INST 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, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 13, 2004

1100

The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.))

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Mr. René Bouchard (Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Innovation, Department of Canadian Heritage)

1105

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Executive Director, Broadcasting Directorate, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

1110

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

1115

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, PC)

1120

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

1125

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

1130

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

1135

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Joe Fontana

Mr. James Rajotte

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

1140

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

The Chair

1145

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

1150

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. René Bouchard

Mr. Paul Crête

1155

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Paul Crête

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

1200

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Le président

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Superintendent Ken Hansen (Director, Federal Enforcement Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

1205

Mr. James Rajotte

Supt Ken Hansen

Mr. James Rajotte

Supt Ken Hansen

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Jan Skora (Director General, Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Regulatory Branch, Department of Industry)

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1210

Mr. Michael Binder (Assistant Deputy Minister, Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications, Department of Industry)

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Michael Binder

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. René Bouchard

1215

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1220

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jacques Langlois (Director General, Broadcasting Policy Group, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

1225

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

1230

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Hon. Joe Fontana

1235

Supt Ken Hansen

Hon. Joe Fontana

Supt Ken Hansen

Hon. Joe Fontana

Supt Ken Hansen

Hon. Joe Fontana

Supt Ken Hansen

Hon. Joe Fontana

1240

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

NUMBER 017

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 13, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone, colleagues, officials, and others. I'm calling to order this Thursday, May 13, meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We're continuing our study of Bill C-2.

Might I add that this may be the last day on Bill C-2, for this go-around anyway. There is no plan to have presentations by the witnesses.

Colleagues, as you know, we have with us today officials from the Departments of Heritage and Industry, and others as well from the CRTC and the RCMP, from the Canada Border Services Agency. So they're here to answer questions or to try to help us understand better some of the testimony we have heard.

We will interrupt the questions at some point to deal with a motion put forward by Mr. Fontana, which may need a bit of tweaking, I think--it's possible. It is a motion dealing with some of the testimony we've heard.

Paul, if you are ready to start, we'll start with you, and then we'll go to Joe Fontana.

If there are officials called who aren't at the table for you to speak to, they will come up. And if you do come up, just introduce yourselves and then proceed.

So, Paul, would you proceed, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming to see us once again in order to help us, at the end of the day, come up with some good legislation. My questions cover a wide range of situations.

My first question is primarily for Heritage Canada, namely Mr. Bouchard. I would like to clarify a situation that I feel is pertinent to the bill and that I would like to understand a bit better. When the CRTC renewed ExpressVu's licence, there were no defined piracy requirements. Could you explain why? What I'm trying to do is establish what type of role you could have played in that matter.

Mr. René Bouchard (Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Innovation, Department of Canadian Heritage): The department plays no role in the renewal of licences for either distribution or programming undertakings because all of this is done during the course of a CRTC public process. The department intervenes in the licensing process only if an appeal has been made to the governor in council with respect to the CRTC's decision. I therefore feel that it would be preferable for the CRTC to respond to these questions.

Á (1105)

Mr. Paul Crête: Pardon me, I did not put my question properly. I was told that there would be two CRTC experts here this morning.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Executive Director, Broadcasting Directorate, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): Yes.

Mr. Paul Crête: You are there.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Would you like me to repeat my question?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: No, that's OK. My name is Marc O'Sullivan and I am the Executive Director of the Broadcasting Directorate at the CRTC. My colleague Jacques Langlois is the Director General of the Broadcasting Policy Group at the CRTC.

The CRTC has had longstanding discussions with industry stakeholders on the whole issue of piracy. There have been meetings with the CEOs and association representatives. During the course of these meetings, the issue of the pirating of Bell ExpressVu services was raised, namely, not the piracy of foreign services, but the piracy pertaining to the Bell ExpressVu system. At these meetings and also on its own initiative, Bell ExpressVu took corrective measures to thwart piracy. My colleague Jacques is in a better position to provide you with the details of the action taken by Bell ExpressVu with respect to this matter, but generally speaking, when Bell ExpressVu's licences were renewed, the Commission was satisfied in noting that Bell ExpressVu had taken measures to thwart this piracy.

Mr. Paul Crête: Did you not think it would have been appropriate to, at the same time, establish such measures as conditions for issuing licences in the future as well? Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of the action taken by ExpressVu so that I have a clear idea. I would also like you to tell me why, ultimately, you did not include them in either the definition itself or in the requirements that need to be met in order to obtain a licence. Indeed, you have to look into the future when you issue a licence.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: First of all, I will give you a brief description of the measures taken. Bell ExpressVu took steps to increase control at the purchase point. It used to be that when people purchased equipment, there were no controls to ensure that these individuals were then going to subscribe to the service. Bell ExpressVu therefore took steps to ensure that the people buying the equipment provided some identification, and, I believe, even a deposit or at least a credit card number, and there was a penalty for those individuals who did not subscribe to the service after that. In addition, they used electronic means, namely, electronic signals that were transmitted periodically to dismantle the illegal services, services that had broken the system code. Moreover, Bell ExpressVu has been criticized for the action it took at the point of purchase, because people were saying that they had gone too far, that these measures were too burdensome for consumers. But these measures were necessary to ensure that people were not simply purchasing the equipment and then not subscribing to the service after.

Mr. Paul Crête: As far as licensing is concerned, how are you going to verify whether these companies have taken sufficient action if there are no requirements contained in the license?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The CRTC still has a mandate and authority to supervise the system. There are the regulations per se, namely the regulations, the licences that are granted and the terms and conditions, but there's also the supervisory role which ensures that...

Moreover, this is the role that the president played when he convened the CEOs to ensure that steps were being taken to counter piracy. At that time Bell ExpressVu advised us of the measures it was about to take, particularly since it was in its interest to do so. Realizing that its services were being stolen, it is understandable that Bell ExpressVu, for purely economic reasons, would want to counter this piracy. Should other industry stakeholders complain that the action taken by Bell ExpressVu is inadequate, the president can always convene another meeting of this CEO team, this informal committee that has been established, for the sole purpose of demanding explanations from Bell.

Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, if it's okay, we'll interrupt and come back to you after we do the motion. Is that okay, or would you prefer to finish your line of questioning?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to clarify one matter. During the ExpressVu hearings, someone asked a question about the number of decoders it had sold. The CRTC has this information but it has never been disclosed publicly.

Would it be possible to obtain this information? How many decoders has ExpressVu sold?

Á (1110)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Was this information provided in previous interventions?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, during the hearings. I was told that a question along that line had been asked and that, finally, the CRTC did have a number, but that the number had not been disclosed to the public.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: In such a situation, the CRTC does receive information that is confidential for commercial reasons, such as information on the number of subscribers and on the number of pieces of equipment sold. The individual providing such information can request that it remain confidential. At that point, the commission assesses the request for confidentiality in order to determine whether this individual would suffer an economic disadvantage should such information be disclosed and made public. If that is the case, then we agree to the request for confidentiality. I believe that that was the case here.

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd just like to ask you to check that again and to review that decision to see whether we can get that information, which would be very relevant to the committee for the whole study of the bill before us.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: So, the number of—

Mr. Paul Crête: The number of decoders sold by ExpressVu.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Okay, I'll check.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Paul. Thank you. You'll have more time after, Paul.

We're going to suspend the questions for a few minutes while we deal with a motion that was tabled by Mr. Fontana two days ago. Before asking Joe to introduce it, we might want to allow for some free-wheeling discussion of the motion. There may be some amendments, I don't know, but we will have a free-wheeling discussion before we get into the technicalities of amendments and so on.

So please sit and enjoy yourselves for a few minutes, but we ask for the officials' indulgence. Nonetheless, whatever motion this committee passes, you're going to see by way of a letter to your respective ministers in due course anyway. It might be helpful for you to have some of the context here from those who have some opinions on the subject.

Joe, would you please introduce your motion, or talk about your motion? Move your motion, I should say.

Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're moving this motion?

Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes, and I do that seconded by James, and hopefully with the support of Paul and the other opposition parties.

Let me try to put this all in context so far. There are some clear realities. Bill C-2 is not going to be passed in the foreseeable future, and I think the invaluable information that has come to us by the witnesses, including the department, who have come before the committee outlines two realities we have to deal with in order to solve this particular problem.

Bill C-2 deals with the enforcement issues with regard to piracy and illegal use of certain devices for the purposes of the black market or grey market. It's clear from the witnesses that there are a number of questions that we need to continue to deal with, and it's not that easy. Therefore, I think Bill C-2 is also going to require an awful lot of work in having the officials here after the motion be able to answer some of the questions that were posed by the witnesses, and even the committee, as to how in fact we get to the enforcement.

I think even the witnesses on the other side of the equation sort of said they are also against piracy. They want a system that works; they want to be law-abiding citizens; they want access to the channels they want.

Therefore, while the industry committee deals with Bill C-2 on the enforcement side, there is a whole host of issues that have been brought to our attention from the witnesses, including our members, as to how we can deal with the other part of the equation.

It's in this context that I think a two-pronged approach is going to be required. Bill C-2 is going to require an awful lot of work and an awful lot of questions with regard to the enforcement--who in fact can be penalized as an individual, and how do we deal with the black market and the grey market? But the more important issue that is also part of solving this dilemma and this problem is, how do we give people, Canadians, the diverse population of our country, the opportunity for choice and competition and to gain access to the programming we want? That entails involving other departments--the CRTC, the Minister of Heritage, and so on--because I think there is a willingness, as I heard it, on the part of not only the members here but our multicultural communities that in fact want to access some of the programming that they haven't been able to access by virtue of a system that is either working or not working--in some cases, CRTC issues the licence, but we can't find a commercial carrier to carry that particular licence for that programming--or by virtue of the fact that programming that's available from other places is not available through the Canadian system. Obviously, I think we need to deal with that.

There is no way I want to make criminals of any Canadians who in fact are accessing the grey market now by virtue of what they're doing. Yes, it is against the law, but we have to be innovative and creative, and that's why I think this motion essentially says--

Á (1115)

The Chair: Can I ask you to reread the motion into the record? But read it slowly for the translators, and also for the benefit of the officials who are here, who will certainly be advising ministers on how to respond.

Hon. Joe Fontana: I know it will probably require some wordsmithing and so on, but let me try--

The Chair: Read it as it is, although I think we've changed the words, “has determined” to ”believes”.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes.

It says:

The Committee believes that a two-phased approach is required to address the black market and the grey market that provides for more enforcement along with more choice for consumers.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage strike a small Review Panel for public consultations to research and provide recommendations on how to increase competition and choice in terms of new services while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

I think that is important.

Recognizing that some Canadians find it necessary to access programming through the grey market the Panel's recommendations should include ways to ensure that more popular foreign and third language services are available within the Canadian broadcasting system.

And importantly:

The Panel should provide a report by the Fall of 2004.

The Chair: That's the end of the motion?

Hon. Joe Fontana: That's the end of the motion, yes.

I think it's clear that while we might be doing something else, this panel should work toward bringing forward a report to this particular committee for its consideration, as part of the Bill C-2 discussions that I'm sure will take place or follow in the fall of 2004. I think it might be helpful for the committee to have that information. I don't know whether the committee should report to the House and that's the authority by which to do it, or whether a letter from this committee under your signature, Mr. Chair, to the respective ministers is essentially the action plan required to get the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to immediately call for this panel, and for that panel to do the work and report back in 2004.

I think Canadians need the reassurance that we're going to take our time to do Bill C-2 right, to make sure it does what it needs to do to stop the illegal use of certain devices. But at the same time we've heard loud and clear from our multicultural communities that they are crying for and want to be able to access the programming that they believe is important for them and their families and the country. We celebrate our diversity. We have to find ways to be creative about finding ways for them to be able to access some excellent programming that's out there and that's not available to them now.

If the committee spoke with one voice, I think it would be of great reassurance to all Canadian citizens. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to put forward this motion.

The Chair: Paul, we're going to go back to you when we go to questions, but for the purpose of this debate we'll start with James, then go back to the government, and then back to you.

James, do you want to address the motion?

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, PC): With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

I support this motion. I'm happy to second it, because it recognizes that even though enforcement is a legitimate avenue for the black market, we need to address the issue of consumer choice with the grey market.

I think the gentleman from the Portuguese community said it very well. We can't treat him like a criminal if all he wants to do is access one Portuguese channel. To do so—and I think that's where this legislation would end up—is simply not a good policy choice for us as a Parliament. So I am happy to support this.

I guess we've been informed Bill C-2 will not pass, with the impending election, but as a matter of information and as a way to give assistance, I've distributed a memo on Bill C-2 about amendments I think are necessary—some of the things we've heard from witnesses that I believe would address, hopefully in the next Parliament, depending on what happens.... If the bill comes back, hopefully it will be amended before we have to deal with it. I'm just recommending some of the ways to amend it.

One of the reasons I agree with the motion is that the whole role of the CRTC has come up again and again. This is something—and you know this, Mr. Chairman, because you were on the last committee I was on—we recommended in our recommendations in the telecommunications report about examining the role of the CRTC. We recommended it at that time, and the government seemed keen to act on it, but unfortunately it hasn't. Hopefully with this motion, with the timeline we've given in terms of the panel reporting by the fall of 2004—which is very important, because we need a timeline on this; it's a crucial issue that must be addressed and we can't simply let it go on and on—and with the election likely to happen at the end of June and Parliament not sitting until September.... There are people in this industry who just cannot afford to wait any longer, so I'm pleased to support the motion.

I want to raise an issue, and I am willing to introduce an amendment. I've been contacted by one of the groups that appeared before us. They have a concern with respect to this motion. It is this.

Their concern is that even if the CRTC approves all the channels that are requested by the Portuguese and other communities, Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice will not find it profitable to actually put them on their systems. We don't expect these two companies to be putting unprofitable channels on. This group wanted to oppose the motion, and I argued with them on that, so they're proposing an amendment that I hope will be a friendly amendment.

I can read it into the record now.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Sure, read your amendment into the record.

Mr. James Rajotte: The amendment comes after the third paragraph. The amendment is:

In the event that significantly more foreign and third language services cannot be profitably distributed within the Canadian broadcasting system, this panel should research and provide recommendations on how to legalize the grey market.

The Chair: James has proposed.... I might read it once more just for everybody's benefit; then we can continue our debate on the motions with the amendment in mind. Just give me a second, Joe. I'll read it once more.

This is Mr. Rajotte's amendment to Joe's motion:

The next on the list is Carole-Marie.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this morning that—

Mr. Paul Crête: Did you give Ms. Allard the floor?

[English]

The Chair: Pardon me. I guess I was taking liberties in the belief that we could have an open discussion of ideas. Technically we should dispose of James' amendment first.

Paul, do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Personally, I'd prefer that we put all of our issues relating to the motion on the table, because I too have some amendments to propose. But I'd like us to get a better feel for the situation, because otherwise it could degenerate into procedural wrangling, and if this amendment carries, mine won't. At any rate, I'd prefer to have an open discussion. Then we'll vote on this amendment first, and that will determine whether or not we vote on the others afterward.

[English]

The Chair: Exactly. If colleagues are agreeable, rather than be overly formal, I'd prefer we put our ideas forth. This is important. If James is okay, we'll lay it out; then I'll do my best to try to bring it together after.

So bring forward your ideas, and then at some point we'll have to vote on these. We'll find a way to do it.

Carole-Marie Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this morning that I proudly support the motion. I'd also like to tell you that I'm proud to be part of a government that shows such openness toward the cultural communities. I feel that the demands of the cultural communities that have come before us are now being taken into account and I think that we should certainly be optimistic about the future of Canadian society.

What bothers me a bit about the motion as it stands is the following.

Á (1125)

[English]

In English, it's “while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act”.

[Translation]

I think that the basic problem we have when we look at the whole broadcasting system in Canada is that the Broadcasting Act and its purposes are very broad, and that has allowed the CRTC, over the years, to interpret the act as it saw fit.

I'll give you an example. We now know that before allowing a foreign service into Canada, the CRTC always asks whether it's going to compete with an existing Canadian service. This new addition isn't in the Broadcasting Act. And yet it's a feature of every decision the CRTC makes.

I think the motion should stop after “in terms of new services” because if we add

[English]

Si on ajoute “while supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act”—

The Chair: Carole, it should stop where?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: It should stop after “In terms of new services”.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Because the purposes of the Broadcasting Act have been watered down with time and interpreted by the CRTC in such a way that now, in Parliament, we have virtually no say anymore in how the CRTC interprets the act. For example, competition with existing Canadian services is a test that is used, that was added over the years, and that now prevents foreign services from coming into Canada.

So I would put forward that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Are you finished, Carole-Marie?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Yes.

The Chair: Merci. We'll go back to Paul, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I think it's a good idea for us to try to solve this problem that has come before the committee. However, in my opinion, the motion is in need of a few amendments.

The first has to do with the second paragraph, which provides for a report and public consultation on that report. Personally, I don't agree with that approach; it seems to me that this panel is going to take our place, when it's the industry committee that should be studying these issues. And then the public hearings that will follow will sort of steal our thunder.

So I'd prefer that the report be submitted to the industry committee, without necessarily going through public consultation. It's a bit like creating a subcommittee on industry to go out and hold hearings. In short, I would get rid off “for public consultations” and replace it with “reporting to the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology”. That's the first amendment.

With the second amendment, I'm getting closer to the heart of the matter and I may even be contradicting what Ms. Allard said, but the fact remains that in my opinion, this issue needs clarification. I'd be inclined to propose the following wording: “... while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act and protecting the Canadian industry's interests.”

It's important at the same time to avoid creating—

[English]

The Chair: Where?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: At the end of the second paragraph, I would add the following words: “and protecting the Canadian industry's interests.”

I think it's important for our changes not to come at the expense of the industry that has developed over the years.

My third amendment is perhaps more of a translation issue. It seems to me that the third paragraph in French doesn't say quite the same thing as in English. It says: “... parmi ces recommandations, des moyens d'assurer que plus de services étrangers et dans une troisième langue pourront être accessibles...”.

Instead, I would say : “des moyens de s'assurer que plus de services provenant de l'étranger et dans une troisième langue”.

The way that it's written in French creates the impression that we want to open the door to completely foreign services and legalize the grey market, pure and simple.

At the very end of the third paragraph—and once again, this is perhaps a translation issue—I would add a sentence. In fact, that may be what Mr. Rajotte has done. I'd have to reread it to check. But I'd be inclined to add, with respect to third language services: “if they are unavailable through the Canadian broadcasting system.”

We have to first give the Canadian broadcasting system a chance to provide the service, so as to ensure that what has been built up over the years continues to function. We're talking about making an adjustment to provide access to more foreign channels without hurting our own industry.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: That was at the end of paragraph 3, Paul?

Mr. Paul Crête: Oui.

The Chair: We're getting a nice plate of amendments here. And in discussions, try to deal with the amendments too, so we have a nice package when we're done.

Joe.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I know James' intent and also Carole-Marie's. I think it presupposes what the panel may bring forward to the committee in terms of, what are those barriers? What are those blockades? What are those impediments in order to do it?

I'm not sure that what James is saying is that we ought to, at this point in time, before a report, before the panel has even had an opportunity of doing the review, be saying that we're prepared to legalize the grey market. That decision should perhaps come after a thorough review of all of the issues the panel is supposed to come up with. Therefore, inserting the amendment, James, I think would presuppose the conclusion that the review committee, or the review panel, might make. I'm not sure you want to go there until such time as we hear from the review panel, because it says “If it fails”. Let's find ways of making sure the grey market can work.

That's the whole purpose of the review. Therefore, I would caution you against, right at the beginning, signalling the fact that this might be an alternative. Because then why would there be any incentive for the Canadian industry, for the Canadian companies, or the Canadian government, to be able to look at ways of being able to ensure that option and choice come, because if all of a sudden people are saying...? And I know, I've read the same letter from one particular organization that says, legalize the grey market. If that's the case then we don't need to do anything. Let's fix Bill C-2, legalize the grey market, and then you would be saying, to heck with building Canadian culture, Canadian industry, and so on.

Surely we want to build it all within the context of some other fundamental objectives. I would say that same thing to Carole-Marie's amendment, that what she's trying to do is, I understand, open it up for new channels and new stuff, but if you throw out...while supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcast Act, again, that presupposes a conclusion that the review panel.... You can't throw out legislation that's been passed by Parliament. The Broadcast Act is an important instrument so far in Canada.

Therefore, again, I know that the amendments are trying to make it easier and better to give further clarification, but I think they go far beyond, because I think the motion as presented is broad enough, flexible enough, for the review panel to come forward with a number of different ideas as to where the problems are in accessing choice and new programming without giving them the direction that if you don't do it, we're going to open up the grey market, or without doing it, we're going to throw out the Broadcast Act.

In Paul's particular case, on the French language translation issues, I would defer to him, and therefore if we can clarify that particular thing.... I like the idea of inserting something about Canadian industry, because at the end of the day isn't what we're supposed to be doing around here also about enhancing the opportunity for Canadian industry? If what we want to do is enhance the American industry, then fine, legalize the grey market. But guess what? We'll only have two satellite companies in this thing and we won't have to build new third language or foreign programming. Let them all get it from the United States. I'm sure that's not what we want to do around this place.

We can have it both ways if we're prepared to be creative about this. So why don't we put it within the context of having the review committee do its work? Maybe public consultation is not required because there's enough information. It's the research, it's bringing it together for this committee in the fall to look at all of the issues related to openness and new options, new programming, and at the same time how do we fix Bill C-2 on the enforcement side, which has a big hole in it, i.e., the grey market, and we don't want to make criminals of Canadians who are trying to access it.

So let's get the report before we start deciding what it is we want to do, but let's not start sending the message, in my respectful opinion, that the grey market is perfectly fine and we can legalize it and therefore we don't need to do anything. I'm not sure that's where the Conservative Party and James want to go, or where this committee wants to go.

Let's wait for the review panel to come back with a whole bunch of issues that we can deal with.

I think it's clear that what my motion says, and what James has seconded, and what Paul supports also, along with the members on this side, is that we are frustrated, we are concerned, about our multicultural communities who are saying they can't access those programs.

Á (1135)

Let's look at a variety of ways as to how we can find that out, and at the same time say that Bill C-2 is flawed, needs an awful lot of work on the enforcement side, and we're prepared to bring it all back together in the fall if the government decides it's a priority.

The Chair: James.

Mr. James Rajotte: To respond, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what amendment.... Maybe I didn't read that amendment clearly, but it's not talking about throwing out the report and legalizing the grey market immediately. What it is talking about is a situation whereby the cultural communities we had before us at the committee have said they want access to greater consumer choice, which I think I certainly support, the Conservative Party supports, and I think members opposite, some of them, support.

If more and more channels are approved by the CRTC, which is certainly what I hope, but they are not picked up by the two licensed providers, well, the people in these cultural communities are in the same situation. They don't then have the option of getting it through a licensed provider in Canada. So what are their options?

Perhaps members can amend my amendment. I'd be open to that. It's looking not only at asking the CRTC to be more open toward greater consumer choice, but it's also looking at the fact of whether the CRTC is not approving these channels or whether these channels may not be profitable in Canada. Therefore, that is--

Hon. Joe Fontana: The panel will tell us that.

Mr. James Rajotte: So if we think the panel is going to do that without direction, then members can vote the amendment down.

Secondly, with regard to Madame Allard's amendment, I would support that amendment as well. I think she makes the case, in fact, as Mr. Fontana just made, which is if we talk about the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act, maybe the panel will come back to say that the Broadcasting Act should be amended. Therefore, we should be open on that. In fact, I think her amendment makes this motion more open. Therefore, I would support her amendment as well.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Throw yours out, we'll adopt hers, and it may start to make sense.

The Chair: Massimo Pacetti, please.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): I wasn't here at the last meeting, but just to clear up, what do you mean by “small Review Panel for public consultations”? Maybe you can answer that first. My suggestion would be a subcommittee of both committees, Industry and Heritage. You can't do that?

The Chair: I'll try to answer that. Assuming we come up with a consensus motion, which I'm sure we will, the two ministers will be asked to...in striking a review panel, they wouldn't necessarily...because we may not even be around. We presume it'll be from the larger society that the panel will be created, not from parliamentarians. It'll be an expert panel or something like that, Massimo. It wouldn't be this committee or parliamentarians, as I see it.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I support what Joe was saying.

In terms of the amendment, James, I can't write quickly enough, but you start with “In the event”. So you are presupposing that the committee will already come out with a negative decision. That's why I'm not too comfortable with it.

For Carole-Marie Allard's position, I'm okay with it. Maybe if we leave “Broadcasting Act” and take out “fundamental objective”, would that suit? We have to maintain some kind of Canadian content. That has to stay in somehow. Either use Paul's suggestion or something. That would be the way I see it. I don't know if I've helped.

The Chair: Paul, did you have anything to add?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm waiting to see where this is going.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to do my best to try to pull it together so we can get back to the officials.

Carole-Marie.

Á (1140)

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rajotte supported my motion. I'd like to tell him that I support the thrust of his, but not the last part.

Out of 93 foreign channels authorized by the CRTC, 75 are American and 18 are foreign, non- American, but they are not all currently carried by Canadian satellites. Out of 18, four are being carried. So the problem this raises is that it is unprofitable for satellite companies to carry those channels. I think that we should actually take a look at the need to encourage Canadian satellite companies to provide this service to our cultural communities. Our cultural communities are spread out all over Canada, and when there aren't enough people, neither the cable carriers nor the satellite companies are required to provide them with this service. I think that it's also a CRTC regulation.

So there is indeed a problem, but I think that for the time being, we should perhaps look at the general thrust of the motion. But I can tell you, Mr. Rajotte, that I agree with the first part of your motion.

[English]

The Chair: Joe, and then I'm going to try to pull together a consensus.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Sure, if you can do that.... There was someone else who tried to do that 2,000 years ago and it worked out to no. I'm sure we're close.

The Chair: I know.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Can I just ask for a clarification on what Paul's...? I think he talked about Canadian industry. I don't think that was a problem for anybody. Can I just understand also what Paul was talking about on the French translation? Were there some substantial changes to the English version on that one? Because if there wasn't....

Also, perhaps in light of what you might have heard, and because the way the motion is framed now it is totally open, broad, and flexible, any attempt to try to restrict it, as Carole-Marie and James.... I think it hamstrings or in fact causes more difficulty for the review panel, which can bring forward a flexible...and a number of questions. He may have some more questions of the committee.

I'm just saying that I think at the end of the day it's problematic to throw out the Canadian Broadcasting Act, in the first instance, and also it's problematic to presuppose something and even consider the fact that if certain things don't happen, then we may have to look at legalizing the grey market for a particular number of channels. I don't think we should go there until such time as we get the review.

The Chair: Gentlemen, give this a try, and I'm going to go in order.

Again, in the spirit of coming to a conclusion, James left himself open to a friendly amendment. I'm going to try a friendly amendment to James' amendment, which I think will send a message that perhaps we can agree.

Let me try this to James' amendment. His is number one.

Rather than “how”, which is more...just “whether”.

How do you feel about that?

Hon. Joe Fontana: That's better.

The Chair: Then we'll vote on it. It just makes it--

Hon. Joe Fontana: It's the caveat at the end that I consider problematic.

The Chair: So let's just take it to a vote. We've softened it a bit by putting “whether”. I don't think we can soften it any more than that. So instead of “how”, we just say “whether the grey market should be legalized”.

I'm just going to ask for all those in favour of the--

Hon. Joe Fontana: How about the “advisability of grey market”?

The Chair: Try to negotiate something to get everybody's....

Yes, Pat.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): I'm not a member of the committee, but just on semantics, I think whether it can be legalized or not is fairly obvious. The Parliament can fairly much do what the Parliament wants to do. So I think the intent of what you're talking about is the advisability, or the pros and cons of it.

The Chair: I think you'll get it, James, if you agree on “recommendations on the advisability of legalizing the grey market”.

Á (1145)

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay.

The Chair: So think about that. I'll read it once more, and then we're going to either dispense with or include James' amendment.

Where does that go?

Hon. Joe Fontana: At the end of the third paragraph.

The Chair: Okay.

Massimo, and then Carole-Marie.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I have a problem just with the end, because again you're stating what you want them to come up with--legalizing the grey market. Can we just say “other options”? Is that the only other option, legalizing the grey market, or not? Is there not another option, that they can bundle service, or something like that? Why don't we leave it open to them?

The Chair: I can't take his motion off the table. We vote on it--

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I understand.

The Chair: Do you want to vote on it the way it is, James?

Carole-Marie.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Remember we had a witness who came here and said we should have the grey market make a contribution to the Canadian system.... He was proposing to impose a levy. I think we should perhaps add to the motion that we should try to have...Canadian industry, or something like that.

The Chair: Carole-Marie, that would simply be part of the solution. I don't think we have to include it.

So, James, are we ready to...?

Mr. James Rajotte: Yes, all except the advisability, but the big issue in this bill is whether there is a difference between the grey and the black markets. The court said no. The government in this bill has said no. In this party we say yes. I would like a vote on “will accept the advisability of legalizing the”--

The Chair: Okay, with “advisability” in there, are all in favour of James' amendment?

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Okay, we have dealt with James' motion. Good try.

We will go to Carole-Marie's, where she wants to delete at the very end of paragraph 2, from “new services”. In other words, from “while” on she wants to delete, “while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act”.

I will try to do the same thing as with James' motion, Carole-Marie, to try to soften it a bit to take in some concerns expressed by others. If we leave it as is, “while still supporting the fundamental objectives of Canadian broadcast policy....” Is that a little...?

Hon. Joe Fontana: I don't know what you're thinking of. An act is an act of Parliament. Obviously, to change an act you need Parliament to do it. A policy can be changed by the government. I'm not sure you can change the act simply. So a policy is.... I can't support it myself. What the members want to do is their own business, but I think it would be raising more problems than it tries to solve. The words are fine. Again, it's flexible. The panel will be able to come with a number of recommendations, which may include that you have a fundamental problem with the Broadcasting Act. I know that James and this committee have done some darned good work with some of the issues around broadcasting and the CRTC and some of those other things. So why presuppose anything? Let the review panel, as it did in 1994 when the same thing happened--

The Chair: I'm going to solve your problem. Carole-Marie has withdrawn.

Do you have any comments on Carole-Marie's...? However, it's withdrawn. She has withdrawn it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: She withdrew it? I will not debate a motion which has been withdrawn.

[English]

Hon. Joe Fontana: I'm happy to see that the Bloc is supporting the Broadcasting Act.

The Chair: Paul, you had the third motion, which was to delete reference to “public consultations”. If I were to soften yours, the second line--

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would suggest that the report be submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry and not for public consultations, because I think...

[English]

The Chair: What if you take out the word “public”? Allowing that they're going to consult, maybe quietly, privately, around.... Just take out the word “public” and it still gives this panel.... We can't tell them that they don't talk to anybody. What if you take out “public”?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Are you okay with “consultations”?

Á (1150)

Mr. James Rajotte: Make it “secret consultations”.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: This issue also has a democratic side to it, not just a technological one. The public aspect should be under the purview of the committee, here, it should not be attributed or subcontracted to department officials who will then come before the committee to make recommendations. They would end up telling us that we need not hold public consultations because they have already been held elsewhere.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, I think it would be solved because this committee, when we constitute it in the next Parliament, could still ask. I'm simply going to take your motion, your amendment, and ask if all are in favour of removing the word “public”. Do you have a comment on it?

Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes, because I'm not sure that is what Paul is trying to do. I think he wants it to come back to this industry committee in the fall of 2004. I'm not sure that Paul is suggesting that this secret committee not talk to anybody publicly. Let's face it.

So what the review panel will do is consult, hopefully in public, and also include the public in the next number of months. I think Paul is saying that when that report is tabled it will come for public consultation by the industry committee. We will want to follow it up with public consultation on their report. So I don't think we need to remove the words “public consultation”.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In that case, it would read "for public consultations and for the industry committee".

[English]

The Chair: Paul, would you be happy if in the last line, which now reads “The Panel should provide a report”, we add to that “provide a report by the Fall of 2004 to the ministers and to the two committees”?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: To the Standing Committee on Industry and to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, fine.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but leave the word “public” in there.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Basically, what has ended up with Paul's motion is to leave paragraph 2 the same but add at the end of the last sentence “a report by the Fall of 2004 to the ministers and to the two committees”. Is that fair?

Are all in favour of that?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify something. Even if it is submitted to the industry committee, it will be up to the industry committee and the heritage committee to decide whether they wish to hold public consultations.

Mr. Paul Crête: Those two committees will decide how they will deal with the report.

[English]

The Chair: Basically, yes, Carole-Marie. If we add simply “a report by the fall of 2004 to the two ministers”--who are obvious--“and the two committees”....

Is everyone in favour of adding that phrase?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul, for that.

I'm going to ask you, Paul, I think the next two are translation. Are you satisfied?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: One of those amendments is a substantial one, because I would like to add, after "the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act", "while protecting the interests of Canadian industry".

[English]

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to know what the departmental officials think about this. I would like them to tell us whether they think the objective of protecting the interests of Canadian industry is already formally included in the Broadcasting Act. That way I would know whether it is sufficient or not.

[English]

The Chair: That's fair. Does one of you gentlemen want to comment?

[Translation]

Mr. René Bouchard: Yes, up to a certain point, even though it is not worded that way. It is also included in other objectives which are part of the act. So there are many objectives, including the one regarding Canadian industry and the one relating to Canadian ownership.

So the issue is contained implicitly in the Broadcasting Act, even if the wording is different. However, if I may, perhaps you may want to be more specific with regard to the objective set out under the Broadcasting Act and focus on that point. When you say “while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act”, you could flesh out that aspect.

Mr. Paul Crête: All right. I would agree to such a compromise. It's an interesting suggestion. Perhaps the motion could read “while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act, while protecting the interests of Canadian industry”.

Á (1155)

[English]

Hon. Joe Fontana: We said this one was fine.

The Chair: Carole-Marie.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I would also like to add “and the objectives of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act”.

Mr. Paul Crête: So, after “the Broadcasting Act”, we would add “while protecting the interests of Canadian industry and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act”.

Perfect, everyone has put their cards on the table.

[English]

The Chair: Paul has accepted a friendly amendment by Carole-Marie. May I try to phrase that, Paul, for the record?

An hon. member: We could put “The Maple Leaf Forever” in there too.

The Chair: The end of that second paragraph, while still supporting the fundamental objectives of the Broadcasting Act, the Multiculturalism Act, and the industries...and the integrity?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My amendment would have to come first, after the words “of the Broadcasting Act”, and it would read “while protecting the interests of Canadian industry”. Then, we would add “and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act”. What I said with regard to industry refers to the Broadcasting Act. I am not familiar enough with the other act to say whether it will make a difference, but I don't think so. I just wanted my amendment to refer to the Broadcasting Act and not to the second act referred to by Ms. Allard.

[English]

The Chair: You've heard Paul's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On the translation, I think, Paul.... Are you satisfied with the way it was read to you in English by Joe at the beginning? Did it come out okay for you in English? So it's just a matter of making sure the French translation coincides. We'll make sure of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But there was one amendment left which had nothing to do with the translation. At the end of the third paragraph, we would add: “if they are not already available within the broadcasting system”.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry....

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Agreed?

[English]

The Chair: At the end of the third paragraph....

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, “if they are not already available within the broadcasting system”.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

Does everybody understand what Paul wants to accomplish there?

Voices: Yes.

The Chair: If they're not available through the Canadian....

All in favour?

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I just wanted to clarify a small point. When you say “more popular foreign and third language services”, I think you actually mean “more popular foreign services and ethnic Canadian services”. In fact, I don't know what you call Canadian services like Telelatino. I know that Mr. O'Sullivan appeared before the committee and that he said that, in his opinion, it was a third-language service, but in French, we call them ethnic Canadian services, as opposed to foreign services.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's the translation problem I had with the English version, because it's not clear in French.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: It's not clear in French. So I think we could say “more popular foreign services...”.

[English]

The Chair: Carole-Marie, Joe read it into the record in English.

I think if we go with the translation of that version, it comes out correctly. Don't use this translation here.

Hon. Joe Fontana: We're going to change it so it better reflects it.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I just want to make sure that the French version says “ethnic Canadian services”.

[English]

The Chair: Carole-Marie, third-language services could include Canadian. It would include that.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: As opposed to foreign?

The Chair: It would include Canadian third-language services. It would have to, the way it's written.

So to conclude with the last amendment--

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Can we deal with mine first? Have we dealt with the part we added at the end of the third paragraph, which was “if they are not already available within the Canadian broadcasting system”? Has that been agreed to?

[English]

The Chair: Paul is proposing to add, at the end of paragraph 3, words to the effect “that are not now available”.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: “If they are not already available within the Canadian broadcasting system”.

[English]

The Chair: Do you understand?

Just put your hand up if you're in favour. It's very simple. We're going to settle it with hands.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I need further clarification on the amendment from Paul, because I think it does fundamentally change. What I heard was a French translation issue has become a bigger issue than that--that the insertion of the word “if” is really problematic.

Can I get a clarification? You portrayed it as being technical.

The Chair: Read it...encore, Paul.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Do you want an explanation?

Le président: We want the exact wording.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to add the following at the end of the third paragraph: “if they are not already available within the Canadian broadcasting system”.

The point is that we don't take issue with the existing services. They are already offered legally and correctly, and I think it would serve no purpose to question their existence.

[English]

The Chair: Is that clear enough?

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I don't really understand it. Maybe it's in the translation.

The Chair: No, it isn't a translation.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, I'm saying my own translation.

The Chair: Joe.

Hon. Joe Fontana: It is a problem. Again, it presupposes what the conclusions of the panel might be, because it introduces this “if not, if this and if that”. I suggest it's broad enough and flexible enough.

I think it takes into account what Paul is addressing, but let's wait for the panel to essentially tell us and talk about it, instead of.... We did the same thing with James. We're trying to suppose, again, that if something doesn't happen, we're going to do that. I think it protects and does what Paul says; at least in the English wording it does. I would hope it reflects that in the French wording. If not, the way he has explained it, I think, is problematic.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to deal with it, Paul.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Now we just have to vote on it. Let's do it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Okay, that's settled. Sorry, Paul.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now to the last motion, which is that your chair be authorized to write, on behalf of the committee, to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, informing them of the motion agreed to today on this date concerning the establishment of a review panel on increased choice and diversity.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

To our officials, you heard where some of us are on the issue of grey market satellite television.

Paul had a little bit of time left on his question, or we can go right to James.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Well, I've received the answer to my questions. Great.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

James, do you want to proceed with questions to the officials?

Thank you, colleagues.

Mr. James Rajotte: When the RCMP officer was before us, I found he was very informative. He provided a memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and Industry Canada. It was mainly in response to questions I had about whether this bill and the resulting reaction from this bill was going to be targeting individual subscribers or the dealers and the commercial users.

When you were before us last you indicated that obviously the intent is in fact to go after the dealers, not the individual subscriber. But I think, as was brought out by your last appearance here, this bill does not distinguish between them. But then, as I read this memorandum of understanding, it seems clear the RCMP are going after more the commercial activity rather than the individual subscribers.

Can I just get a clarification as to why in this memorandum, in the section on page 2...? I don't know if you have this document before you.

Superintendent Ken Hansen (Director, Federal Enforcement Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you.

I'm Superintendent Ken Hansen. I'm director of the federal enforcement branch.

Just to clarify, your previous witness was my supervisor, Chief Superintendent Mike McDonell, but my branch takes care specifically of the policy for the Radiocommunication Act, so I can answer that question.

Although the MOU does not prohibit us from targeting individuals, our policy has been that we will not target individuals and we will be targeting distributors. I've sent that out in terms of a policy memorandum to our divisions on two or three occasions. I know, statistically, that's actually what's happening.

Â (1205)

Mr. James Rajotte: Can we get a copy of that as well?

Supt Ken Hansen: Yes, we would have those on file.

Mr. James Rajotte: The specific question I had is actually in this memorandum of understanding. Sections of the Radiocommunication Act are discussed on pages 2 and 3. It identifies subsection 8(6) and paragraphs 9(1)(a) and (b), and 10(1)(b). I believe both Industry Canada and your supervisor indicated that paragraph 10(1)(b) would be the one they would use most often.

In Bill C-2, though, they talk about paragraph 9(1)(c), which is, according to some legal opinion, the actual unauthorized decoding in which the individual subscribers in their homes actually decode it. So why is paragraph 9(1)(c) not in this MOU?

Supt Ken Hansen: The MOU was written before I took my position, so I'm not sure why this section was worded that way.

I can tell you, though, that it is our policy not to target individuals. The cases where we have charged individuals.... I should clarify. When I say individuals, I mean those who are using the system just for personal use, because we have charged, obviously, individuals who are distributing the systems.

In cases where we have charged individuals, and there have been very few, the individual has either been using the system for commercial gain, such as a tavern owner using an illegal system to attract customers--which would affect, of course, other taverns that are not using the illegal system--or we have come across an illegal system in the process of conducting a search for drugs or whatever. I'm not aware of any cases where we've actually instigated an investigation against individuals. We simply do not have the resources to do so, nor would we normally do so.

Mr. James Rajotte: Do the officials from Industry Canada know why paragraph 9(1)(c) is not listed in here?

Mr. Jan Skora (Director General, Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Regulatory Branch, Department of Industry): Again, I was involved in the crafting of this, but clearly, from the inception, in dealing with the RCMP, we were targeting commercial activity. We were targeting the type of activity that dealt with dealers, distributors, and so forth.

I suspect there are many sections of the Radiocommunication Act that could have been listed here, but what we have focused on is commercial activity. I expect that's the reason for it, although we can look into that information and provide it to you. I thought I'd at least give you the sense of the reasons for putting this section in.

Mr. James Rajotte: If you could provide that to the committee, I would appreciate it.

My second set of questions deals with some of what we've just discussed with respect to the motion and the role of the CRTC. I know the CRTC officials are here as well, and I want to follow up on a statement; I don't know which one of you gentlemen made this statement, but it was at the previous hearings:

...the commission is hearing the growing call for access to more services. I think the commission in the months ahead will be in a position to indicate how it wishes to be able to examine these matters in a different way. We're hearing that the competitiveness test may be leading to too restrictive an approach in allowing these services and that perhaps a broader approach needs to be taken.

Now, especially after we've heard from the many witnesses who've come before us, can you indicate how the CRTC will be altering its policy direction and taking a broader approach in terms of determining services and whether you in fact think the competitiveness test is too restrictive and will be amended?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Unfortunately, because our decision is not out yet, it's difficult for me to elaborate. I went pretty well as far as I could go when I made that statement. It's just that during consideration of the applications for the 15 services, they all raised the fundamental policy issue of how we consider the competitiveness.

As to our policy in terms of considering whether it's a general interest service, whether it's a niche service, and how it competes with existing Canadian third language services, we realize it may not answer the expectations in terms of how many services are to be made available to the various cultural communities within Canada. We're always looking at our policies; we're always looking at ways to have our policies evolve along with Canadian society. When our decision is issued, you will see how we treat those policy questions about whether the current test is too restrictive or not, and you'll see the way forward we propose on that front.

I wish I could be more forthcoming, but then I would be revealing the content of an upcoming decision.

Mr. James Rajotte: When will that decision be released?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: We're aiming for the end of this quarter, sir.

Â (1210)

Mr. Michael Binder (Assistant Deputy Minister, Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications, Department of Industry): Can I jump in here?

There are different levels of policies. The CRTC has more decision-by-decision kinds of policies, and then there's the government-broad responsibility for managing, for example, the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act.

I just bought the English version of a two-year study by our Canadian heritage committee, and with all due respect, I'll remind you--I know you know this--it actually studied this problem and strongly sent the message to the government and to the CRTC to deal with the issue you just discussed in this motion. The due process in this country is that the CRTC then takes stock of this kind of recommendation and acts on it. If the government doesn't like what the CRTC does, the government has some pretty powerful instruments to deal with those issues. I think we are in the middle of a process now that will hopefully meet the objective of your motion as we speak.

Mr. James Rajotte: I'll follow up on that.

Is the government then sending a policy message that perhaps the competitiveness is too restrictive and that we ought to look at situations?

One recent example, I understand, is that there are some concerns now about Spike TV, where some people actually want to see Spike TV removed from the system in Canada. Now, everybody here around the table knows you don't get between Canadians and their television shows. If Spike TV is removed, you're going to get a lot of calls saying, “I had this channel and I was watching it; why is it being removed from the system?”

Maybe, Mr. Binder, you can explain. Is Industry Canada or Canadian Heritage sending a policy directive to the CRTC and saying let's broaden and open up this market and make it more competitive, make it more advantageous for Canadian consumers?

Mr. Michael Binder: I'll defer to my colleagues, because it's not an Industry Canada file.

I have to tell you, though, that normally we go through due process. The CRTC has hearings, they get witnesses, they have to weigh the various objectives of the act between the industry's needs and the consumer's needs, and then they render a decision. If, for example, a decision is not supported or not liked by a certain group, they appeal. They can appeal to the CRTC and they can appeal to the government.

By the government dealing with those issues, you can send messages back to the CRTC, and the government has done it many times. They've referred something back to the CRTC, told them to reconsider, or told them to do something else. In fact, there is also a very powerful instrument for directing the CRTC that has been used in the past too.

There are all kinds of instruments, but you have to go through the due process, which says we've set up a regulator to assist us in all of this.

Mr. James Rajotte: The policy directive is very important in the due process. You might say a channel such as Spike TV will compete in some way with another channel, so we should be very hesitant about allowing it on the system. If you approach it from that angle, that's a completely different policy direction from saying “This is a good channel. It should be available to Canadians. Why should it not be on the system?” I think we're coming from the first direction right now, whereas we should be coming from the second.

[Translation]

Mr. René Bouchard: I'd like to answer your question on whether the government is telling the CRTC it should be looking at the question of balance from a different angle. In its answer to the Lincoln Report, the government recognized the progress made in the broadcasting system. Over the years, the number of channels available to all Canadians—including foreign channels, Canadian channels and foreign-language services—have increased. We should not ignore the progress made and just say that choices remain limited.

Choices remain limited for technological reasons, and because we have built a broadcasting system designed to balance the various objectives of the legislation. One of those is to provide the best TV programs the world has to offer, but also to ensure that Canadian programming is made available to all Canadians.

So, in its answer to the report, the government stated that progress had been made, and that it would like the balance between available foreign and Canadian TV programs to be maintained. This does not mean the system will not evolve. If the makeup of the Canadian population changes, then of course the system evolves.

You are asking me if we are sending a message to the CRTC. Over the years, we have seen the CRTC increase the availability of foreign content in Canada, and the CRTC is now preparing to rule on making an additional 15 channels available. Over the years, there will no doubt be other applications to increase the number of channels available, and we see that there is an existing system to meet that demand.

In the future, will we be offering Canadians any channels they want in this country, be it local channels, national channels or foreign channels? I doubt that the existing Canadian broadcasting system can meet all needs and all tastes for all Canadians. I doubt that Canada's existing distribution capacity can provide all channels that Canadians would like to see. But I am quite certain that the system can develop and increase the number of channels available, since the technology is there. But when we increase the available channels, we have to ensure that there is a mechanism to maintain the balance. That is very important, in my view.

Â (1215)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, James.

Carole-Marie.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, yesterday a witness told us that there were five hours of Italian programming a day on Telelatino, that there was a great deal of advertising from Toronto, and that there was programming in Italian, Spanish and English, but not in French. Our Montreal Italians watch Telelatino, and in their five hours of Italian programming get advertising from Toronto businesses and don't hear a single word of French.

Do you think that really meets the needs of our Italian community in Montreal?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Obviously, given what the committee has heard, people are not satisfied with that.

One thing is quite regrettable. In 2000, the CRTC licensed a channel called Rai Canada. If the channel were broadcast, it would have 85% Rai programming and 15% Canadian programming. The specialty channels we launch have a 15% Canadian content requirement. Unfortunately, Rai never did become available. I believe that Rai and Corus, who hold the licence, were unable to agree. It's a great shame because it is exactly the kind of channel we need. It's ideal because it provides foreign programming that meets the needs of a cultural community, and at the same time serves as a tool to develop Canadian content in the same language. It's unfortunate that, even though the licence was granted, the channel never went on the air.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. O'Sullivan, I have another question on advertising or Toronto businesses. Is the CRTC aware that Montreal viewers are getting a little fed up with it? Do you regulate the advertising available on Canada's ethnic channels, so that people who have no other choice in Montreal are not bombarded with advertising from another city all day long?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: That is a consequence of distributing channels that might have a local base nationally by satellite. Because of the national distribution of what is essentially a local channel we see local advertising. The same thing goes for satellite subscribers who watch a CBC channel based in the Maritimes: they see advertising from the Maritimes, not from Montreal. That is what happens when a local channel is distributed nationally.

Â (1220)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So what would you say about the fact that Telelatino has no French whatsoever for our Italian francophones in Quebec?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: People ask us for channels. We grant licences on the basis of applications submitted to the CRTC. People develop programming which they believe fulfils their business plan, and their proposals. We do not impose any particular programming on them. People put a proposal forward, and we decide on the application we see before us. We do not add requirements for other programming, or different programming.

As a result, Telelatino has no French content. I admit that is unfortunate, but we deal with the applications submitted to us.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Earlier on, you talked about competitiveness. In reading CRTC decisions, we see that, in the past, you denied licences to channels providing Italian, because you stated they would compete with the ethnic Canadian channel Telelatino. Somewhat earlier, I said that criterion was not among the broadcasting objectives. Was I right in that?

May I conclude that this policy was established over the years, but is not a requirement under the Broadcasting Act?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: There is no requirement in the Broadcasting Act stipulating that we need to apply a competitiveness test. We have developed the test by looking at the Broadcasting Act as a whole, which is clearly biased towards the development of Canadian content.

If we look at all references to Canadian content development in the Broadcasting Act, particularly section 3, which sets out all the objectives, we see constant references to the development of Canadian content. Therefore, seeing that, we felt that our main goal at the end of the day would be to ensure that people see as much Canadian content as possible on television.

We recognize that the make up of Canadian society is changing, that applications are changing and evolving, and that we should change the way we interpret or develop policy. That is why I was trying to indicate, subtly, that in the future our policy in this area will have to change to some extent.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

At the CRTC, do you have the financial statements of Canadian ethnic channels? Could you table those for the committee?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Yes, we have an annual report that sets out the financial situation of all stakeholders. We would certainly be pleased to provide the committee with a copy.

Mr. Jacques Langlois (Director General, Broadcasting Policy Group, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): However, I should point out that some sections may be confidential. The figures are presented for groups of channels. Individual channels are not necessarily identified.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I believe the committee would be most interested in seeing the captive subscriptions paid to Canadian ethnic channels, and how much Canadians are giving them in total each year to access their programming.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: Coming back to the advertising issue, there is something I would like to add. Telelatino is entitled to 12 minutes of advertising per hour, like any other broadcaster, 6 minutes of which can be local advertising. That is why Montrealers see Toronto ads—because of the 6 minutes of local advertising that are allocated.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pacetti, please.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just along the same lines, for the CRTC, we were told RAI Canada doesn't exist because there was an agreement by only one party. Is that possible? How does that happen in Canada, where only one party signs the contract with two people?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: The application we received was from a company to be incorporated, and the entity we authorized was this company to be incorporated, made up of, as I understand it, the partners of Telelatino and RAI International.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: But did two parties sign the contract or make the application? Does it actually exist?

I mean, it's one of the suggestions you recommend, but now you're saying it doesn't exist, so....

Â (1225)

Mr. Jacques Langlois: No, the company itself might not exist, but the application certain exists, and the authorization by the CRTC certainly exists.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Was the application itself signed by both parties, or was it just signed by Corus?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: I don't know offhand, but I could check it out for you. I think it was certainly signed by Corus, and if they were to propose RAI programming, I believe they would have to have their permission as well.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I don't know if the CRTC puts out any press releases, but that's one of the issues you should address, or that would be my suggestion. That's one of the problems behind why RAI Canada is not selling.

But RAI Canada is not the issue. RAI International has made the application, and RAI International getting their licence has nothing to do with RAI Canada. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: It is linked in the sense that the plans for RAI Canada would have an effect because of the competitiveness factor. If RAI Canada were launched, then ostensibly there would be no need for the application for RAI International. But in the absence of RAI Canada, then we would just evaluate the application to add RAI International to the list, which is what we're doing. The decision will be coming out by the end of this quarter.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: With all due respect, one has nothing to do with the other. RAI Canada is on basic cable, and the request is to transmit on basic cable or satellite, but RAI International is just for satellite, if I'm not mistaken.

The Italian community consists of over a million people, at least, so I think they would be able to absorb more than one channel, if not two or three. So I really don't see where the connection is. Some of the content would be shown on both, but it's not like we don't have that anywhere else in Canada, or on any of the other stations.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: If RAI Canada were launched, then adding RAI International to the list would basically undercut it, because so much of the programming would be the same.

There's also a question about programming rights. When an international service, a third-language service, is carried, they have to ensure that they don't have exclusive programming rights in the sense that programming rights would be available to other Canadian broadcasters as well. That's why, if RAI Canada had been launched, there would have been an issue about the competitiveness with RAI International. In the absence of RAI Canada--which, in terms of our policy objectives, is unfortunate, but that's what we're dealing with--RAI International is therefore being considered on its own merits.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: But has this been addressed with the parties? Are the parties aware of this?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Yes. In fact, when Rogers applied to have RAI International added, they indicated that RAI Canada would not be launched, that the deal for RAI Canada was basically finished.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: So RAI Canada is off the table, and that's not part of the decision-making factor.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Okay.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Or sorry, I should say that it was an illustration of where there would be competitiveness if you had both the Canadian service and the international service trying to get in.

The Chair: One more question, Mr. Pacetti.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Okay.

I'll have to ask you one big question.

From what I understand, in the Toronto area there are three stations carrying Italian programs right now, and none in...well, there's one in Montreal. There's OMNI, owned by Rogers; CHIN, which I've never heard of; and then of course Telelatino. Why do they get the programs and yet there's nobody in Montreal carrying them? That would be the first question.

Second, I have a private member's bill, Bill C-526, basically requesting that the CRTC render a decision within six months of any requests. I was just wondering how you guys felt about that bill.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: First, the station in Montreal is owned by Global, and it's called CJMT. That is a multi-language, multi-ethnic channel.

With regard to Toronto, you're absolutely correct. In fact, there are two OMNI channels, OMNI.1 and OMNI.2. And in Vancouver, Channel M was fairly recently licensed.

The Chair: Actually, this is very interesting, but it's very much off the topic. I appreciate your concern on behalf of your constituents. I'm sure it's the same for Carole-Marie.

I'll let the record show that they care about their constituents.

We're going to conclude.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Can you answer my question on Bill C-526? It's a general CRTC one.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Why don't you ask him afterwards?

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: No, it's relevant.

The Chair: It's relevant. Do you promise? Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: On my motion, Bill C-526, how do you feel about obliging that the CRTC has to render a decision within six months after a licence has been applied for?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: We recognize there's a growing frustration with the time it takes for us to render our decisions. There has been an emphasis, in the past two years, to improve the quality of our decision writing to make sure our decisions give a clear indication of the record and give a clear indication of the rationale behind them, so there would be jurisprudence. People will realize what the decisions are, what was meant, and the thinking behind those decisions.

We recognize there's a frustration with the time it takes for us to render our decisions, but as to taking six months for all decisions on all applications, it depends. There are some applications sent to us that are so incomplete we have to send them back. We had one case before us recently, where we sent 50 questions back to the broadcaster asking that they answer them in order to make the application complete.

There are some instances when we have to make sure the file is complete before we can proceed with it, but we're always striving. It is more of a priority, for this year and the coming years, to increase the speed with which we render our decisions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.

James.

Mr. James Rajotte: For some clarification, because I'm seriously considering supporting Mr. Pacetti's bill, what is the mean average time for the CRTC to receive an application to the time it renders its decision? Do you have statistics you could provide to the committee?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I don't have them with me. Basically, we distinguish among the various types of applications we receive.

There are applications that are dealt with administratively, within a two-month to three-month period. There are applications that require a public hearing and therefore the delay is much longer: it is nine months to twelve months from the moment the application comes in to the moment the decision goes out. There are substantive applications that are nevertheless not done through a public hearing, but rather through a paper process. They are done within a six-month to nine-month period. It varies in terms of the types of applications we receive.

Mr. James Rajotte: Is there any difference, in general, between decisions rendered on the telecom side versus decisions rendered on the broadcasting side? Would they be the same timeline, a different timeline, or variable?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: They're very different timelines because the nature of the applications are so different.

In broadcasting, a lot of the applications we deal with are for the licensing of a service. We make a call for applications for a new radio service, because there's a spectrum available in a given market. Then people apply and we deal with the applications.

On the telecom side, it has a very different nature. Quite frankly, I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of the telecom application process. I'm sorry.

Mr. James Rajotte: Any information you could provide in terms of CRTC decision-making timelines would be very helpful for us.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, James.

Joe Fontana, please.

Hon. Joe Fontana: I appreciated the questions and the comments. I have three short questions.

On the enforcement provisions to the RCMP, I know that you said you don't have the resources and it isn't a priority to go after individuals, but the act, at least Bill C-2 as it now reads, would compel you to do so. Sometimes the issue of whether you enforce or not can be brought to bear in some way.

Witnesses, Industry Canada, everyone says they don't want to go after the individual users, but they'll go after the distributor and the dealers. The bill specifically says that you could. Would it make it easier for the RCMP if we struck the part on the individual sanction and the penalty on that individual?

Right now, you are in a dilemma. The law says you should, you shall, or you could, but the fact is you don't. Eventually, when we get back to this issue, would it make it easier or clearer for you if the individual is further defined in Bill C-2 to ensure it's not the individual user of a system?

Â (1235)

Supt Ken Hansen: As the law stands now, and even as Bill C-2 stands, we are not compelled to enforce the law. The commissioner still has the discretion, as we do, to determine how we're going to enforce the law. Even though we have to enforce any federal statute, we can determine how and what gets the priority. Bill C-2 wouldn't change that.

Hon. Joe Fontana: My point, though, is--

Supt Ken Hansen: If we got rid of the individuals entirely.

Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes. If you're not doing it anyway, and if we don't want to do it, then why have it there? It's nice to have it on the books and to leave it to the commissioner to decide whether or not he wants to make it a priority. My point is his options. I'm not talking about making a decision as to whether or not you need it there. If we took it out, would it really cause anybody any problems? I know that you would always like to hold the stick over everybody's head and say “I could”. Let's face it, we're talking about 800,000 people out there. I'm just saying that from my standpoint, it would make it easier for the police if it weren't there.

Supt Ken Hansen: I don't think it would affect us if it were taken out in terms of whether or not it would make it easier for us. There should be some type of deterrent in there for an individual to purchase this equipment, whether it be by way of the civil remedy that is in Bill C-2 or a Contraventions Act ticket, something like that.

Hon. Joe Fontana: I was thinking more along that line as opposed to criminalizing someone, especially when we think of what we were about to do for marijuana smokers.

Supt Ken Hansen: Yes.

Hon. Joe Fontana: On the licensing, I've heard that the CRTC is looking at options and more choice. Industry Canada suggested that a number of policy options are available through the Lincoln report and others. I hope that the review panel, which we just put in place and which we have asked both ministers to do, will take all of those things into consideration. We are looking at ways to better serve Canadian consumers, whoever they might be, in a lawful and legal way to ensure maximum availability and accessibility to good programming.

When the CRTC does license a particular program, can a Canadian carrier be compelled to carry that? I've heard that the CRTC will grant the licence, but then that licensee can't do anything with it because they can't find a commercial carrier that will put it on its system. I hope that the review panel will be able tell me how that could be made to happen. What's the use of having a licence if you can't use it anywhere? A lot of people have suggested that is the case.

The other part of the equation is that you can't get a licence. I won't get into that, because I think you already outlined the process.

James mentioned Spike TV. The government imposes some rules with regard to Canadian content. Canadian companies have to go to the CRTC to get approval for content change. Why wouldn't we expect a foreign service to have to go through the same thing? As you know, Spike TV was approved a long time ago. Some people might find it acceptable. A lot more people might find it unacceptable. We have one of the best systems in the world. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We've built a regulatory and policy framework that does work in most cases. We should impose the same requirements on everybody else as we do on Canadian companies wanting to get a licence from the CRTC.

I wonder if you could comment on both of those issues.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Thank you, Joe.

Mr. O'Sullivan.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: If I may, I'll start with the second one.

Spike TV is an interesting case, because it's about a service that morphed, that changed the nature of its programming after it had been added to the list of services, and the fact that its change, its radical change in programming, then brought it in competition with existing Canadian services.

We don't have jurisdiction over foreign services in terms of the programming, in terms of the content. We can establish rules about how it's carried, but we can't establish rules about the content of foreign...because then we get into trade disputes. We get into a question of jurisdiction over another country's undertakings.

So it makes it difficult to try to change the content of the programming, and I think the solutions in cases like that are more in terms of how it's carried, possibly packaging, possibly having a service but requiring that it be carried with Canadian services so that, as a whole, it's a package that promotes, and promotes the Canadian services as well as the American service or the other service coming from another country.

To go to your first question, about carriage, our requirement were for mandatory carriage, where we require both cable and satellite companies to carry, is once again geared toward Canadian services. What we require is the carriage of Canadian services, but not all, and if we're to look at imposing requirements for the carriage of foreign services, I'm sure the Canadian ethnic services will say, well, start with us before you start making it compulsory for all of the BDUs to carry foreign services. So that will be the debate in that matter.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: If I could just add to that, there are rules in place--for example, the four over-the-air ethnic channels we were talking about. Those are must-carry signals in their local markets.

In addition, the carriers themselves often carry them. For example, I know that Bell ExpressVu carries all four of those over-the-air channels, that they're available everywhere.

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you to all the officials who were so patient in spending time with us this morning. No doubt we'll be talking to you again this fall.

If we're not coming back here, colleagues, I wish you all safe travel over the several weeks ahead.

The meeting is now adjourned. Thanks to everybody.