HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 15, 2000

• 1140

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I will now call to order this meeting of the Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are meeting today to hear from the Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission.

Our witnesses are Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, the Executive Director, Broadcasting; Mr. Jacques Langlois, Director General, Broadcasting Policy; and Mr. Réjean Myre, Director, French-Language Radio and Television. We would also like to welcome the representatives from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec.

I would suggest that we start with the representatives from the Fédération, so that the CRTC can hear their comments, problems and demands, and respond to them.

I would invite you to proceed, Ms. Voyer.

Ms. Isabelle Voyer (Vice-President, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec): That is a more logical approach. We are both from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, which represents 34 of the 50 community communications organizations in Quebec.

The Chair: Could I ask you to identify yourself, please?

Ms. Isabelle Voyer: My name is Isabelle Voyer and I am the Vice-President of the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec and Coordinator of Bois-Francs community television in Victoriaville. With me is Mr. Gérald Gauthier, a Research and Development Officer with the Federation.

For a long time now, we have been wanting to meet with high- level authorities such as a place as yourselves. We have been trying to do that for at least two years, because we are very concerned about the future of community television. We have been working with community organizations—that is, organizations established by our communities, by groups and by citizens—for close to 30 years. These organizations and individuals who saw the potential of a television channel for them, decided, close to 30 years ago in Quebec, to organize, develop and support community television. There are some 50 independent community television channels in Quebec. People have used the medium to establish contact with each other and to debate the issues that concern them. Community television has the following it has, because it enables people to contribute to it and support it. Community television is animated and dynamic.

As early as the spring of 1997, even before the new regulation came into effect, we had serious concerns about possible deregulation, and about the fact that there would no longer be any firm obligations or regulations governing the activities of community television. Neither the independent community television channels nor the employees of the cable companies knew what would happen, and both felt these concerns.

Since the announcement of the new regulation, we have taken steps to ensure that citizens will continue to have input into their community television, and that community t.v. will continue to exist and seek to meet the same objective: to give ordinary people a place on television.

Naturally, the Federation has received the support of its members, as well as that of other organizations in Quebec, such as the Quebec Assembly of Bishops, and many community groups.

We are pleased to meet with you and to have an opportunity to make our comments to you regarding the implementation of the new regulation. We would also like to tell you about the perverse effects this deregulation has had on community television in Quebec, chiefly independent community television and community television in the Montreal region. I will now turn the floor over to Gérald.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier (Development and Research Officer, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec): Thank you very much.

• 1145

The CRTC's new Broadcasting Distribution regulations, which came into effect in January 1998, under Public Notice 1997-150, had a harmful affect on community television in Quebec. One of the most visible affects was the lost of access to the community channel by some ten independent community television corporations that had been established by community members.

Moreover, no alternative structure was established offering identical local community coverage for the regions affected. The intent of the regulation was to encourage fair competition that is advantageous to consumers, and to strengthen the presence of high- quality Canadian programs in our broadcasting system.

However, the CRTC did not offer the necessary protection to community television, and left it to the mercy of the commercial objectives of the cable companies. The CRTC released them from their former obligation to establish a community channel and provide proper funding for it. The new regulations remove from cable companies any obligation to protect the objectives of community television. However, the Broadcasting Act provides that the Canadian broadcasting system is made up of public, private and community components.

Fortunately, the vast majority of cable companies maintain the community channel as defined in the community channel policy, Public Notice 1991-59, and its management by the community where there are independent community television channels is also respected by the vast majority of cable companies.

However, a large company, Vidéotron, has done what might have been expected in the absence of regulations. Since it was no longer obliged to maintain a community channel, this company took over community television for its own promotional purposes in order to counter competition. It made the community channel into a competitive feature by removing the very foundation that defines what a community channel must be. It did that without any respect for the regional and local practices and needs of the citizens in these communities. The community role was supplanted by commercial and promotional considerations. This was a major impact of the new regulations on broadcasting distribution.

With its current approach to the community channel, Vidéotron is no longer offering communities a channel that can meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the Community Channel Policy. Two years ago, the CRTC did not think it would be possible for a cable company to use a not-for-profit community service, which is supposed to be really accessible and open, for another purpose—namely to serve its own business objectives. Nevertheless, that is what happened at Vidéotron.

The Commission did make provision for correcting any abuse that might be observed during the first two years after the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations came into effect. It stated in section 125 of the Regulations:

... the Commission shall monitor closely the evolution of the competitive environment, and shall examine specific issues and concerns brought to its attention.

The preceding provision, number 124 states:

The Commission therefore intends to undertake a general review of the effectiveness and relevance of the new Regulations after two years, and to see whether it is advisable to adopt other refinements to the Regulations in seeking to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

The two years are now up. For a few months, the CRTC has been receiving hundreds and hundreds of letters from individuals, organizations and institutions throughout Quebec. They all call for much the same things—that the Commission hold the general review that it promised or take whatever other step is necessary for it to study the future of the community channel. The review or the analysis must be public and democratic. The users of community television will have to be involved. The Commission, at the end of the exercise and in the public interest, will have to restore its protection of the community component of broadcasting. The CRTC, in close co-operation with the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, will have to define the community component of community television, just as it clearly defined it in the case of community radio.

For the immediate future, the CRTC must impose a moratorium on Vidéotron as regards all the independent community television channels that have been or will be closed.

• 1150

There's a strong consensus in Quebec on the various points mentioned above. In fact, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion stating these demands on March 15 of this year.

The Broadcasting Act recognizes the community element as an integral component of the Canadian broadcasting system. Non-profit community services have been brought into existence for an by citizens. The community channel will have a reason to exist only if it remains on a human scale and only if it adequately represents its community. Community television is still based on the vision of the Normandin pioneers. To date, this motivation has never been denied in practice.

The position of small broadcasters is just as important today as it was nearly 30 years ago. While it is true that we now have access to diversified information from around the world through new technologies, it is also true that every local community needs a television service that is built on its own scale and reflects its local concerns. The independent community television stations are working to this end.

Vidéotron, on the other hand, does not appear to distinguish between community and commercial or private television. As far as the community channel is concerned, it definitely does not feel that small is beautiful. In the conclusion of its reply to the CRTC regarding complaints concerning certain community channels for which it holds licences, Vidéotron stated that “Canadian telecommunications concerns are no longer operated in isolation.” And yet the company decided to operate the community channel in isolation by privatizing it. To achieve commercial objectives, Vidéotron is limiting citizen participation in the community channels' development.

The Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec trust that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will assume its responsibility and defend the interests of the Canadian public by fully exercising its influence to ensure that a strong community television remains the feature of the landscape of our broadcasting system.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we hear from the representatives of the CRTC, I would suggest that we hear from the two cable companies that are here, Vidéotron Ltée and COGECO Cable. Who will be making Vidéotron's presentation?

Mr. Beauchamp.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp (President and Chief Operating Officer, Vidéotron Communications Inc., Vidéotron Ltée): My name is Guy Beauchamp and I am the President of Vidéotron Communications. With me is Pierre Gagnon, the Vice-President of Public and Regulatory Affairs at Vidéotron Communications, and Diane Legris, the Vice- President of Programming, who's also in charge of Canal Vox, the channel that promotes vocal expression.

Mr. Pierre Gagnon (Vice-President, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Vidéotron Communications Inc., Vidéotron Ltée): We have brought French and English versions of our text.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp: You will see that on the first page of our text we have printed the insignia of community television, cable 9, as it existed in the 1970s.

The reason I have chosen to speak to you about the 1970s is that they were interesting years and marked the beginning of community television. It was a time where things were happening. My first employer, in 1972 was the community television channel in Hull, which had just opened in the spring of that year. So I was closely involved with community television, as was Diane.

When I hear people say today that Vidéotron and the people who run local television at Vidéotron have distorted community programming, I find that very overstated. In my view, what you have before you is neither a regulatory nor a legislative matter; it is simply a question of vision. We all have our own vision of how to do television that contributes to local expression.

• 1155

I remember very clearly that this debate started and was quite lively during the 1970s. There were essentially two schools of thought. The one held that the licensee, which is the cable company, should simply abdicate its powers and obligations and give free access to the community, with no intervention whatsoever. The other school held that if we did not perform some management functions, if we simply turned over the airwaves to various groups, it could happen that local television would be infiltrated by a certain interest groups, that might also be far removed from people's needs. In this respect, we always felt that we had a certain duty.

At the end of the 90s, the Board reviewed the whole matter from distribution support to programming efforts. That's when the matter of 5% as a contribution to the fund was raised. But there also had to be recognition that there was a major contribution being made in the area of local television. The Board then suggested that part of the 5%—if memory serves it was 1.5%, but you can correct me if I'm wrong—should be reserved for local television if the distribution company chose to do so.

That led Videotron and all the local television stakeholders to engage in a period of reflexion. We had the possibility of contributing 5% to a fund or continuing to support local television. We chose the latter option. We wanted to do this in a certain way to avoid having it become marginal and then be forgotten. That's why we renewed the whole image of community television because it wasn't without its faults. Many say it was television that was unprofessional, homemade, inexperienced, of inferior quality that spent its time engaging in programming to raise funds. Actually, it encouraged that image of itself.

We gave a new orientation to local television. Local television shouldn't only engage in programming; it also must be appreciated and listened to by the community. If the people don't watch it because it's marginalized, I'm sorry, but that's not community television; it's the televised expression of a certain group within the community. Our concern was to bring back an audience for local television and that's what let us to make this change.

Allow me to point out that the 1.5% contribution was suggested by the CRTC because we decided to continue the experience of community television. We even made representations to the Commission with a view to increasing this percentage which was finally established at 2% for class 1 networks; this percentage is higher for the smaller networks. That's a good demonstration of the will of Videotron and its stakeholders to continue with the experience of community television, to continue funding it and to keep it alive.

I would now draw your attention to the third page of the deck where we deal with a myth that has unfortunately been widely disseminated. Please note that the Videotron has not closed community television in any of its 43 licences, not its 33 licences, as said on page 3 of our brief. As it says on the following page, there's a lot of confusion surrounding what community television is and who produces it.

• 1200

In the early 70s, two kinds of community television management were implemented. In the first case, the management was done by the holder himself, in other words the cable distributor. That's actually how it's done everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec in some cases, but not in all cases.

In some cases, the cable distributor, the licence holder, decided that instead of mandating a director of programming and employees to operate community television, arrangements would be made with corporations or producers mandated to engage in community television.

When you break an agreement with a corporation, it's the same as if you did it with a director of programming. Simply put, each one must follow one's path. You can have diverging views. That happens in life.

When a corporation under licence puts an end to its activities and those same activities are pursued with the same care to ensure television with a local flavour, it doesn't mean we've shut down the community television station. We're still continuing with local programming.

On that, I would invite Diane Legris to present the rest. I refer you to the page with the circle.

Ms. Diane Legris (Vice-President, Programming, Vidéotron Ltée): This is the page.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp: As an introduction, I'd say that Diane has been doing local interest television for so long that when the Association des câblodistributeurs du Québec wanted to set up a prize to honour excellence in community programming, they called it the Diane Legris prize. In fact, all the recipients for this prize were astonished to be getting it from Diane's hands. They'd comment: “My God, you're still alive.” Yes, Diane is still amongst the living.

Ms. Diane Legris: Thank you, Guy. I was appointed Vice President for Programming at Vidéotron in 1995; that was a new position that had just been created to re-orient the programming and management of all our community televisions.

Of course, shortly after I was appointed, the first thing we had to do was to develop a vision. What we did was develop distinctive programming for the communities that people could participate in and identify with. So, as you can see in the white circle, we chose four fundamental terms that underlie all our programming decisions. These are the words: utility, information, participation and interaction by the community at large.

This brought us to develop or target programming niches we would emphasize: municipal scene; community events; access to local services, organisations and resources; open lines, vox pop and public places so the community can express itself through television; finally, how-to programs which, as you know, have always a part of community television programs, people have always liked them and the majority, actually, are produced by the locals themselves.

I've just pointed out certain key niches of the programming. As an example, in our Montreal programming, the community organisations niche was given 10 hours of original production a week. As for the municipal and cultural scenes, they were given five original hours a week. Nine hundred local reports in the zone around Montreal were produced and broadcast since September 1999.

Many open lines which allow people to express their opinions and put questions to experienced hosts or specialists and a few programs, À la une, L'Ombudsman, Place Publique and Vos Finances, are re-broadcast—we call them network programs—in the broader regions to create a vast communications network throughout the whole province to allow the people in all regions to be interconnected and give their opinion. Finally, you have a few example of service programming.

The next slide sets out the basic criteria for managing. The whole management process includes basic criteria that must underlie its orientation. One of these criteria is to focus on quality rather than quantity.

• 1205

Local coverage of activities on the municipal, social and cultural scene is always at the heart of any community television programming as well as access to organisations, volunteers, other citizens and local elected representatives.

Our community television, no matter whether it's for Montreal or out in the regions, is still a springboard for young talent who are not only in front of the lens but also behind the camera. With only three or four employees, as a matter of fact, there would be no programs broadcast if community volunteers didn't produce or help produce the programming. Those people are then recruited either in Montreal or elsewhere by the major television networks and specialised services.

We also train volunteers. In statistical terms, in outlying regions, two to four employees produce between four to six hours of programming a week. In passing, these numbers also apply to community television cooperating with the corporations. In Montreal, some 100 employees produce 70 hours per week.

Mr. Gagnon could talk about the results achieved thanks to this change in orientation; we are very proud of these results. As Mr. Beauchamp mentioned, if we are involved in television, it is because we hope that as many people as possible will follow it, not only passively as used to be the case, but actively, by participating in all of the open line programs.

Mr. Gagnon.

Mr. Pierre Gagnon: We have noted, especially over the past two years, that the new orientation for Canal Vox has started to become apparent, to take shape and to be appreciated by its clientele, or the viewers who are part of our licence distribution.

Let's examine and distinguish the situation in Montreal and the regions. If we are proceeding this way, it is because we started to measure the effects in the regions a little later than we did in Montreal. So in Montreal, from the spring of 1998 to the spring of 2000, the number of subscribers who watch community television on Vidéotron, which is now called Canal Vox, went from 19% to 27%. That is a very significant increase of 42%, if you transform it into the number of households. So in the Greater Montreal region, where there are approximately one million households, 262,000 of them watch community TV, and that number has now risen to 400,000.

So as Guy pointed out earlier on, it shows that television is meeting people's expectations and that it represents a product and a service that the communities we serve use and appreciate.

As for the specific situation in the regions, which was measured between the fall of 1998 and the spring of 2000, at the beginning, under certain licences, 6% of the subscribing households watched community TV. This percentage has risen to 20%. In other areas, where the number of subscribers amounted to 29% of all homes, the percentage has gone up to 43%.

Therefore, Vidéotron's re-alignment of its community activities, be it its own, or those undertaken in co-operation with non-profit corporations, has yielded eloquent results in terms of the interest expressed by people for the televised product that we have been given a mandate to offer. From this perspective, we are entirely on the right track, in our opinion, as regards the useful nature of this service.

Moreover, if we stop to examine one of the other arguments often raised by the parties that call into question Vidéotron's orientation or decisions, i.e. that there is no longer any local programming in the regions and that everything comes from Montreal, we can see that the figures paint an entirely different picture. I think it is important to note that.

• 1210

When you look at the situation in the large regions Vidéotron serves, like Victoriaville, Sherbrooke, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec City, the Saguenay and Hull, you can clearly see that local programming goes well beyond the minimum requirement set out in the regulations that apply. The regulations require that at least 60% of programming be local. We are authorized to broadcast a maximum of 40% of programming that does not come from the region in question.

If we look at the figures, we can see that in all of these regions, purely local programs make up at least 70% and up to 87% of all programming broadcast by Canal Vox. There is obviously some complimentary programming that comes from Montreal. It varies from 8 to 29%, depending on the region.

Part of the programming may also come from what we call other licensees, since some TV stations can broadcast programs produced elsewhere than in Montreal, in a neighbouring region or by another cable operator, for example. We have experienced situations where, for example, programs produced by COGECO or by corporations in the areas served by COGECO are traded or broadcast in neighbouring areas. I imagine that occurs between Trois-Rivières and Cap-de-la- Madeleine, for example, which are contiguous areas. This practice is obviously commonplace for community television and has already existed for several years.

So it is very clear, in reading the figures that we have here, that Vidéotron's objective to continue to focus on local programming that reflects people's experiences has become reality.

That essentially sums it up. I will now give the floor to Guy for the conclusion.

The Chair: If you would please conclude, because...

A Voice: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will now give the floor to the Vice President of Communications and Programming at COGECO, Ms. Hélène Dubuc. Ms. Dubuc.

Ms. Hélène Dubuc (Vice-President, Communications and Programming, COGECO Cable): Thank you.

Representatives of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the CRTC, the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec and of Vidéotron, good morning.

My name is Hélène Dubuc and I am Vice President, Communications and Programming at COGECO Cable, Quebec Division. For your committee purposes and upon your invitation, I am pleased to explain today COGECO Cable's point of view on community channel programming service.

COGECO Cable serves approximately 250,000 subscribers in Quebec. Its Quebec head office is located in Trois-Rivières, and its cable systems are spread out over the entire province, often separated by long distances. In fact, even if the size of our company allowed us to centralize several of our services in one place (such as telephone answering service, billing, accounting, marketing, engineering, etc.) our cable network generally services smaller markets and our management style has to take this reality into consideration.

COGECO Cable operates about 20 community channels in Quebec, servicing between 500 and 30,000 subscribers. Appendix A of my document contains the list of places where we operate community channels.

In most cases, the sole presence of our local medium is of great importance to the population, whether or not it is far from urbanized areas. Let's take the example of Saint-Hyacinthe, where we are servicing up to 20,000 subscribers. People in this town, located less than 20 minutes from Montreal, are very well informed of Montreal news. Unless a major event occurs, however, Montreal media practically never cover this region's activities. Therefore, our community channel plays a key role in this local community's life. This reality can be felt even more in distant regions without any local stations.

COGECO Cable community channels' operating mode: COGECO Cable chose to operate its community channel television stations with a limited, yet stable number of employees, who involve the community when producing programs and who train and integrate volunteers at each step of production, be it technical services, animation or research. Despite their modest operating budget, our local television services do not have to be concerned about seeking daily financial support. Therefore, they have the time and resources to put in place programming that is adapted to the community's requirements.

• 1215

Recent analysis and data collection has confirmed local programs as the main attraction of our community channels, and we intend to pursue our activities in this way. We want to support programs which emphasize local information and news in every aspect. We want to continue reflecting local and regional realities while working in partnership with the communities.

Community channels can no longer be for insiders only, but should rather become a mass communication tool, on a local scale, that provide information and exchanges on important local issues.

Depending on the regions we are servicing, some types of programs are likely to interest more people than elsewhere, and we must take these specific interests into consideration when developing our program schedules. For instance, in a blue collar region such as Thetford Mines, programs on local sports events are very popular. Moreover, in Saint-Hyacinthe, we notice that a large portion of the population appreciates our broadcasting the daily mass, whereas in Valleyfield, the news report cannot be ignored. This is why each of our programmers must adjust his programming to the specific expectations of his audience.

Our programming, which is essentially local, does not exclude the possibility of exporting certain programs to other regions, where an interest has been noted. Today's technologies offer these opportunities, and we believe that it is wise to use them judiciously, to everyone's benefit. Yet, our systems in Trois- Rivières, Shawinigan, Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe and Magog have been interconnected for a few years. This represents a potential of nearly 100,000 households picking up a community channel.

At the beginning of every season, we identify certain programs of public interest and rebroadcast them simultaneously on the interested networks. The major part of our weekly broadcast remains local, and these regional programs play a further role in our program schedule. Each television operating centre has the flexibility to come off regional broadcasting, and resume local broadcasting, when necessary.

In several regions, we have put in place advisory committees made up of representatives of the community from different sectors such as education, culture, health, economic development, and so on. Each committee member is a goodwill ambassador for the local television in his or her area, and attempts to put together interesting programs and promote them. They are dedicated people who volunteer to support and guide the regional program director. These advisory committees can be found in Trois-Rivières, Shawinigan, Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummondville and Alma.

Let's look at COGECO Cable's interests versus community interests. COGECO Cable's interest to maintain its market in a competitive environment is not in conflict with the mandate of a community channel offering a platform to a given community. Spin- offs can be positive for both parties. A company acting as a good corporate citizen, working in partnership with the community, can only win in terms of the loyalty of its clientele. On the other hand, the community wins media coverage of its events and activities, with the stability of this community service's operation. In the territory covered by COGECO Cable, community channels are showcases above all for debates and forums on projects pertaining to various spheres of activity.

COGECO Cable's community channels always comply with the most demanding requirements of objectivity and the respect of the journalistic code of business conduct. This is what allows them to maintain their credibility in terms of the programs they broadcast. In the smaller markets that we service, communities are generally concerned with these aspects and we are very vigilant in this area.

Organisations throughout the areas covered by COGECO Cable know that they can use the channel COGECO offers them, together with the director of programming, in order to organize and produce programs of interest to the people in their region.

Community channel services offered by COGECO Cable are generally accepted by the community. Appendix 2 contains several documents, including letters and press clippings, on this topic. We are also on excellent terms with independent community channel televisions in our territories—namely Amqui, Mont-Joli, Sainte- Anne-des-Monts, Forestville, Roberval, Plessisville and Thetford Mines—and we are pleased with the cooperation between our respective organisations.

Maybe the prevailing situation in major cities differs from the one in our territories; this is why we believe that different operating models can exist.

• 1220

Even though cable companies are no longer required to offer community channel program services, COGECO Cable decided to pursue its activities and local involvement. Remember that cable companies have to pay 5% of their gross receipts from broadcasting service operations, including a portion of which that has to be paid to the Canadian Television Fund. Residual monies, whose ratios vary according to the license class, may be used either for the Canadian Television Fund or local programming. COGECO Cable believes it is preferable to use these monies to maintain a local television service, and that is what we have done since the adoption of the regulation in effect.

COGECO Cable's local television are an integral part of communities and contribute considerably to their social, cultural and economic development. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Blais from the CRTC.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Allow me to introduce my colleagues: Mr. Jacques Langlois, Director General, Broadcasting Policy at the CRTC, and Mr. Réjean Myre, Director, French-language Radio and Television. Ms. Bertrand apologizes for her absence this afternoon. We were unable to work things out so that she could be here today.

The convergence of technologies, the emergence of new media and the globalization of markets are rapidly and constantly transforming the world of communications. Neither the distribution industry nor the Commission is immune.

In order to fulfil its mandate, the Commission must be at the vanguard of the many changes taking place and be able to adapt itself, as need be, in order to meet the objective of the Broadcasting Act in the context of the evolution of communications.

The phenomena of convergence is bringing with it new ways of doing things in the communications industry, which itself is currently undergoing an unprecedented restructuring. It is also clear that globalization and increased competition are raising expectations. Our regulatory framework must be mindful of all of these factors.

In a changing communications environment, the Commission must evaluate the tools it has put in place to meet the objectives of the Act.

Our goal is to maintain a fair balance among national, regional and local voices as evidenced by a number of our radio and television decisions, particularly those dealing with company mergers and globalization.

Community television is one way to ensure that cultural diversity remains a fundamental aspect of the maintenance and evolution of our Canadian cultural reality.

The CRTC has always recognized the importance and the specific role of community television in the overall broadcasting system. That is why in 1975, in order to meet the needs of subscribers, the Commission required cable carriers to provide a community channel on their basic service that would encourage citizens' direct participation in the development and creation of programs aimed at specific local viewers. Rather than establishing a strict formula for financing community channels, the Commission developed guidelines suggesting that licensees contribute 10% of their gross subscriber revenues.

In 1991, the Commission reaffirmed its conviction by indicating that the role of the community channel should above all be that of a public service facilitating expression through its accessibility to members of the community. The Commission required broadcasting undertakings to provide adequate financial resources to community channels, i.e., 5% of the revenues derived from basic service. The Commission expected licensees already making a greater contribution to continue to do so.

The Commission's approach turned out to be a success. We note that today in Canada there are as many community channels—709—as there are private television stations—710.

The broadcasting distribution regulations, which followed a fundamental questioning of the Commission's broadcasting environment, came into effect on January 1, 1998. The Commission adopted a model that takes into account the competition in the market of distribution undertakings such as ExpressVu, Star Choice and Look TV.

• 1225

We allowed flexibility for certain aspects of the regulations, including those dealing with community programming. Since then, cable carriers are no longer obliged to provide a community channel, which had been the case for close to 25 years. On the other hand, section 29 of the new regulations requires distributors to make an annual contribution to be divided between one or more production funds and community channel programming, which includes community programming and any other project that allows the voice of a community to be heard.

The Commission must allow new regulations to be in effect for a while before it can determine their impact. In this particular case, the annual reports that distributors are required to submit to the Commission reveal that the following amounts were contributed to local expression: for all of Canada, $77.7 million in 1997 and $74.5 million in 1999. In Quebec, the figure is $21.2 million in 1997 and $21.4 million in 1999. We note that since the new regulations were implemented, there has been a slight decrease of about 4% for the entire country, while numbers have remained steady in Quebec.

We are aware, however, that there are concerns about the possible impacts of the new regulations, as shared with us by the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec.

The Commission has received complaints dealing with, among other things, the lack of access to, and limited presence of, community program on community channels. We are currently reviewing this situation.

I should mention that the “regulations” aspect of the mandate given to us by the Act has always gone hand-in-hand with the supervising or monitoring of the industries we regulate. Once a policy is enacted, we have the responsibility of determining whether it is being applied in terms of both its purpose and its objective, to decide whether or not it should be amended, to identify its positive and negative consequences, and to take necessary action.

The Commission had decided to revisit the regulations two years after their coming into force. Following an internal review, and taking into account the comments received from Canadians, we believe it is necessary to review certain aspects of both the policy on broadcasting distribution undertakings and the regulations. This is one of our priorities for this year, and is included in our Action Plan 2000-2003.

We have concluded our comments and are prepared to answer your questions.

The Chair: I would like to thank all of the witnesses. I will ask Mr. de Savoye to begin the exchange because the witnesses are here as a result of his resolution.

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank all those individuals who went to the trouble to come here, the representatives from independent community television, Videotron, COGECO and the CRTC, to come and give their thoughts on the situation.

I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to remind those who may be less familiar with the way our Committee operates, that our role is not to act as an arbitrator or to make any decisions on the issues discussed, but rather to gain knowledge and, eventually, to present recommendations, if necessary, to the House of Commons with respect to the Act or its regulations. Hence the information that you provide us will serve to make us more knowledgeable and have a better grasp of the situation. Our objective is to understand.

That being said, community television made its appearance with the cable industry. At the time, each little territory had its own independent cable operator and the notion of community was tied to an economic reality in terms of cable distribution. Through acquisitions, the networks grew. To a certain extent, community television remained and, in other cases, those that got involved in television were not shut down, but the cable operator took control and defined both content and production.

I appreciate that the CRTC mentioned the fact that, at that time, the Commission encouraged the direct participation of citizens in preparing and producing programs aimed at very targeted local audiences.

• 1230

I also appreciate that COGECO made mention of the fact that the likes and dislikes of the people living in Saint-Hyacinthe were different from those of another municipality and that community television tried to meet the expectations of every community.

Videotron took a different approach. Moreover, COGECO stated that several models could coexist in accordance with requirements. Videotron produces for local communities, but also carries programming that covers just about all of its network. I am thinking here of those programs that, for many years, have been hosted by very well-known television personalities.

In summary, has the definition of community television changed or should it change? Do the community television needs of a particularly community differ depending on whether or not it is located in a very urban area or in a clearly rural area? When it comes to community television, does the audience want something based on its own needs, that reflects its own community, its own activities or is the audience expecting community television to provide it with information covering the entire province of Quebec and, in the case of the other provinces, does the audience want information that covers the rest of the province?

The question that the Bloc Québécois is asking and which I would like you to respond to, is as follows: is there a need, today, to modernize the concept of community television and to redefine its mission, its means and its obligations? Perhaps it is even time to get community television out from under the control of the cable industry as was done with community radio? These are questions that we are asking ourselves. Could you please provide some insight on this issue so that we can gain a better understanding of our point of view.

The Chair: Are you asking each of the witnesses to respond to the question?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Absolutely.

The Chair: I will begin with Videotron and then we will go around the table.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp: I usually remember the last words of the questions that I've been asked. The example of community radio is interesting. Obviously, there is absolutely nothing to prevent, and this includes independent corporations, from going before the Commission and applying for a community television licence for a given location. At that point, the Commission will make the decision. But if we do this, we must be able to supply our own financing, as is the case for community radio. Since community radio does not have a guaranteed source of funding, it must, obviously, ensure that there is enough community support. There is, therefore, at least this market discipline that comes into play, which ensures that if people do not tune in, community radio, like community television, will be forced to close its doors unless it can get third party funding, which would be dangerous in this particular case.

When the representatives of independent corporations speak, I think that they simply want to become licence holders; but they would like to be funded. We are licence holders. There is a belief that we do not have to fulfil our mandate. If someone thinks that we are not doing programming that is relevant to the community, he or she can use a mechanism for filing a complaint with the Cable Television Standards Council or, ultimately, the CRTC. These organizations will react. They will take action.

One model does not exclude the other. It is not because we produce general programming of interest to all communities within the wider community that local production is necessarily excluded. Moreover, I think that it was very clearly shown that we still do a lot of local production.

• 1235

Basically, I think that you really hit the nail on the head when you talked about the word “vision”. Indeed, perhaps what you are faced with is a conflict of visions. People have a different vision of what community television is all about and how it should develop. That is understandable. Life is full of conflicts like that. Ultimately, it is the person in charge who must inspire the others.

We have inspired many corporations, just as we have inspired many of our managers and employees as a result of our vision. However, at times there are some people who refuse to accept this new vision and they leave. They go elsewhere. This holds true for some of our employees and this may be the case for some corporations as well. I think that, basically, the problem resides in the attitude of certain corporations. I noted two words in the presentation. It is the corporations that are saying that they are independent and they are the ones that took over community television 30 years ago. Therein lies the problem.

The Chair: Ms. Dubuc, and then I will turn the floor over to Ms. Voyer and Mr. Gauthier.

Ms. Hélène Dubuc: Generally speaking, I share Mr. Beauchamp's opinion. I would like to add just one point, although nothing specific.

Over the past 30 years, we have talked a great deal about the importance of having access to community channels. I still believe in this and COGECO still believes in this, but perhaps with one proviso: access, yes, but not at any price. It is also important that the viewers watch television. The television that we produce must be seen by many people. It must be of interest to many people. I simply wanted to raise this point, but I do agree with Guy's opinion on this issue.

The Chair: Ms. Voyer, followed by Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: I would like to take a short while to discuss licences and then I will turn the floor over to Isabelle.

There may be some opportunities as far as licences are concerned, but when you look at the type of licences, you can see that nothing has really been done for community television with the means currently at its disposal.

The only licence we could obtain is a small one which mentions that community television cannot file an application because, if the cable operator is already distributing a community channel, another parallel community channel cannot be created. Consequently, if we have understood the situation correctly, we need to modernize the licences.

Ms. Isabelle Voyer: Do we need to redefine community television? I think that we should give some thought to the matter once again and we should discuss it. We are hoping that communities would be invited to participate in this review or in this redefinition. The people who use the service should have their say. Is community television as marginal, as forgotten as we say it is? Are people not watching it? I do not think that this is the case.

Videotron provided us with the viewing ratings. In some regions, the statistics are quite good. People are watching the program and participating in it. They need this television. When we say that they have taken over television, it means that the people are participating in this space.

As for the funding of community television, deregulation is not simply a matter of funding. It is important to realize that many independent community televisions are self-financing, through their own means. They do not receive funding from the cable operator. Some receive a bit of funding from the cable operator. For the most part, the community funds community television in its area through fund raising campaigns or other like means.

I think that we may have to redefine a funding formula for community television. We already have a fund or funds for Canadian television production. If community television is important in the Broadcasting Act and in the broadcasting system, why not think about setting up a community production fund with redistribution mechanisms? I am throwing this idea out to you. I am not saying that this is a must, but it does exist for private production. Why couldn't it exist for community production?

We should examine the issue of community television because the last policy dates back to 1991. A lot of things have happened since 1991. Television has evolved. Television users may want to participate in this definition and review the policy, update it based not on industry needs but on user needs, on the needs of people who use television on an everyday basis, who require our services to do programming and to speak out. We are not talking about something marginal. It is very well used.

The Chair: Mr. Blais, do you wish to add anything?

• 1240

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, the Broadcasting Act is very clear. The broadcasting system includes a public aspect, a private aspect and a community aspect. Up until now, we have for the most part defined the community aspect through community radio and community channels grafted on to cable operator licences.

We recently heard an application and we feel that there is some desire to consider low-powered conventional TV, which would be another avenue. This is part of our strategic plan. Of course, there is a cost associated with that, but this would be another way to add community voices to the broadcasting system. There will be problems; there will be, for instance, a capacity problem. Will these low-powered community television channels have distribution access rights in a universe where there is a great deal of pressure? You probably have heard about the 500 or so applications we received for new specialty networks. There is not enough room in the pipe to distribute all of that and everyone is jostling to get in line. However, we did identify this possibility as a way to build on the community aspect.

As I said in my comments, the environment has changed. It is, therefore, time to take stock and to ask ourselves some questions. The review is no longer being conducted every five or six years. The cable regulations that we had prior to 1998 were from 1986. We waited all this time before reviewing them. Now, things are accelerating and we must constantly question and reassess because the environment has changed. This is, therefore, an avenue that we are looking at.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First let me thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I have an interest that goes back ten years as an elected official in the whole business of community access TV and CPAC delivery. I certainly believe in community television, because in a lot of the communities, certainly in rural Canada, that's the only game in town. So again, in that context, it's very important and very necessary.

As I travel across the country, I get to go into some of the local access stations to do interviews, and I've noticed quite a variance, from very rudimentary operations to very professional ones, almost to the point where I can't even differentiate from the private broadcaster.

Then I'm told by some of the cable carriers that they have to raise funds, even my local one at home. They have to raise a certain amount of money to match the dollars provided to them by the cable operator. Even the ones that operate almost like a private operation do raise funds. It's a commercialized operation, and their mandate... To me, it almost seems they have to raise money so that they can stay in operation.

So even up to this point, I'm still confused and not sure of all the issues that relate to public access to television.

The criticism I hear at home is about reduction of funds and the volunteers being put in the position where they have to go out and raise funds, or else the system is not going to work for them, their equipment isn't going to be updated, or whatever other factors come into play.

The other thing I criticize is the decision-making. It's usually top-down. So I'd like to ask the cable operators, what kind of consultation process do you have in place for your community access television stations? Also, should you be the watchdog of this requirement or should someone else be your watchdog?

Ms. Diane Legris: I will answer that question.

First we have to differentiate, as has been mentioned before here, between having a large system such as community television in Montreal and other regions. On one of the slides, we demonstrated to you that we have community television in 45 licences, so this means 44 licences outside Montreal.

Everywhere, whether the production is made by an autonomous corporation or by Vidéotron employees, it has to be made also by the community, because with two employees, if the community does not participate in the production, the concepts, and the animation of the programming, there simply is no community television.

• 1245

In terms of Montreal, we already have 100 syndicated employees to make that television, and before we started changing it, there were maybe eight or ten programs, esotericisms, religion, and so on. It was such a melting pot, it made no sense, and people were telling us, “What a bad channel.”

So yes, we believe in community television, and it is made with and by the community.

Parallel to that, there are some corporations—not all of them, because as the federation has mentioned, they have 35 members, but in the federation... Many of the corporations to which we give funding are not members of the federation, because they don't agree with what the federation says about lack of funding.

But in terms of funding, to finish on that, I will tell you, Vidéotron has not reduced the amount of money committed to community television programming in the last five years. What it did is this. In some cases, in 1995 corporations were receiving an average of $15,000 a year from Vidéotron. For two and a half years, we increased that amount to about between $75,000 and $90,000 in order for the corporations to better their programming, to hire permanent people, and to have stability.

Some of the corporations did a lot of good with that money, and we are still collaborating with them today. Some of the corporations decided... I don't know what happened to the money. It did not change an iota. So the money we give to the community programming in the regions not only respects the percentage that the CRTC tells us to do, but we have to exceed, simply because the reduced amount of revenue from that licence is not sufficient to have a community channel that makes sense.

So in many areas, year after year, we are putting 1% or 2% more into the community channel. So we have not reduced that. We have reduced subsequently, for some corporations, their amount. Five years ago it was $15,000, $90,000 for three years, and then it was $50,000. It is at $50,000 right now, and they have bingos and some of them have sponsors. But some of them don't believe in that. They don't get any money. So it varies from one to another.

The Chair: Madame Dubuc.

Ms. Hélène Dubuc: The main watchdog we have at COGECO is the local survey we are doing and the comments we receive from our subscribers. This is the main opinion we use to decide about our programming.

The second is, as I said earlier, we are using in several regions some advisory committees to help our programmers decide what will be good programming. Those people are volunteers, and they are working in several types of sectors in the community. So that's what we are using.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Jennings and Mr. Godin.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. How much time to I have?

The Chair: Go ahead and we will see.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I could take up all of the time. You know me well.

The Chair: Mr. Godin will inform us whether or not he needs a bit of time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: He is going to be acting as the whip.

The Chair: He too needs some time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: First of all, I would like to thank our witnesses: Ms. Dubuc of COGECO Cable, Mr. Beauchamp, Ms. Legris and Mr. Gagnon of Vidéotron Ltée, Ms. Voyer and Mr. Gauthier of the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, as well as all the CRTC representatives. I am very pleased and I will explain why. I am very pleased that we have initiated a discussion on the definition of local expression television.

• 1250

There is an independent television company that serves part of my riding, Lachine. This company has existed for nearly 22 years and it has just been advised by Vidéotron that the contract which expires at the end of June will not be renewed. Since the financing provided by Vidéotron made up at least 50% of its operating budget, it will be shutting down at the end of August.

And so, Mr. Beauchamp, when you say that you have not shut down any local television station, it's true. However, in reality, should Vidéotron refuse to provide a large portion of the funding, the companies, as a result of this decision, would have to shut down. The local company may have a good or bad reason why it doesn't try to find other sources of funding or something else.

I think that the real issue is the definition of local expression television here, in the third millennium. We cannot necessarily resort to the definition that we had back in the '70s, the '80s or the '90s. I am pleased to hear the CRTC say that its internal review led it to conclude that a public consultation process was required.

As a first question, I would like to know what your internal review was all about?

I have other questions for the other witness.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: All right. I will not take much time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That was my first question.

My second question is as follows: How does the CRTC currently define local expression television? You acknowledge that it may be appropriate to redefine it, but what is your current definition?

My third question is on the new regulations that came into effect January 1st 1998 and which allows cable carriers to contribute a percentage of their revenue to a production fund, to provide financial support to community television or a combination of the two. Does today's technology allow the new forms of television, such as Look Télé or ExpressVu, to broadcast or to create community television stations? Currently, unless I am mistaken, they are simply contributing the percentage that they are required to contribute to the production fund. So, they are in no way supporting local television. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is the information that I have.

It's the opposite for Vidéotron, COGECO and also Rogers, I imagine, that exist in other parts of Canada. They continue, like it or not, to fund local community television stations. Perhaps their vision of what these stations should be is changing or does not satisfy everyone.

Those are my questions for you. Ms. Voyer, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Beauchamp, and Ms. Dubuc, if you have any comments to make regarding the CRTC's answer or if you have anything to add after their answer, I would like to hear from you. That is just the first part.

The Chair: That is quite a bit. There are three questions, Ms. Jennings. We will begin with the CRTC. I would ask the others, if they are going to make comments, to be brief in order to give everyone a chance. Mr. Godin also has questions and if he too has three, with sub-questions, we will be here for some time.

Mr. Blais.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The first question was regarding the nature of the internal review. Recently the CRTC reviewed almost all of its policies. Because we have a heavy workload, the staff conducted an internal review to determine what the key issues were, what we needed to review. We have to make choices. So, it was really an internal review to identify what we should re-examine.

Now, to identify them, we will follow the usual process, which includes the stakeholders participation. Thus, it is only an internal identification of what we must review and that was identified as a subject.

• 1255

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I have a quick question. The review of the regulation we are discussing today will take place after public consultations. Have you already established a timeframe?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: According to our three-year plan, we anticipate dealing with this during the course of the current fiscal year.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So we can expect that there will be public consultations between now and March 31st, 2001.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Precisely.

Your second question dealt with the definition of local expression. The definition of local expression is broader than that of community television. It is a concept that was added to our 1998 regulation because we thought that there may be other ways of promoting local expression. Some of the licensees proposed models via the Internet and things such as this which we studied in different cases. Realistically, the only model we know of that seems to work, is that of community television, even though everyone seems to do it somewhat differently.

We have a definition of what community television is. I won't take the committee's time to read it, but I will send it to you.

The Chair: You may send it to the clerk.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, so that he may distribute it to everyone.

You also spoke of Look Télé and ExpressVu. Look Télé is a bit different and I will talk first about ExpressVu and Star Choice, which have national licences. It is very hard for them to broadcast local expression because they work nationally. Despite the fact that they contribute 5%, I think that they would like to have more direct contact with their communities. Incidentally, they are trying to add local signals because if there is no local signal, someone in Regina will not have access to a service. That is an advantage to the cable carriers, and they realize it. If they support the community channel, it is because it builds links between them and their clients, which is appreciated.

Our policy allows cable carriers who are operating community stations, as they are defined, to obtain a credit against the 5% they are required to contribute to a national fund. This is the reality of the new players and competitors who have come on the market: their licences are too broad to have a local and community component.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The technology does exist nonetheless, since you did speak about local signals. If these new players such as Look Télé or ExpressVu wanted, they could establish, in some manner...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The problem with Look Télé is one of capacity. They have less capacity because they use the airwaves...

The Chair: But if they wanted to do it...

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: They could do it. There is a way they could do it.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The technology that would allow us to operate and support local television rather than national television does exist, to spite the fact that they might have a national licence.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: There are pros and cons, but there are opportunities.

The Chair: I would invite Mr. Beauchamp, Ms. Dubuc and the representatives of the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec to make their comments following Ms. Jennings' questions.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp: An answer to all the questions?

The Chair: Please group the questions. Some people have told me that they have commitments and we would appreciate it if you could summarize your answer.

Mr. Guy Beauchamp: With respect to your question on Lachine, I would say that nowhere in the definition of “local expression” does it say “produced by an independent company”. We want to ensure that the community expresses itself. We've spent considerable amounts of money to support an independent company that produced one half hour of programming per week and in the end we decided that it cost too much and that we had to terminate the contract. The president of the company agreed that there was another way to ensure local programming. Thus, we hired someone who is responsible for programming. We recognize that there must be local expression, but we will not consent to supporting an independent company that produces only one half hour of programming per week.

The Chair: Ms. Dubuc.

• 1300

Ms. Hélène Dubuc: Actually, I have no comments to make.

Voices: Ah, ah!

The Chair: Ms. Voyer, do you have anything to add?

Ms. Isabelle Voyer: I would just like to react to the issue of Lachine and the answer from the CRTC. May I do so?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Isabelle Voyer: I hope that the issue of access to community channels isn't limited to a question of money. It is important to know that Videotron invested a lot of money in community companies starting in 1995 following a public hearing where the CRTC took a very firm stand and informed Videotron that they were not doing as much as they should be doing.

If Lachine now has one half hour of community programming per week, it's because Videotron required that there be one half hour per week. There has been a drop in access to air time for production in the Montreal region, in communities such as Châteauguay, Beloeil, Lachine, Repentigny and even Saint-Jérôme, where, in the end, it is the cable company that has decided to limit the air time and to give less time to production. So, if it costs $50,000 for a half hour, there may be companies that would have preferred to have had more air time. The issue of access to the airwaves is fundamental in all of this debate, and I am not sure that there were teams in place, in Montreal, where Videotron excluded independent companies from the airwaves.

In Châteauguay, they no longer have air time. There is no longer a production team to ensure a daily presence. There is no team that is capable of creating television viewing and of presenting it over the air. That no longer exists. That is what is in question. It's no longer a question of money. Of course it takes financial resources to hire professionals and to produce a professional quality production, but if the community wants to get involved, they don't necessarily require those same means. What they want, is a means of communicating. That does not mean mediocrity. The need to communicate, even if the technological means have evolved, it is the same. It is the same as it was even before television. Television technology exists, and people want access to it.

The Chair: Ms. Voyer, I think your plea clearly indicates what your situation is and that of Vidéotron as well. If I understand Mr. Blais correctly, you will both have an opportunity to make a detailed presentation of your points of view to the CRTC. I hope you will be able to do so in much greater detail than here because of the lack of time.

I am happy to see that there are quite divergent points of view. The CRTC will be able to listen to them and make the appropriate decision.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): I have a rather quick question and comment.

First of all, I endorse the suggestions made by my colleague today. I'd like to thank all those who have taken the trouble to come and inform our committee. I'm convinced that the problem we are facing at the present time relates to our understanding of what community television is. That is why I very much appreciated the vision or the orientation of the CRTC and COGECO and the approach they have taken to involve the local community.

I am from the constituency of Châteauguay. Some people claim that community television is marginalized and of poor quality. I can tell you that yesterday my colleague and I tabled in the House of Commons a document signed by 2,500 people from the greater Châteauguay area requesting the CRTC review and define community television.

What people have seen so far is not as marginalized or as bad as is claimed. It's what the people want. What people are asking for at the present time is to take part in local programs with decision-making not restricted to the top levels only. That is what it amounts to.

• 1305

I'd like to conclude with a question for COGECO. How many community televisions have you shut down in the past six or seven months?

Ms. Hélène Dubuc: Mr. Godin, in our territory we deal with some independent corporations. Actually there are only a few of them because in most of our territory, it is our own employees who... We subsidize some corporations in areas like Amqui, Sainte- Anne-des-Monts and Forestville. In other areas, there are independent corporations that we do not subsidize but we provide them with premises or engage in exchanges. We are not in a situation where we make the decision to open or shut down anything.

We have our own employees, employees of COGECO, who work with the community programming service. That is our model. We cooperate with the corporations located on our territory.

Mr. Maurice Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: In conclusion, I would like to say that I go along with the point of view expressed by Mr. de Savoye at the outset. We are not a court here. We do not engage in arbitration but we do provide information to the House of Commons on what has been brought to our attention.

There were some people who, through Mr. de Savoye, asked us to hold this meeting. I'm very happy it took place because it has shown that there are very differing points of view. I'm glad that the CRTC is getting ready to review this entire matter.

The only thing that we can ask for here is the greatest possible openness to consultation enabling everyone to express his or her views so that the decision is well-informed. It will then be up to us to determine whether this decision should ultimately be re-examined.

I'd like to thank you all for coming. I also wish to thank Mr. de Savoye for presenting the motion.

The meeting is adjourned.