SPOR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR L'ÉTUDE DU SPORT AU CANADA

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

• 0937

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. We are privileged to have before us today Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, from the CRTC.

We all remember the recommendations from our report last December 4. I think we had nine recommendations that touched on the responsibility and the role of the CRTC. As you know, Mr. Blais, over the next few months our committee is reviewing the status of each one of our recommendations.

We might also report to the committee and others that we were very happy with the minister for sport's announcements last Friday and Saturday for Paralympic athletes of Canada and also for the Coaching Association of Canada. Mr. Coderre continues to move forward on his campaign to make sure that all of our recommendations are implemented. So that was another good weekend for us.

I would now turn the floor over to you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director of Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss your report, Sports in Canada: Everybody's Business.

My name is Jean-Pierre Blais. I am executive director of broadcasting at the CRTC. Madame Bertrand has asked me to convey her apologies for not being able to join us today.

I will focus my remarks on recommendations 37, 39, and 41 to 43 in the report, which pertain specifically to the CRTC.

[Translation]

Recommendation 37 states that the CRTC not authorize any more foreign programming services with strong U.S. sports components for broadcast in Canada.

The Commission currently has a moratorium on the authorization of any additional foreign services to the lists of eligible satellite services. Apart from the major U.S. networks which focus on U.S. teams and athletes, the only U.S. specialty services that are currently on the lists of eligible satellite services are The Golf Channel and Speedvision which were added prior to the moratorium. The Commission's policy has been and continues to be not to authorize foreign services that are competitive, in whole or in part, with Canadian services.

• 0940

[English]

Last January the commission announced its policy for the licensing of new Canadian pay and speciality services. It sets out an innovative framework to bridge the changeover as the industry moves from the traditional analog world to the more open-entry, competitive world of digital distribution.

The model adopted takes into account the limited digital capacity for the time being, and fosters a Canadian presence to encourage a faster roll-out of digital technology. Approximately ten services will be licensed on a one-per-genre basis. These services will get immediate access to digital distribution and therefore will give consumers the choice of subscribing to more Canadian services.

The commission will also encourage choice and diversity of programming services by licensing an unlimited number of services on an open-entry basis as long as they meet basic criteria. These services will not have guaranteed access, but as digital capacity grows it will allow for more consumer choice.

[Translation]

Following a call for applications for licences to operate new digital pay and specialty services, the Commission received a total of 452 applications which will be considered at a public hearing to be held in the National Capital Region in August 2000. Of these applications, approximately 28 are proposing to offer some type of sports programming varying from the coverage of women's amateur and professional sports to cricket, rugby and soccer. Keeping in mind that the proposed services can't be directly competitive with existing specialty services, this could bring exciting new forms of niche Canadian-owned sports programming into the market.

The Commission's new policy will ensure that we achieve the goals of the Broadcasting Act in the new digital world. However, the Commission recognizes that there may be genres in which a Canadian programming service is unlikely to be developed. The Commission will therefore issue a call for requests to add foreign services to the lists of eligible satellite services for distribution on a digital basis only. The Commission will issue this call concurrently with its licensing decisions on new Canadian programming services.

[English]

As mentioned earlier, the commission will not be predisposed to authorize foreign services that are competitive in whole or in part with Canadian services.

Recommendation 39 states that the CRTC should extend mandatory simultaneous substitution to speciality services. In public notice 1997-25, entitled “New Regulatory Framework for Broadcasting Distribution Undertaking”, the commission recognized that the providers of sports programming would benefit from simultaneous substitution, but that the number of substitution opportunities that would exist for other specialty services was unclear. Given the limited benefits for most specialty services, the commission did not wish to impose upon distributors the burden of mandatory substitution for all specialty services.

In the context of its 1999 television policy review, the commission revisited the issue of extending the right of simultaneous substitution to specialty services. It determined that the current policy in regard to simultaneous substitution for specialty service providers remains unchanged.

The commission was of the view that no compelling new evidence was provided in the proceeding that would lead it to change this policy. The commission also remained concerned that mandatory substitution for specialty services could lead to undue siphoning of programming from conventional broadcasters.

[Translation]

Later this month, the Commission will be announcing its three- year strategic plan. In that context, the Commission will revisit the question of simultaneous substitution to review whether its policy still is appropriate in a rapidly changing environment.

[English]

Recommendation 41 states that the CRTC should encourage broadcasters to cooperate in providing Canadians with the best possible Canadian programming. It has always been the commission's practice to encourage Canadian broadcasting licensees to provide the best possible Canadian programming and to ask that all the elements of the broadcasting system work cooperatively to meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the deployment of the Canadian broadcasting system.

[Translation]

One of the reasons that the CRTC required CTV to divest itself of SportsNet in order to acquire TSN and RDS was to maintain a healthy competitive equilibrium in the sports market and to ensure that one player would not dominate both national and regional sports programming on specialty services. The Commissioner viewed maintaining a competitive environment as the best guarantee of providing Canadians with the best possible Canadian sports programming.

• 0945

Another benefit of that decision was to encourage ongoing partnerships between over-the-air broadcasters and sports specialty services in broadcasting sports events such as the Olympics. It was also intended to prevent the migration of sports from over-the-air television to cable distribution in the event that broadcasters were unable to compete with a united....

The Chair: Excuse me.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes?

The Chair: We lost the simultaneous interpretation.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: At what point?

[English]

The Chair: Carry on.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Do you want me to start over?

The Chair: No, no.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Okay. There is a copy of the—

The Chair: No, no, I just wanted to let the translation booth know.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: ... broadcasters were unable to compete with a united TSN and SportsNet.

[English]

Moreover, in recent calls for applications for new services, the commission has stressed the importance of Canadian-based partnerships. Such cooperative approaches are essential in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Recommendation 42 states that the CRTC should initiate a study of sports on Canadian television, with the purpose being (1) to analyse Canadian sports content compared with American sports content—programming involving Canadian teams or athletes—on channels available in Canada; and (2) to evaluate the market share of broadcast Canadian sport.

With respect to Canadian content levels and market share issues, these matters are considered in detail by the commission when making decisions on licensing Canadian services and determining whether to allow foreign service to be distributed in Canada. In particular, these issues were examined by the commission during the television policy review, also when it studied CBC's licence renewal application, and in the context of CTV's application for the transfer of control and/or ownership of NetStar.

What we learned from those processes is that sports remains one of the most popular, cost-effective genres of Canadian programming. We also know that Canadians want to watch Canadian teams and athletes, as we heard testimony on the bidding wars among broadcasters for the rights to broadcast the games of Canadian major league teams.

We have included for your information a chart that outlines the Canadian content requirements imposed on specialty services that broadcast sports programming. I won't go through the chart. It's there. I'd be happy to answer some questions if you have questions on that chart and how this reflects the broadcasting system.

Recommendation 43 states that Radio-Canada and CBC should be required to broadcast a minimum number of hours of amateur sports in both official languages, and that the number of hours broadcast be equivalent on both networks.

Last January, following a public hearing as well as a cross-Canada consultation held to examine the role the CBC in the Canadian broadcasting system, the commission renewed the CBC's English-language and French-language television licences for a seven-year term. Throughout the public hearing and the consultations, the commission noted that the issue of sports programming does not arouse the same kinds of concerns for television viewers of the French-language network as it does for those of the English-language network. Very few interveners mention sports program as a source of imbalance in the schedule of the corporation's French-language television service. However, in its decision, the commission did note the concerns of the Fédération québécoise du sport amateur, and encouraged the CBC to provide greater coverage of the issues that closely affect the francophone amateur sports communities.

[Translation]

On the other hand, the question of how much sports programming should be on the English-language network's schedule, particularly in peak time, was raised at the public consultations and the public hearing. Many viewers expressed the view that the CBC allocated a disproportionate share of peak time to professional sport.

[English]

The commission indicated in its decision that it expected the CBC to fill its commitment to not increase the overall proportion of sports programming in the schedule; to decrease its professional sports programming by 120 hours per year by the end of the licence term; to increase its amateur sports programming by 60 hours per year starting in the first year of the new licence term; and finally, to review all professional contracts as they come up for renewal.

I hope this information will be of assistance to the committee in preparing its report. I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Inky Mark.

• 0950

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

I'd like to thank you for bringing us an excellent report.

I'd like to make a comment and then ask you a question. There's no doubt that Canadians do want to watch more about themselves in all areas of life. As we all get older, we probably watch more TV as well, whether it be golfing, gardening, or other aspects of outdoor life. Canadians want to see themselves on television. As we turn on the tube these days, a lot of it is American. There's no doubt about it. As we get older, our interests change. Certainly in recreation they do. How do you categorize what is professional and what is amateur in terms of recreational activity such as gardening and golfing and those types of programs?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I notice from the transcripts that you had a discussion with the CBC as to what constitutes amateur and professional sports. I must admit that from the commission's perspective it has never been an issue. It's generally understood what constitutes professional sports. It's mostly the major sports leagues, the NHL, the basketball, the baseball, that sort of thing, plus other sports, such as professional golf. Then there is what we would describe as amateur sports, which is generally understood to be things such as swimming and track and field.

You're quite right, there is a third element, which is more the recreational aspect of it. In fact, Outdoor Life is one of the licensees that focuses on this sort of not so much watching other people engaged in sports and stopping there, but watching other people engage in activities, rock climbing or whatever, so that they would themselves be initiated to the activity and go out and participate in it.

Mr. Inky Mark: I would certainly encourage the level of content in Canadians watching more the partaking of recreation.

The other question I have is on the whole issue of Internet broadcasting. Has the CRTC made any decisions as to how it will deal with Internet broadcasting?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The commission ran a major proceeding on what we called not so much Internet broadcasting but the new media.

Just by way of background, the commission has several powers under the Broadcasting Act. It can of course license activities involved in broadcasting once it has defined something to be broadcasting. We could renew those licences, amend them, and pose conditions of licence. The commission can also adopt from time to time regulations of broad application. So licensing tends to be specific to certain licensees, whereas regulation is overall. But there's a third less known power, and that's a power of exemption. Parliament has provided that under subsection 9(4), when we think that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act won't be furthered by licensing, we can decide to exempt a certain class of activities. So that's the background.

When we looked at the issue of new media, we held a rather large public proceeding, which involved consultations and traditional oral hearings. We even had the Marshall McLuhan Centre operate a website for us to get comments from the broader base of Internet users, being the people most likely to be affected.

With all this information the commission came to several conclusions in its new media decision. The most important ones are that, first of all, there was a great deal of content on the Internet that was not broadcasting within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act. By way of example, web pages that just have words or some pictures on them would not be broadcasting. But the commission did recognize that there was some element of the Internet that involved broadcasting in terms of what Parliament had wanted to define as broadcasting.

• 0955

As a result of that, the commission said, “What are our choices? We can license them or on the other hand we can exempt them.” Basing it on where we were technologically, the impact that the new media at this stage would have on conventional broadcasting, the commission came to the conclusion that it would be in the public interest to adopt an exemption order instead of licensing. That's what it did. Just before Christmas the exemption order was issued, which means that Canadian-based companies can get involved in that sort of activity without obtaining a licence.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Blais. I have two questions for you, or at least I'd like further clarification from you about sports programming on Radio-Canada.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Go ahead.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: If I understood correctly the testimony of CBC representatives who appeared a while ago before the committee, it would seem that sports programming is increasing steadily on the English-language network. The CRTC has a rather strict programming policy for the English network, that is it imposes certain requirements on the CBC, whereas in the case of the French-language network, the CRTC appears to be less demanding when it comes to sports programming. Even though there is more sports coverage on the English than on the French network, why isn't the CRTC as restrictive when it comes to Radio-Canada sports programming?

My second question concerns the CTV/NetStar merger. We're told that a portion of the proceeds - 10 per cent, I believe - from this merger will go to community agencies. I'm sure you have the figures. The CRTC has apparently already decided which agencies will share in the windfall and it seems that the Jeux du Québec and the Canada Games are not on the list. Could you explain this decision to me, because I'm just a little concerned.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Certainly.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you. That's all for now.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Fine. To answer your first question, I would have to say that when we held public hearings on CBC license renewals, we did in fact receive many comments about the CBC's and Radio-Canada's sports programming.

We're not saying that there's no room for sports programming on the CBC or on Radio-Canada. It's a question of maintaining a programming balance. Most private broadcasters devote about 6 or 7 per cent of their scheduled air time to sports programming. At the English network, nearly 15 per cent of the schedule was turned over to sports programming, and this percentage was even higher during peak viewing time. Therefore, the consensus was that the CBC was devoting too much air time to sports. The same phenomenon has not been observed over at Radio-Canada. It's not that the CRTC was going easier on Radio-Canada, but simply that the prevailing situation did not result in the same degree of concern.

Moreover, as part of its television policy adopted last summer, the Commission endorsed the principle whereby it is preferable to regulate the industry or intervene only when market forces fail to achieve the objectives dictated by the public interest, as set out in the Broadcasting Act.

In the case of the French-language network, there was less of a need to intervene to limit sports programming, specifically amateur sport programming, because providing this coverage is part of the network's mission. Radio-Canada has clearly stated, and you heard it for yourselves, that it plans to focus its efforts much more on the coverage of amateur sport. Therefore, it isn't necessary to regulate something that a party has decided on its own to do. The Commission's philosophy is to take a hands-off approach. We've adopted the same approach with respect to private broadcasters.

With respect to your second question regarding the tangible benefits to be derived from the NetStar merger, let me give you some background. Why are there tangible benefits to be had? It's not that we're opposed to amateur sporting events like the Jeux du Québec or the Canada Games. The question is more whether these events qualify for benefits under our policy.

The airwaves are public and belong to everyone. When licenses are awarded, broadcasters are receiving the privilege of using part of the spectrum. First-time licenses are generally awarded through a competitive process and go the party showing that it will best serve the public interest.

• 1000

The Commission's policy on license transfers is not to open up the process to competition. Some jurisdiction do opt for this course of action. There have been times in England and in the United States when a party wanted to sell a license and the slate was wiped clean. The license was ultimately awarded to another party through a competitive process.

We have not made this our policy in Canada for some time. However, we do inform people wishing to purchase a license that they must award tangible benefits to show that the transfer is in the public interest.

This led to the adoption last year of a policy whereby 10 per cent of the value of the transaction must be converted into benefits. However, in order for these benefits to be tangible, they must be greater than what they would have been without the transfer. This brings me to the decision involving CTV NetStar.

The Commission concluded that covering the Canada Games and the Jeux du Québec was part of the mandate of SportsNet or TSN/RDS. Therefore, they cannot argue that broadcasting this programming constitutes an added benefit.

However, they are implicitly required to provide reasonable coverage of these two events and furthermore, to table by the end of June a counter-proposal on how they plan to spend the $11 million in benefits, this according to their estimates. Their proposal must comply with the Commission's policy.

Some are concerned about how this sum of $11 million will be spent. I think a very valid case can be made here. Since this money was originally earmarked for amateur sport, I think the Commission expected the money to go alternatively to amateur sporting events.

Therefore, this doesn't represent any kind of general loss for amateur sport.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I'm not certain that I fully understand your explanation.

You say that benefits flowing from the merger cannot be used to help fund the Jeux du Québec, for example. At least that's what I understood you to say. I wasn't talking about the broadcasting per se of the Jeux du Québec.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: What I meant was that the Jeux du Québec and the Canada Games were not deemed to be an eligible benefit for the purpose of the transaction. However, the implication is that these events must be covered. Perhaps the coverage won't be worth $11 million, but the network will do more than just cover the opening ceremonies and give daily updates, as it has done in the past. I think it's required to provide reasonable coverage of these events. I can't tell you what this will cost, but the network must cover the events.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blais, I think Madame St-Hilaire has touched on a very important point. One of the problems we have in getting a handle on this is that it's sort of like jelly; it seems to slip away. Is there some way you could maybe give Madame St-Hilaire a specific understanding as to exactly what's happening in those games, beyond just the opening and closing ceremonies?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We haven't received a counter-proposal from CTV NetStar after approving the transaction. They have a 90-day period to tell us how they will redirect the $11 million. I presume that at that time they will also tell us what they intend to do vis-à-vis those two initiatives.

The Chair: Once all of that happens, could you follow up so that you could let us know?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Certainly, no problem. I will do that.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today. I have to admit that I found your last answer a little bit like the program Yes, Minister. I just felt it was going around like this and I didn't see or hear the answer to the question.

The Chair: We're going to get it in writing.

Ms. Beth Phinney: If we get it in writing, maybe it will be a little more understandable.

• 1005

I'm not going to ask her question; I have my time. So I'm probably going to cut you off when you're answering, because I would just like my questions answered.

There are a couple of statements in here that concern me. Here's one:

The Commission viewed maintaining a competitive environment as the best guarantee of providing Canadians with the best possible Canadian sports programming.

To me that sounds like the money part of it is more important than the content. I may be wrong, but that's a sentence in here.

You've said in here “Canadians want to watch Canadian teams and athletes”. We're talking about amateur sports here. I tried to pin the CBC down when they were here—and you probably read that—about what they are doing on the local level in amateur sports and how important that is. It's not going to be very important in the CBC's eyes if it's not important in your eyes. You said there was no question of what professional sports and amateur sports are. It's never been an issue. Everybody knows what's a professional sport and what's an amateur sport.

I get the impression from the witnesses that were here from the CBC that an amateur sport is an Olympic sport, and it's the people who are already in training, the elite athletes, who are considered amateurs, who are in training for the Olympics.

Are you willing to accept that when Canadians say they want to watch Canadian teams it only means people who are on their way to the Olympics, or does that mean that in Hamilton, my riding, they would like to see the playoffs of the local soccer teams with kids between the ages of five and eight, or the T-ball teams, or the local hockey teams, or the local basketball teams, kids who would probably never, ever go to the Olympics or haven't thought about it yet because they're too young, or the disabled community, which is playing sports but will never go to the Olympics? How can you expect CTV, CBC, and other stations to accept this philosophy that they should get down to the grassroots if you don't feel it at your level?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Perhaps I'll take that last aspect first.

Certainly our definition of amateur sports is far more inclusive than just the types of sports you were talking about, the Olympics—

Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm surprised that's not defined here, since you were coming to talk to us about amateur sports. I thought that would be defined here. What is your definition of amateur sports?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I mentioned to you, we do not have a regulatory definition. Basically, we would accept what a federation defines as an amateur sport. It hasn't been an issue. It comes up in terms of logging, but we've never had—

Ms. Beth Phinney: I don't know what logging means. And what is a federation? A national sports group?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It's not a defined term within the regulatory framework. What would we do if somebody was saying that is or is not an amateur sport? We would look at what is the commonly understood term of amateur sports.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Understood by whom?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: By experts in the field. Therefore we would turn to what sports federations define themselves as being an amateur sport.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Wouldn't you consider that most sports federations would probably say—and I'm not sure which federations you're talking to—that their athletes training to be professionals are their elite and are the ones they would like you to...? I'm just asking, don't you have a responsibility to decide how much time should be spent on amateur sports at the grassroots level?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I was trying to answer your question in terms of what we define as amateur sports.

Ms. Beth Phinney: You define it as whatever the federation says.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I'm saying we do not have a definition. If ever a dispute arose as to whether something was or was not an amateur sport, we would look at what normally is understood.

The Chair: Excuse me for one second. Maybe I can help you, Mr. Blais. The reason Ms. Phinney is so focused on what I consider to be a very important point around amateur sport is that our own national broadcaster didn't have a clear-cut definition of amateur sport. In fact, there were sports lumped in with the amateur definition in their mind—professional and the reverse of that. So it may be a good idea if the CRTC has a specific definition, because if you're monitoring and evaluating, those you are monitoring should understand exactly what you mean by that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's the point I was making. We have accepted what has been logged. Logging means when they tell us what they've broadcast on a monthly basis. We have not had to question something. They haven't tried to put an NBA team into amateur sports. What they've filed as amateur sports has tended to be reflective.

• 1010

You've made a point about local sports. To me that is also very important.

Ms. Beth Phinney: It's all the same issue.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It's also very important in terms of making sure that the broadcasters, the CBC and others, reflect the communities they serve. In terms of the TV policy, which we did last June, we clearly stated that above and beyond what national networks have to do, either affiliates or owned-and-operated stations that belong to CTV or Global or the WIC stations, they have to reflect the communities they serve. So they get involved in activities that involve the local teams.

But we look at the broadcasting system as a whole. There are community channels, which also play an important role, that broadcast some of the local junior hockey games in certain communities. That's great because, especially outside of large urban centres, that creates a mesh of community that's very important. The electronic media, television and radio, are used very much to help that. So we encourage that. That's in fact essential. It's one element of serving the local community. It could be sports. It could also be charities and other activities. But sports is certainly one of the cohesive factors in any community.

Local broadcasters, when we'll be doing the renewals, will have to come up with plans. Many of them will choose initiatives like the one you mentioned of broadcasting local activities as one way of answering that.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I suggest that maybe the CRTC should decide to make an issue of it. What you have done is separate local sports and amateur sports. If a station in Toronto decides that it wants to show in Hamilton a soccer game that's played in Toronto, then that's considered Hamilton's local sports event for the week, when it's not Hamilton people playing, and the people in Hamilton may or may not be interested. But they can account for that as being local sports, because they took it from Toronto and sent it over to Hamilton and put it on the Hamilton newscast. If the top person who sets the regulation doesn't decide that some time has to be spent not just on either amateur or local sports and does not pin it right down that it has to be the sport in a community, then certainly an organization that wants to only run things they're getting paid for is not going to do it.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As I said, although we didn't pin it on sports per se, the TV policy has made it quite clear that we're going to expect licensees to serve the communities. The Hamilton broadcaster, the CHCH of the world, is going to have to serve that local community. In fact, in the recent hearing we had in Vancouver just last week, they've made commitments to that effect.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I'd like to suggest to you that I think the CRTC should have some guidelines, know what are the different areas of amateur sports and be able to define that some are going to be local, etc. I'd like to see that in some of your guidelines. It makes me nervous that we don't have any definition.

The Chair: I'm sure it will be after today.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I hope so.

Is my time up?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Just briefly on that, it strikes me that one of the problems is that the sports world itself has confused the issues around amateur sports and professional sports when you have Wayne Gretzky playing in the Olympics and the Dream Team from the States playing basketball in the Olympics. These are clearly professional athletes making millions of dollars playing in the area that is traditionally defined as amateur sport. In my memory, amateur was basically defined as without pay. But that seems to have changed. So it has probably clouded it both for broadcasters and for the public in general as to what is amateur.

I'm interested in the U.S. contribution or the area around recommendation 42. When it was 4-0 for New Jersey last night, I was wishing that we could switch over to watch Detroit and Colorado so that I could ease my pain. I'm curious about the rules when there are no Canadian teams left standing, if you will, in a particular sport, be it now professional basketball, professional hockey, or professional baseball. Is there any restriction on broadcasting all of the games that would obviously be played today among U.S. teams but in the future with European and perhaps even Asian teams?

• 1015

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: We have rather detailed rules on what constitutes a Canadian content program, and we see it from that perspective. If something is produced by a broadcaster, it's deemed Canadian. So if a broadcaster were to be responsible for broadcasting a game, wherever it occurred, certification for Canadian content would be automatic.

On top of that, if they've decided to use an independent production arm, if they used a Canadian company, it would be admissible to—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the CBC producing a Detroit-Colorado game is considered Canadian content?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, because we recognize the industrial importance of that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And I strongly suspect that if it were not running against one of the six Canadian teams, most Canadian hockey fans would want to watch that.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes, I would think so as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As to your statement here that you learned Canadians want to watch games with Canadian major league teams, I'm assuming that's a preference, as opposed to watching a U.S. team, but not if there's no Canadian team left.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Well, unfortunately, Canadian fans don't—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They don't have much choice.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: As much as they can barrack for their teams, they can't guarantee they'll make it to the finals.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What about European television coming in? I know on Sunday mornings on the satellite system you can pick up live broadcasts of the premier league in England. Are we going to see more and more of that? While your focus here, or the focus of the committee and what we're talking about, is Canadian versus American, are we going to see a time when European and Japanese and whatever else in the world are equally accessible to the Canadian television market?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If so, how are you going to regulate all of that in relationship to Canadian content?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Well, there are two ways for foreign programming to enter the country. The one we favour is by Canadian companies, whether TSN, CTV, or others, purchasing rights to foreign games when they come into the country, because then it's supporting a Canadian-based company.

The other way we have, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks, is this eligible satellite list.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is what?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: An eligible satellite list. I'll move over the jargon. Basically we've created a list of foreign, non-Canadian services—we don't license these, but we authorize them—which allows cable companies and satellite companies to distribute them to Canadian consumers if they decide to.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I just ask you if there is a danger of us going to a much more predominant system of pay TV for the consumer, almost having TV for the rich and TV for the rest of us?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I don't think so, because cable and other distributors do work in a more and more competitive environment, so they're very sensitive to pricing when they add services. There is a risk.

We've seen something such as Centre Ice, which DTH offers, but it tends not to be for the basic games. It's really so that somebody who's a big fan of hockey can have access to all the out-of-market sports. It's for that premium customer who's really into it. But the base offering with Canadian teams that a Canadian would want is generally offered either on conventional, free-over-the-air, or rather low-cost, first- or second-tier cable services.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I could, in the limited time, I'll move back to the recommendation that asks you not to authorize any more foreign programming. You start saying you have a moratorium on that, but then I find a statement in the middle of page 2 that seems contrary, where you say, “The Commission will therefore issue a call for requests to add foreign services”, etc. It seems contrary to the concept of a moratorium.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Once we lift the moratorium later this year, the hurdle will be quite high to jump to get into the Canadian market, because we've advocated a Canada-first policy. So Canadian licensees that bring in, as we mentioned earlier, the European soccer teams is what we would prefer.

Once we've licensed Canadian services, both category one and category two—and as I mentioned, about 28 of those 400 or so applications are Canadian-based sports services—the only way a foreign service can come in is by showing they are non-competitive, in whole or in part, with the licensed Canadian service. That slit is rather small, because the field will have been occupied.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do I have more time?

The Chair: Yes.

• 1020

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like to touch on the Internet and the impact of.... I forget the name of it; I think it was MyTV.com or something.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: iCraveTV.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, iCraveTV. It reminded me of the pirate radio stations in the 1960s that sat out in the English Channel and stole all the airwaves from the commercial stations, both in Europe and in England. I believe iCraveTV has been issued a court order or an injunction to cease and desist for the time being.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I'm not apprised of the details, but I understand there was a consent settlement.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right. But I think it's coming. How are we going to regulate our airwaves when the day will come—and notwithstanding our getting older, Inky, as you referred to, I think it will come in our lifetime—when we'll be able to sit at a laptop in Germany and pick up the Toronto Maple Leafs playing hockey on a Saturday night, right on our laptop, and it will be crystal clear and it will be free, except for maybe a telephone line or something like that.

What's the future for CRTC when we're looking at the potential for pirate Internet TV distribution?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: This was the subject matter of a great deal of discussion during the new media hearing, which I mentioned earlier. In the short term, I don't think we have the technology to allow mass amounts of this. We talk about, for instance, radio Internet. Most of these radio broadcasts on the Internet have a limit of 200 concurrent users on them. So we're not at the technology today. We're moving towards it.

That being said, another phenomenon we're finding is that when people are going out to seek websites, they're actually looking for local content. So ironically, even though a Canadian may have access to all that's on the World Wide Web, they tend to look for local content—their local community, their region, their city, their country.

Ms. Beth Phinney: That's because they can't get it on CBC and CTV.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, but you might have trouble selling advertising for a soccer game between five-year-olds on ONtv in Hamilton.

The Chair: I would like to pick up on this point, if my colleagues would give me permission.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let the chair be heard.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney has touched on something we have to deal with in this committee here today.

Our focus is the amateur sport fabric of this country. At this moment in time it's not the professional sport fabric. You're here today representing the CRTC to try to convince us that the systems of accountability in this country are working, and I personally don't think they are.

Even though your focus has been primarily on television today, the radio stations in this country have a huge responsibility for the amateur sport fabric as well.

Again, I want to go back to Ms. Phinney's point. I represent a riding in downtown Toronto, so naturally I would be sensitive to the broadcast systems. There's one station in particular, called Citytv, where they have a fellow whose name is Jim McKenny. Every single day, he goes to the local arena or baseball diamond or soccer field, every single day, every single sports broadcast, and he touches on what those kids are doing, whether this high school won, or whether Joe's Pizza beat so-and-so in a soccer game. They still manage to cover the highlights of the professional realm.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the other broadcast systems can't do a similar thing. And I don't just mean the television broadcast systems; I mean the 3,300 radio stations we have in this country, especially the ones in major urban markets.

If I'm in Belleville, I know I will hear lots about the Belleville Bulls, because the radio stations in those smaller communities don't have a lot to cover. But it seems to me that for those of us who live in centres of over 250,000 people, the radio stations—which are your responsibility, Mr. Blais—don't do very much for the amateur sport fabric of this country.

• 1025

I want to build on Ms. Phinney's point and see if there's not some way you could go back to your colleagues in the CRTC and figure out a way that on a station-by-station basis, from coast to coast to coast in this country, we could ask them what they're doing for the amateur sport fabric in their community.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an excellent opportunity for me to talk about the same topic of money versus public service.

I've been very frustrated since 1997 in trying to get CPAC broadcast to half of my constituents. My constituency is about 200 miles long by about 100 miles wide. I contacted CRTC when I first came to the House, and they informed me that the cable operators were responsible for broadcasting CPAC. Unfortunately, I have one cable operator, and they don't think it's necessary to broadcast CPAC in half of my riding.

The Chair: Is this amateur sport?

Mr. Inky Mark: It's amateur broadcasting.

The Chair: Please.

Mr. Inky Mark: Anyway, this is about the same topic Ms. Phinney brought up about money versus community service. So if in this country we can't even make sure that Canadians all see the sports that are being exercised in the House of Commons, then what hope do we have in trying to make sure that our community sports get broadcast via radio or television?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I can follow up on the situation in your particular riding. I don't know what the class of licensee is and what obligations they particularly have and what can be done and when their licence renewal is up. It would be a perfect opportunity for your constituents to make points on it.

In terms of serving the local community, we've gone across the country, and you're quite right, maybe the distinction is between high urban centres and less urban centres. In less urban centres, certainly we get lots of support from local hockey teams, baseball teams, really grassroots amateur teams that support either transfer applications or renewals of licences, because they see radio and community channels on cable as being a vital link to mesh that community together.

The Toronto example is an interesting one, because Citytv has branded itself as a local station that wants to serve the local community. In fact, the Citytv model is one that inspired what I was mentioning to Ms. Phinney earlier, the TV policy, that model of service to the local community: if you're licensed to a community, how are you reflecting the needs and interests of that community. The Citytv model is a wonderful one.

When we'll be doing the licence renewals over the course of the next one to two years, according to our three-year plan, those are issues we will be discussing with them.

The Chair: Mr. Blais, I can't understand why you cannot.... Why do we have to wait all the time around here? Why can't the commissioner send out a letter that these recommendations are not just government wishes; it's a unanimous wish of the Parliament of Canada—all members of Parliament. There isn't a single member of Parliament who has walked away from the fact that we, as a nation, should be doing more for the amateur sport fabric in this country.

For the life of me, I cannot figure, when we have an issue like this, where we were a fist in the House of Commons—all parties, all members—why you cannot issue some kind of a notice that it is the will of the Parliament of Canada that all of you who have broadcast licences in this country do more for the grassroots level of the amateur sport fabric, as Ms. Phinney has described here today. Could you please help me and tell me why you couldn't do something like that when you know it's the unanimous will of Parliament?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I understand your frustration on this issue and other issues. Sometimes we want things to change. Unfortunately, the legal framework the Broadcasting Act provides for us provides for very limited entryways. In fact, Parliament has decided that for five years after we issue a licence, unless somebody's in breach, we can't impose new obligations on them.

• 1030

The Chair: We're not asking you to impose new obligations. I would suggest to you that there are hundreds and hundreds of organizations across Canada that are not following the commitments they've made in terms of building community fabric, especially in the amateur sport realm, which was the basis of the licence you granted them.

So you're just implementing the basis upon which you gave the approval. You're monitoring and disciplining when they don't follow what they're supposed to be doing.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: There's a compliance monitoring that occurs at all times.

The Chair: Are you telling me that you've accepted all of these broadcast approvals without being sensitive to the grassroots amateur sport fabric of this country, that it wasn't a factor in giving the approvals?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Not at all. What I'm suggesting to you is that it is one of the many factors we look at—at licence renewal and transfers of application. I mentioned that in Kelowna a licensee had the support of the local team, and I think it helped their application a great deal. It is an element that we look at. It's not the only element.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to look at this a little bit differently. Thirty-some years ago I worked at a radio station by the name of CHWO in Oakville. One of the markets we covered was local amateur sport. In fact I used to go out, with my tape recorder in hand, to the local rink and do interviews with the families, the kids, and the coaches and all of that stuff. I would hate to think—and I hate to tell you, but that's 32 years ago—I would wind up competing with CFRB or somebody like that.

So there's a combination here. While we want the local amateur sports covered, I'm not sure we want every major radio or TV station having a requirement—and I'm sort of hearing that—that they do that.

I think what Citytv provides is terrific. It's a niche market. They have, as the gentleman said, branded themselves, and they might get upset if all of a sudden CTV was competing with them at the same event for the same coverage, because it would denigrate their new sports coverage. In my day, I like to think that people tuned into CHWO to hear the result of the Oakville Oaks or the local T-ball championship that occurred in Ancaster, or whatever it was, and they would listen for that specifically.

I think there has to be a recognition of the competitiveness, not only of amateur sport but of broadcasting, in terms of both radio and television.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I just wanted to repeat again your statement that you wanted the best possible Canadian sports programming, and I presume that would be for the most Canadians.

The new Secretary of State for Amateur Sport had a meeting in Winnipeg where he had over 300 amateur coaches. I'm going to be having one in my riding June 1, and we will be expecting anywhere from 300 to 800 amateur coaches from the Hamilton area. They had a dinner last week—800 amateur coaches. I think if you have a meeting with the professional coaches in Hamilton, there might be six. If you're going to have the best sports broadcasting for the most number of people, is it for the six or for the 800? That's the area where I think you people are missing the boat. That's more a comment than anything, which I hope you take to heart.

I'd like to come to the defence, a little bit, of cable TV. You sort of said cable TV covers amateur sports in the local area and just sort of leave it with them. We leave quite a bit with cable TV. We've said that they have to pick up the costs of the new French language station across Canada, which means they'll probably have to give it to individual Canadians. In my riding, 2% of the people are francophones, and everybody in the riding will have to pay for this new station. I'm not saying we shouldn't have it, but you've left it with cable and said they have to pay for it. The new aboriginal station—the cable TV people have to pay the cost of that. Do they also have to pay for the cost of a great number of the amateur sports? It's just the way you said cable TV covers that. Just a point—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I'm sorry, I probably misspoke. The point I was making is when we look at sports, what we regulate is a broadcasting system as a whole. There are a lot of elements to it, and each one contributes a part of the answer you're looking for. All I am saying is yes, there's a role for radio, and yes, there's a role for television. All I am saying is that some community stations have also chosen—and people are very happy with it—broadcasting. That's one element. I'm not saying that we would impose that on anyone. I was just noting that this was part of the way of reflecting those more community-based sporting activities that you're supporting. It was just one element.

• 1035

Ms. Beth Phinney: I was just making a suggestion that maybe you're allowing the people who want to make the big bucks—CTV, etc.—off the hook by saying they're being covered by cable TV. It's just a comment.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: And there are some community channels that actually see a benefit to doing that, because they then get the loyalty of their customers. They would to a certain degree be upset if some of the other broadcasters were taking that away from them. They want to have the local....

The Chair: Not in highlights.

Mr. Blais, our committee's mission here is we're obsessed with trying to bring people's attention to rebuilding the amateur sport fabric in this country. All of us in the last committee's work believed that you, the CRTC, have an incredible role to play in this because of your dominant influence in this country. And all we can do at this moment in time is appeal to you and your fellow colleagues to please join the campaign in rebuilding the amateur sport fabric of Canada.

We thank you for coming before us today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I'll bring that message back to the commission and share your concerns with them.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Thank you.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.