscribers did not pay for this service, as far as I know. What happened? I imagine the CRTC looked at the books and did some financial analyses. Why did you decide to allow them to stop offering this service free of charge?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Until now, the funds came from the cable companies. We held a public hearing at which we spent more than a day studying the problems related to this approach, and the advantages that would result from a new method of funding: namely, the opportunity to improve the wrap-around programming and to offer broader programming in both languages. So the system will be improved in the area of public affairs programming, at times when the proceedings of the House or the Senate are not being broadcast.

º (1650)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So this charge is not for the service provided in the past, but rather for the new service.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, they will be offering an improved service. They also presented evidence and arguments, which we reviewed carefully, which showed that it was impossible to continue to finance this service out of their own revenues. We followed our customary practice and reviewed very closely the amounts that would be spent on various programming and various other things, such as service for the hearing-impaired, and so on. We decided that in light of the conditions we were imposing, we could allow them to collect this amount.

However, according to the financial forecast we saw, another 3¢ will be paid by the cable company. CPAC will get 10¢ or 11¢, but 3¢ will be paid by the cable companies. So cable subscribers will pay only 7¢ or 8¢.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

Mr. Jaffer.

[English]

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

I'd like to follow up on that question by Madame Thibeault on the fee structures. I notice that there have been some changes, and you were just talking about it, as to how the different costs are going to be passed on to some extent, obviously to subscribers as well as the service providers. As parliamentarians, we are trying as often as possible to engage Canadians to take an interest in what we do up here. One of the changes made here is that now CPAC will be distributed in both official languages as a mandatory service throughout Canada, which is a good thing. I would like some explanation or expansion on the fact that this fee structure is going to be passed down. Is it mandatory? Could people opt out? For instance, if Canadians say, I'm happy to be able to get CPAC, but I don't want to pay more than I already do in taxes, could they opt out of getting it in their cable packages? One of the fears I have is that if Canadians see they're going to have to pay more, they won't want to get this service in the end anyway. Maybe you can just explain that.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: The answer is no, because the service has to be offered in what we call the base service, which is all the channels one gets when one signs up for distribution. So there would be no opting out.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: So far, with the changes you've made, have you received any complaints overall? What sort of response has there been from subscribers or some of the cable companies? It would be interesting to know. Are most Canadians you are aware of willing to foot that extra money for the new costs, or do they feel we should be reallocating our budgets to make up that fee here within Parliament, not going back to the consumer?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: This proposal was put forward, of course, by the distributors, by the cable companies themselves, so there would be no complaint on their side. They were all willing to continue offering the service, but no longer willing to underwrite it completely themselves. It's a little early to know whether we'll hear from subscribers. It's difficult to say whether we will or not.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I guess that's the only fear. Once they get their bill, we hope they won't be up in arms and upset.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: There may be some situations where that fee won't be visible to the subscriber. The cable operator may decide not to raise the basic subscriber fee.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Are you aware of what levels of increase in revenues it will bring in?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Do you mean to the cable operators?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I couldn't respond immediately. One would have to multiply by the number of subscribers. One doesn't know how the cable operators will handle it, but projections and so on were certainly on the record during the hearing.

I don't know if my colleagues have anything to add.

º (1655)

Mr. Claude Doucet: That amount, 11 cents, when we authorize it, is to go to the programming service, so it is 7 cents to the customer, but the 11 cents comes from the distributor to the programming service, in this case CPAC.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: What I am curious about is whether, with the number of subscribers that will be out there, you have figured out how much that revenue is likely to be.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: If we had the record, we would have very precise calculations on how much money would go to what service, closed captioning, Francophone production, etc. It would have all been detailed to justify the amount.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: That's available, I guess, through the CRTC.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: That would be on the transcript. How many of the details are there in the decision I don't know, but in the application and the transcript of the hearing that information would be available.

Mr. Claude Doucet: To give you a rough idea, if memory serves, it was between $5 million and $7 million, or perhaps $10 million. It was somewhere in that range.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

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

I'd like to come back to the question of the signal. Who decides on the designation of the market language?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It's based on Statistics Canada data. The municipalities receiving the service are considered to be francophone or anglophone markets when 50% of the subscribers are French speaking or English speaking according to Statistics Canada. The term is defined in the regulations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Who makes these regulations?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We do.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You have put language minorities in a very bad situation.

How is the Ottawa market designated?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Ottawa is an anglophone market.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you. And how is Gatineau designated?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It's a francophone market.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So Gatineau anglophones are very poorly served in the National Capital Region because of your damn regulations and the same is true for francophones in the Ottawa area. I find it absurd. I think it's terrible that you have made a regulation with such a negative impact on the minorities in the National Capital Region. You should be ashamed! I don't want to speak to you anymore.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, there may be a question that can be added on to your comment. Has the CRTC given any consideration to possible bilingual regions?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Have we considered it? I suppose so, but I can't give you an answer.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If you have considered it, you should be doubly ashamed.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, please. Our witnesses must be shown some respect.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about the languages that are to be respected here. Anglophones in Gatineau are badly treated by the CRTC. I am blaming you. Francophones in Ottawa are badly treated by you. I am blaming you because of this regulation you made.

The Chair: It has been noted. Thank you.

Since no one else has indicated an intention to speak on the first round, I'll take the liberty, if I may, of asking some questions myself.

I personally would like to commend you on some of your decisions, particularly the one requiring CPAC to produce a minimum of 25% of its production in French, with 25% of its product acquisitions being in French. Personally I would have preferred a 50-50 split, which we may well achieve one day, but I think it is encouraging and I wish to point it out.

I do however have some questions. How many cable operators are there in Canada broadcasting in 750 MHz digital? And how many subscribers do they serve?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, I think it's easier like that, because there are many cable operators with very small systems.

» (1700)

Mr. Claude Doucet: At the present time, approximately 1.7 million subscribers are being served by 750 MHz systems.

The Chair: So there are only 1.7 million Canadians...

Mr. Claude Doucet: No, I'm referring to subscribers, not Canadians...

The Chair: It's 1.7 million households out of a total of how many?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Out of a potential of 10 million households.

The Chair: So 17% of the households are sure of having access to the proceedings of Parliament on CPAC on a video channel and with an English soundtrack, and a video channel and a French soundtrack, is that so? There would only be 17% of households that can be sure...

Mr. Claude Doucet: May I make a correction? I was skimming through the figures. We were talking about cable operators. We should also include satellite services that now serve approximately 1.8 million subscribers. So they would be added to the 1.7 million...

The Chair: That would be added to the potential 10 million subscribers.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It adds up to 3 million out of 10 million.

Mr. Claude Doucet: Out of 10 million. I was getting my figures mixed up.

The Chair: So we are talking about 30 per cent. Of course, the satellite service is new but still it only amounts to 30% of the households who can be sure of receiving the two languages, is that correct?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes.

The Chair: How many cable operators have fewer than 2,000 subscribers and how many total subscribers would that be?

Mr. Claude Doucet: It would be less than 5 per cent of the total subscribers.

The Chair: These people definitely do not have access.

Mr. Claude Doucet: No. Our regulation does not require these operators to provide this service but that does not necessarily mean that the operator does not provide it.

The Chair: But everyone pays for it. Every household has to pay the 3¢, if I understand correctly.

Mr. Claude Doucet: No, only those who have access.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Only those who receive the service.

The Chair: Who receive what?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Who receive CPAC.

The Chair: In one language, in two languages or in three languages.

Mr. Claude Doucet: That's correct.

The Chair: So there are Canadian households who are paying for a service that they do not receive. Is that so?

Mr. Claude Doucet: No, because they will receive the service.

The Chair: In their language?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Well, the second audio channel is always there.

The Chair: But not in the case of operators with fewer than 2,000 subscribers.

Mr. Claude Doucet: Not in the case of operators with fewer than 2,000 subscribers, but they account for less than 5% of the subscribers.

The Chair: Yes, but I'd like to make some observations. There are Canadian households who will be paying for a service that they are unable to obtain in their language, is that not so?

Mr. Claude Doucet: Yes.

The Chair: I see. Your text says the following:

All smaller distributors (less than 2,000 subscribers) using digital technology (with 500 MHz or more capacity) are required to provide CPAC, in both official languages.

That is what you say. I imagine that this refers only to the audio feed.

Mr. Claude Doucet: It's up to them. They are given the possibility of providing two audio feeds or two video feeds with the corresponding audio ones.

The Chair: Does that amount to 50% of households? No, it's more. If there are 30% in the first group, then it must add up to 65% of households.

Mr. Claude Doucet: No, this exception applies only to small cable distributors, those serving 5% of households, as we said previously.

The Chair: No, no.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes. If they have fewer than 2,000 subscribers, but 550 MHz, they have the same obligations as the large ones. So your 5% would in fact be smaller.

The Chair: I see. That was something that escaped me. Thank you.

At home I subscribe to Rogers and I had no choice but to take digital. If I go up higher, to the 500s, 600s or 700s, there is a whole slew of audio music channels. There are all these channels that are not being used at all.

What explains Rogers' choice not to broadcast three video channels and three audio feeds? I admit that when I am in my office and I listen to the proceedings of the House, I listen to the floor. What prevents Rogers from doing that? Is there something in the CRTC that prevents my cable distributor in Ottawa, Rogers, from providing that? I'd like to know whether it is Rogers' decision alone or whether the CRTC...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: There is nothing that prevents cable distributors from doing this but under the regulatory system that we've explained to you, there is no obligation for them to provide three audio feeds. But it is not prohibited.

The Chair: How much more would it cost Rogers to broadcast three audio feeds rather than two?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I don't think it's a question of cost but a question of the megahertz space that is being used for each channel.

The Chair: But they are already up to 600 and there are so many that aren't being used. Why don't they do it? Have you given any thought to this?

Mr. Claude Doucet: As Ms. Wylie noted, it's a question of capacity. Of course Rogers is in the best position to give you an answer but the cost is in terms of utilization: Rogers uses this particular capacity but can it be put to more lucrative use? So it comes down to a business decision. You're talking about channels that don't seem to be occupied but that does not necessarily mean that they have the capacity to add more channels. It may be that the system itself is unable to offer more.

The Chair: Will this amount to a difference in return? If a 750 MHz distributor is required to provide two audio feeds and two video feeds, will it cost 11¢ or two times 11¢?

» (1705)

Ms. Andrée Wylie: No, just one charge.

The Chair: So it is 11¢.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It is one times 7¢ and one times 8¢.

The Chair: I understand that but there is the 3¢...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Rogers pays the 3¢.

The Chair: That is something new. How much money will this 3¢ amount to? How much money will CPAC be receiving from now on for the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings? How many subscribers are there? Ten million?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We do know the answer but we don't have the figures in front of us.

The Chair: There are 10 million households. Does that mean we can calculate it by multiplying this number by 3¢ a month?

Mr. Claude Doucet: It wouldn't be as many as 10 million because the 10 million figure does not include everyone, there are the small cable distributors.

The Chair: The CRTC must have done these calculations.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes.

The Chair: Do you have any idea of what the total amount they receive will be?

Mr. Claude Doucet: I previously said that the 7¢ or 8¢ for CPAC amounted to between $5 million and $10 million a year—I don't remember the precise figure—but it would be a bit less than half of that.

The Chair: So that would mean between $2.5 million and $4 million a year allocated to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, is that correct? How does this compare with the system when Radio-Canada and the CBC were the providers? Do you know?

And I take it that we are still unable to guarantee that all Canadians will have the service in the language of their choice.

Is it technically possible for the CRTC to require that all Canadian households with cable, whatever form it takes, are entitled to receive CPAC with access to both English and French audio and feed. Is it technically possible?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau, on the second round, you have five minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Obviously the next question should be: why is that not the case?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Of course we regulate in an attempt to establish, as best we can, a balance between public interest, the needs of the subscribers and what they are used to.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me for interrupting you but to which of these two considerations do you give greater weight, balance or the application of the act?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We must make decisions that are often influenced by the infrastructure capacity of cable distributors, etc.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When Ms. Watson from CPAC appeared—I am not an expert in the field—it was said:

Since SCES technology is not available on all head-ends of cable distribution systems, particularly west of Manitoba, CPAC has made an undertaking at the meeting to offer SCES technology to a greater number of cable distributors.

We were told that a year from now everyone was going to increase from 300 cable head-ends to 600 head-ends and it would be available to everyone. You were just asked whether, technically speaking, it was available to everyone...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: My colleagues may have something to add but I believe that such service is received from a satellite to a distributor's cable head-end and from this point on it is a matter of distributing it according to the infrastructure and the infrastructure capacity of the given cable distributor. So there is a difference between making it accessible to head-ends and the distributor's capacity to distribute it to households.

» (1710)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see.

Previously, when I asked whether it was possible that similar situations to that of Mr. Quigley existed, you answered no, because everyone was going to make it available but in your answer to Mr. Bélanger, it would appear that...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We still have a small number of cable distributors providing service to probably less than 5% of the population now because some of them, in rural regions, receive or choose to receive service by satellite. In that case, they would have both services because it would be digital. Yes, it must be acknowledged that it is possible but as I mentioned previously we stressed the fact that CPAC would be reporting to us on its efforts in order to help...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So it's a work in progress.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: ...“undermine” these services so that we eventually reach 100 per cent.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I have some time left, I would like to go back to the point raised by Mr. Bellemare. People in Ottawa and Gatineau receive at the outset, in English and in French, the signal of the debates of the House of Commons but if their television is less than 10 or 12 years old, they can listen in both official languages. If I understand correctly, they receive the signal in English and push down the button, they leave the button alone and from that point on the audio will be in French. Is that correct?

A voice: [Editor's note: inaudible]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Well, my friend tells me this is not the case. Who is right?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Come to Hull with me. I have a problem with my television and it is not 10 years old.

The Chair: We should ask for permission to go to Bathurst to have a look at it.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to reassure M. Bellemare. You are telling me that the signal is available in French and in English in Ottawa and in Hull.

Mr. Claude Doucet: Yes. Of course it depends on the technology available to the subscriber. If someone has a 1960 television set...

Ms. Andrée Wylie: But are not necessary talking about very complicated technology, merely a reasonably modern television set. People are not always aware that it exists. That is why CPAC is making another promise, namely to make this capacity know to people. As a matter of fact, it is the track that is been used in certain markets to provide a language other than official languages for certain types of programming. It can even be used for musak or something else. At the present time we require that its first use be for the CPAC service.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to turn to something else. The Grey Cup Game last Sunday was available only in English on SRC. With SAP technology, would it have been possible to provide it on CBC in both languages?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: No, because it must be accessible. It must be provided in both languages. The House of Commons will of course have both audios.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have a new $2,000 television set. It is not some 50¢ job that I bought at Zellers. I would like to invite you to come to my house and play around with the buttons in an attempt to have French when it is in French and English when it is in English. It won't be easy. You can send me one of your experts and you will have a hard time.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We are talking about a French language track and an English language one. We are not talking about the House of Commons' feed, as we explained previously. It is not three different audio feeds, but two, one completely in French and the other completely in English.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare is trying to explain that people like you and me, who listen in a language that people are speaking and wish to do without simultaneous interpretation, keep having to switch from to the other, which becomes very... It is a fun little game. You should give it a try.

Mr. Réjean Myre: We've been trying to explain that the regulatory obligation is in connection with the official language. That means it is either all in French or all in English. Unfortunately, that takes away your ability to listen to the person in the language he or she is speaking.

» (1715)

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You know my position, which certainly reflects the impression of francophones in Ottawa and anglophones in Gatineau. In Montreal and elsewhere, the problem is probably the same.

I would be interested in knowing your opinion. Is it the same as mine or do you insist on this regulation requiring the majority language to take precedence in the designation of a market, coming as it does after we have changed from a five-year contract to a contract of seven years maximum? I just cannot get over it.

I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: My opinion is of course that of the commission. All I can say about our decision is that we make reasonable efforts to satisfy the population and to come up with some balance in the broadcasting system.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your view, is it reasonable for francophones in Ottawa and anglophones in Gatineau?

Is it cast in bronze or when the CRTC makes a major mistake, can it be corrected?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: I suppose it should also be mentioned that we make regulations that must be applied throughout Canada and not in relation to an individual market. So we must come up with parameters that can work reasonably well everywhere.

Mr. Réjean Myre: Mr. Bellemare, allow me to add to Ms. Wylie's answer. We appeared quite recently to discuss with you a report we published on the provision of French-language services in a minority environment throughout Canada. The commission noted that historically, French-language services where not available throughout Canada and that with the evolution of technology, and the increasing use of digital... We should have no illusions, 10 years from now, everything will be digital. So in the context of a digital future, the commission's approach has been to note that everything is in place to ensure that eventually the two official languages will be treated equally. Even the networks with the present capacity of 550 MHz may well have a 750 MHz capacity 10 years from now because everyone will be offering more services, etc.

The commission's policy with respect to minorities is to ensure that the criterion will no longer be the market language. The case that you mentioned, namely Ottawa, the national capital, is a fairly rare one in Canada. The National Capital Region is an exceptional case. The criterion now is no longer a linguistic one but a technological one. As technologies allow us to implement such capacities, the regulatory requirements will be triggered. Eventually, both official languages will be treated equally with respect to the debates of the House of Commons, additional CPAC programming and specialized French-language services. Such services are now being offered. For example, in an area such as Vancouver, all French-language services must be distributed because of the digital technology, even though the market does not amount to 50% plus.

We have not quite been able to achieve this everywhere.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are you satisfied with the CRTC decisions with respect to minority language services in the National Capital Region, yes or no?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: All that I can say is that we also recognize that it is a difficult market because there is...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It is so difficult that you have granted a seven-year contract rather than a five-year one. I can't get over it.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, your time is up.

Are there any other comments? No.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: As Seraphin used to say, the law is the law. I'd like to tell you that now that you are applying the law, you are creating a fine problem for me in my area. Before, at least both groups were being served in the same way, that is it was either or. Either we got the answer, or the question. One or the other of them is going to start barking tomorrow. There's no doubt that we're going to have a problem. You can be sure that there are going to be television sets under 10 years old that won't operate with the system you are describing. You can count on it.

Just one short comment. Whether it be in the capital, in Bathurst or Caraquet, francophones and anglophones are Canadians and should receive proper service. There's no need to be in the capital. I'm speaking for my own area. I was elected there and that is where I want to have the service...

A voice: [Editor's note: inaudible].

» (1720)

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, you're talking about the capital. I'm saying that any Canadian should have the right to hear our parliamentarians debate in the language of his or her choice, irrespective of where he or she lives. It's disgraceful that in our democratic country, some Canadians cannot hear the debates in their own language and are forced to buy a special system. As far as I know, the poor don't have the money to buy this type of system to hear their members of Parliament debate. It's disgraceful.

There's also another issue and please correct me if I'm wrong. It's only as of September 1^st, 2007 that 80% of English programs and 50% of French programs will be closed captioned. That's more discrimination. In five years, francophones will still be victims of discrimination.

I'd like to know what the CRTC thinks of this situation. Are we now locked into a seven-year contract from which we cannot get out? What do you have to say? Is this part of your mandate?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, we have the same problem in every system, which is that closed captioning in French is lagging. There aren't enough trained technicians to do it in French. So it's harder.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But, Ms. Wylie, we're talking about five years. Are you telling me that we can't train someone in five years?

Mr. Réjean Myre: The regulatory requirements for CPAC are more or less based on those for the entire broadcasting system, including the French side. Radio-Canada also has to deal with this situation, because voice recognition software, which is what we're talking about, is not as developed in French as in English.

Ms. Wylie said a little earlier that it's also a matter of balance. Despite development...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Francophones always get the short end of the stick.

Mr. Réjean Myre: No, no. There is ongoing research. Universities and broadcasters are working on it. Everyone is trying to ensure that people have the same access to this type of...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is the problem a lack of willingness or money? Is that the problem?

Mr. Réjean Myre: I don't think there's a lack of willingness.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is it a lack of money? If the federal government had more money, would that solve the problem? Show me the money. If more money were available, would that solve the problem, yes or no?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: We have to deal with the fact that we have a situation which can only change at a certain pace. There's also no getting around the fact that closed captioning is harder and less developed in French than in English.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll ask my question again. Could the problem be solved if more money were spent on it?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Money can solve a lot of things and it's still a question of balance. We have determined what is acceptable and have imposed what in our view are realistic conditions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know if you have the answer to my next question. I don't know if Ontario hotels get their programming via cable or satellite, but are they required to broadcast CPAC?

Mr. Claude Doucet: They are required to provide the basic cable package.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's the same as satellite or a company which...

Mr. Claude Doucet: Yes. They are required to provide it, but if they don't have a television with SAP...

Mr. Yvon Godin: So people have to walk around with a decoder in their bags.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Are there any other questions?

I have a final question for Mr. Myre. A little earlier, you said something which struck me when you said that the regulations reflected the legislation, that they were based on the legislation, that they apply the legislation, or words to that effect. Is that correct?

Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates that:

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

Is the CRTC an agency of the Government of Canada?

» (1725)

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Yes, and under the Broadcasting Act, services must be available in French and English—this isn't an exact quote—where possible.

The Chair: A little earlier, in answer to a question I asked, you said that the technology was available. I asked you whether Canadian households which had cable through a cable company could—and the technology exists—receive CPAC in English and in French, the video and the audio. You said yes. We have the technology. In that case, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, isn't the CRTC required to provide this service in both languages?

Ms. Andrée Wylie: The interpretation of the words “where capacities exist” refers to the idea of balance, that is, the provision of services based on technological capacity.

The Chair: I have no further questions. I would like to thank you once more. We had to move fairly quickly, because as I was saying, we struck this committee last Wednesday, but we really only got going on the Monday of this week.

Thank you once more. You may stay. I have an announcement for committee members and I think it may interest you.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask or to call. Of course, we can't always give you the answers you expect. But there you have it.

The Chair: I have to admit that committee members usually don't hesitate to ask.

Mr. Sauvageau, last week you asked me a question with regard to the Quigley affair.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Indeed, I did.

The Chair: Yesterday afternoon, I received from my lawyers—here goes—a ruling from the Federal Court of Canada which confers upon me, as an individual, the right to intervener status in the Quigley affair. Since this is a public matter, and I say so publicly, I would like to ask you, the members of the committee, whether you would agree to meet with these lawyers on Monday or Wednesday, or at any other time, next week. As a courtesy to you, and in order to gain your support, I would ask you to meet with them in camera to discuss any strategy you would like me to adopt or any other related matters.

The members who are new to the committee may remember that Mr. Louis Quigley was a New Brunswicker who complained to the Official Languages Commission several years ago that he could not understand House of Commons debates because his cable company, which was Rogers at the time, only broadcast the audio version of the floor. When someone answered or asked a question in French, Mr. Quigley could not understand. He filed a complaint with the commission and, after a while, won his case. He turned to the House—I don't think he wasted much time in doing so—and was told that he should approach the cable companies since the House had authorized the cable companies, through CPAC, to broadcast all three audio channels. So Mr. Quigley took his case to court and a ruling was handed down last June. The Federal Court ruled in his favour and based its decision on the Official Languages Act and on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I believe, and gave the House, the Board of Internal Economy, one year to fix the problem.

The Board of Internal Economy appealed this decision in July. At that time, the Joint Committee on Official Languages had decided to seek intervener status in the case. We all know what happened to the joint committee.

In answer to the question posed by Mr. Sauvageau last week, I said that I would personally intervene to protect our option. It now remains to be seen—and that is why I would like us to meet behind closed doors with the lawyers—how we want to pursue the matter. Until yesterday, I had no idea whether I would be granted intervener status or not. As it turns out, it was. This is a delicate situation, but I would like to keep you all abreast of developments.

Mr. Sauvageau.

» (1730)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's good news. I have a question and was wondering whether I should ask it here or outside of the committee. If this is not the place, please let me know and we'll discuss the matter at another time. It's no problem.

My question deals with the lawyer's fees. Can or should the committee give you its support with regard to intervener status on behalf of the committee...?

The Chair: I think we should discuss the issue in camera.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No problem.

The Chair: I have a final matter to discuss.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: Should we leave?

The Chair: No, not at all. We'll deal with the issue next week.

I simply want to tell you a few things. Next Monday at 4:30 p.m. we will receive the Solicitor General, Mr. Easter. Once again, we were only able to give three or four days' notice and that's why we have to accommodate his schedule, but we will hear from him at 4:30 p.m., at Mr. Reid's request.

Furthermore, you will receive a copy of the report which was presented to Transportation Canada by Ms. Ward. The department had asked for this report on the consequences of the merger between Air Canada and Canadian. We'll try to get that for Wednesday, but that's still to be confirmed. As for Ms. Adam, the Official Languages Commissioner, it has been confirmed that she will come before the committee on Monday, December 9, at 3:45 p.m. We have managed to fit everyone in and set our schedule.

After holding consultations and discussions with regard to the immigration report and everything that has happened since, allow me to suggest that we study the issue in February. All agreed? Are there any comments or questions?

Once again, Ms. Wylie, I would like to thank you. As you can see, we have much to do.

Ms. Andrée Wylie: It's been a pleasure.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair. That's a new formula, a good one.

Good evening and thank you.