CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 23, 1998

• 1108

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.)): Since six members are present, we have a quorum. Let's begin then.

I will start by asking Ms. Bertrand to introduce the people here with her this morning and to make her presentation, following which we will go to questions, as is customary.

Thank you for agreeing to join us. It's taken awhile, and if the fault lies with us, we apologize. However, since we are all here now, I hope that we will have a productive meeting.

Ms. Bertrand.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand (Chairperson, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you for your invitation. It is an honour for us to be here today.

At this time, I would like to introduce to you my CRTC colleagues who are here with me today. Not only do we make a good team, but we need one another if we are to address all of your concerns and if we are to have a worthwhile, wide-ranging discussion with you.

First, let me present to you Ms. Anne-Marie Desroches.

Ms. Anne-Marie Desroches (Manager, French Language Broadcasting, Broadcast Planning, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): I'm a manager with the French Language Broadcasting division of the CRTC.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Senior Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio-television Board Telecommunications Commission): My name is Jean-Pierre Blais and I'm a senior legal counsel with the Commission

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The CRTC has to have lawyers.

[English]

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): I'm Susan Baldwin, executive director for broadcasting.

Ms. Laura Talbot-Allan (Secretary General and Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): My name is Laura Talbot-Allan, and I'm secretary general and chief operating officer.

[Translation]

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: There are several other people with us today, including Wayne Charman, who is responsible for all broadcasting distribution issues. If you have any questions, he his certainly a good resource person to call on.

• 1110

Like you, the Commission is concerned with the question of how to support culture in Canada in this era of rapid technological development, increased globalization and the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications.

These forces of change have led the Commission to rethink our role within the Canadian communications environment. We have had to realign our thinking, our goals and our processes.

Working closely with the broadcasters, telecom carriers, content creators and consumers, we are attempting to deal with the challenge of maintaining cultural sovereignty in an increasingly borderless communications world.

[English]

The commission has been entrusted by Parliament to manage the delicate balance between cultural, social and economic policy objectives. We have a responsibility to understand the forces of change, to anticipate and prepare for them, without losing sight of public interest objectives and the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.

It was this responsibility that led us to undertake an internal review of our strategies and processes. The result of this exercise was a new vision for the commission, a vision that articulates our mission, our goals and our values. It reaffirms our commitment to the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act. It will allow us to not just to adapt to the changing communications environment, but to transform the environment itself to make it work better for Canadian citizens, consumers, creators and investors. Simply put, our vision is a world-class communications system with a distinct Canadian presence that is in the public interest.

How will we bring this vision to life? We believe Canadians are seeing the evolution of a new commission. The new CRTC, we'll say, will regulate if necessary, but where appropriate, we would prefer to let the industry self-regulate under monitoring. We see our new role as more of a referee on the competitive playing field, resolving disputes in the public interest when required, or stepping in to direct broad policy framework issues in response to fundamental changes in the communications landscape.

The old commission was protectionist in its approach, which fit the requirements of the time. The new CRTC will be much more focused on promoting opportunities to let Canadians build on their successes and demonstrate that they can thrive in a new more competitive environment. Our vision strategy and its action calendar will enable the commission to take a coordinated and focused approach to supporting the production, distribution and accessibility of Canadian culture and contact.

[Translation]

The first goal of our strategy will be to ensure a strong Canadian presence at home and abroad. This means implementing policies and regulatory measures that will encourage the creation, promotion and distribution of programming that reflect the linguistic duality, cultural diversity and social values of Canada. It means creating policies that in sure that programming reflects national, regional and community voices. And it means supporting the distinctive role of public broadcasting.

As part of this commitment, in the fall of this year, we will be holding public hearings to license additional French and English-language specialty services. We will be continuing our review of our radio policy, and expect to be issuing our new commercial radio policy next week.

In the next year, in consultation with interested parties, we will be considering the role of group licensing. Such a form of licensing could allow for administrative efficiencies and increased programming expenditure and exhibition commitments on the part of large multi-station ownership groups.

In an effort to ensure that we are on track with respect to supporting Canadian programming, in late September, we will be holding a public process to review issues relating to our policies and regulations in this area. As part of this process we will be asking broadcasters, producers, consumers and citizens to present concrete proposals—proposals that will ensure that all participants in the system make the maximum contribution to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

• 1115

In recognition of the important role that new technologies will play in contributing to the production and distribution of Canadian content, in November, we will be holding a public process to determine the commission's role—if there is one—in ensuring that new media contribute to the attainment of our cultural, social and economic objectives.

[English]

Our second goal is to ensure there is a wide array of choice available to all Canadians through the strong, vibrant and competitive communications industry. This includes relying more on market forces, ensuring the affordability and accessibility of services, encouraging diversity and quality of consumer services, and protecting fairness in competition. As part of this responsibility, we are working to ensure that competition serves to better the Canadian communications system. Competition is not the goal. The goal is increased choice and diversity for creators, producers, consumers and citizens.

In the broadcasting environment, competition has meant increased choice and competitive pricing for Canadian consumers, but competition in distribution has not lessened our ability to ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system contributes to the attainment of our cultural objectives. New entrants must adhere to this same access and carriage rules as the incumbents. They must demonstrate that they bring benefits to the Canadian broadcasting system, and that they will contribute to the public interest.

[Translation]

All systems must carry a preponderance of Canadian services, and they must contribute to the production of Canadian programming. An increase in the number of broadcasting distribution undertakings has led to an increase in the resources available for the production and exhibition of Canadian programming. And more Canadians are gaining access to an incredible diversity of Canadian and foreign programming services.

We are pleased to see that Canadians are increasingly making Canadian choices. Over the last ten years the share of viewing to Canadian programming has grown despite an increasing availability of US programs and services. In Quebec, viewing has always been predominantly to Canadian programs and services.

As part of our continued commitment to increased choice and diversity we will be reviewing our policies with respect to programming services' access to distribution undertakings. We will be considering whether, in a competitive environment, all distribution undertakings should be required to carry the same programming services. And we will be examining the carriage and packaging of French-language services outside of Quebec.

In addition, we will continue with our program of deregulation. However, I hasten to add that deregulation does not mean abandonment of our objectives. While we prefer to let the industry regulate itself where appropriate, we are quite prepared to step back in where we see the industry failing to meet the public interest or the objectives set out in the legislation.

For that reason, we are closely monitoring areas where we have deregulated. We are keeping our eye on the affordability of telecommunications services, particularly in rural and remote areas. We are developing, in consultations across Canada, a strategy for the provision of reliable telecom services to high-cost areas.

We will also continue to work to protect the interests of all Canadians. This includes our commitment to section 41 of the Official Languages Act. Our regulations and policies will be implemented in a manner consistent with Parliament's goal that the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada are enhanced.

For example, in our recent report to the government on additional national television networks, we agreed in principle that increased access to existing French-language services throughout Canada will contribute to the promotion of linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

• 1120

We will consider any application to expand the availability of French-language programming services outside Quebec, taking into account the applicant's ability to reflect the needs of Francophone communities and the particular characteristics of the French-language market.

[English]

The third goal of our strategy is to ensure public process, openness, fairness, effectiveness and trust. In response to quickly changing conditions, we are implementing a more proactive and flexible approach to public processes. This includes identifying and implementing ways to facilitate increased public participation, public consultations and town hall meetings, for example, and we are attempting to improve our processes for incorporating public input into our policy formulation processes.

It is our belief that the commission is only one part of the solution. The support of Canadian culture and content is a complex process. It involves a number of players, creators, producers, broadcasters, citizens, consumers, governments, funding agencies and the regulator. It involves aspects of entrepreneurship, creativity, support, funding, regulation, legislation, dialogue and collaboration. It requires numerous organizations, agencies, officials, associations and individuals working in parallel.

One key element of our strategy is to develop stronger ties with our partners. We must work closely with the Canadian public to ensure that its interests are served. We must work with the regulated industries and related associations to ensure that our policies and regulatory measures are efficiently and effectively implemented. We must talk to government departments, agencies, officials and members of Parliament to communicate our objectives and our strategies.

[Translation]

That is why I am so pleased to be here today to open a dialogue on how best to support culture in Canada in this era of rapid technological change and globalization and to address issues related to maintaining cultural and linguistic diversity in an environment characterized by borderless communication.

The commission's mandate is clear and assigned by Parliament. Our role is to regulate and supervise the Canadian communications system in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act.

The more difficult role is balancing those sometimes conflicting objectives in the face of the challenges of the information age and an increasingly competitive and global marketplace. We have responded by reviewing our policies and objectives to ensure that they are effective, efficient and flexible.

To do that, we are inspired by our vision. In an environment where the only constant is change, the Commission has a unique opportunity to facilitate transition. We will help to mold the communications environment of the future with a strong Canadian presence, in the public interest. To do that, we will call on a judicious mix of deregulation, regulation, monitoring and public dialogue.

Thank you again for having given me this opportunity to participate in your work. We are available to answer all of your questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Bertrand. Is there another member of your delegation who wishes to speak at this time? No? Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you.

This is indeed a privilege to have you with us. I'm looking forward to a time when you'll be back and we'll be discussing the CRTC in general. As you know, the Reform Party has a perspective on that. But we are talking today about Canadian culture, so I'll restrict myself to that.

I notice on page 3 of the English version of your presentation in the third and fourth paragraphs, “Our second goal is to ensure there is a wide array of choice available to all Canadians through a strong, vibrant and competitive communications industry.” You go on to say, “As part of this responsibility we are working to ensure that competition serves to better the Canadian communications system”, and so on and so forth.

• 1125

Just so we're both speaking the same way, could you define for me what you consider to be distinctively Canadian content? I'm thinking now of television. There's a whole broad array, but let's just stay with television for a second—distinctively Canadian content. This is not a trick question. I'm trying to make sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I guess distinctively Canadian for us is really in the definition of what we consider a Canadian program. First, it can be in many genres, because we know that in the broadcasting system television really had its origin in the news and sports sectors. That is really where the broadcasters have been investing very heavily in order to create the special ties with their communities, and where they have brought real excellence in the way of treating news and information, public affairs and different magazines. That is very distinctively Canadian.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If I may make a comment, this is going to sound very strange to you, but I don't believe you should be restricting yourself to Canadian culture. My recollection of the will of the committee was that it wanted to raise a number of items with the CRTC, and I would perhaps encourage you, or at least mention to you, that you have more latitude than you think you have here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Having used up two minutes of my five, I'm going to stay with the direction I started in, but that does not mean I would not like to have an opportunity to discuss many of the other issues.

Just to clarify—and this is germane to where I'm going—if you compare say Psi Factor or Once a Thief to Black Harbour or North of 60, is there some way we could— We can all say we intuitively understand distinctive Canadian content, but if Psi Factor* and Once a Thief employ all-Canadian crews, are fundamentally financed by Canadian industry and have Canadian actors, how do we say that is not distinctively Canadian content?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, exactly. I was about to say that when you talk about news and sports, it's very clear for every one of us what is distinctively Canadian. It's more difficult when we come to fiction, drama and probably variety-type shows as well. There are some different views out there in terms of what should be considered distinctively Canadian.

The CRTC has a somewhat different way of interpreting what is a Canadian program. I'm looking at Mrs. Baldwin because she used to be in Heritage. The way we're defining it compares to how the system of CAVCO is defining it in the Heritage system. We have, as we speak, less demanding criteria in order to define a Canadian program than the definition of the heritage department.

We will be conducting a written process this summer where we will ask everybody about this, because we've been pushed in terms of people saying we should be more demanding in defining exactly what is a Canadian program. We'll have to balance the different points of view because, as you say, when it is all Canadian people who are working on a project, it brings in the talent of the technicians and the many people to the point where really it is more of a Canadian story that is being told and we have really benefited in the Canadian system from that kind of contribution.

So for me it's a bit difficult, since it will be a question studied by the commissioners later in the fall, to say what our view is, because we are prepared really to entertain many different opinions and to balance some with the others in order to define, as of 1998, what the definition of a Canadian program should be in terms of helping the system. Maybe Susan would like to add to that.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Certainly. I think it's important to note that both Canadian Heritage and the CRTC use exactly the same point system. The methodology that is used in the documentation required by Canadian Heritage is somewhat more rigorous. One of the issues we're looking at within the CRTC is to improve the rigour in our own system to double-check everything. We take the responses we get on the applications as is.

• 1130

I guess the only other thing is that the use of the point system does ensure that there is not subjectivity brought into the process, that it does remain a very objective process.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm gently suggesting to you that this is a fairly significant problem, because now the CRTC has taken a fairly aggressive position relative to the licensing of speciality channels, so there has been an increase in the demand.

We have seen the gong show that's currently going on with respect to the cable production fund, where we have perfectly competent people sitting outside an office as though they're waiting for Rose Bowl tickets or for a rock concert. It is rather demeaning.

I would suggest to you that this has been, in no small part, as a result of the direction of the CRTC, which is to broaden the exposure of Canadian content. I come to your statement on page 3, where you want, “a wide array of choice available to all Canadians through a strong, vibrant and competitive communications industry”. In fact, would you not agree that your direction of trying to get more Canadian content—ill-defined, I suggest—on Canadian airwaves has increased the demand for public funding at an exponential rate?

I think your comments here about a competitive industry, while they are well-meaning, don't reflect reality. The reality is that because of the direction of the CRTC, the producers are going to have to depend more and more on funding.

One final comment and then I will be quiet, which will be unusual for me.

The funding right at this moment is in the vicinity of $200 million. It has been suggested that without even breaking pace, it could be $600 million and they'd still be looking for more money.

Would you agree that the CRTC direction, while well-intentioned, is probably going to lead to a tremendous drain on Canadian taxpayers' treasury?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: If I may, the very idea of questioning ourselves and inviting everybody to participate in the Canadian programs hearing, which will be held at the end of September, is to see how the system can do better, and more, but in the capacity where we can reconcile the economic factor as much as the cultural imperative. Our view is certainly not that it should be strictly public funding that should be the partner of Canadian content.

In some genres we can observe, as the first elements of our research show, that broadcasters— That's the question we're posing: Is there a way in which broadcasters can put more of their money into Canadian programs, except from news and sports, which they have heavily invested in over the years? Can they invest in other genres, more than the rights they're paying for now?

In a sense, the question it poses is whether we can develop as a system more programs that would sell internationally so that we can get some return on the investments we make. That is a very important question we're posing to everybody in terms of that hearing.

We're trying not to say that we should do more and the government—or the taxpayer, at the end of the day—would pay for it. The question is, how could we as a system plan for more and better programs that would sell first here in Canada but would also have the capacity to sell on the international market as well, and maybe bring a new flow of money into the system, where the system of broadcasting would not be as dependent on public funding? That is one of the serious questions we have for all the participants.

• 1135

There may not be a solution to that question, but I think the way the commission has seen it is that certainly it's worth the effort to question ourselves. In an age when the regulations we've known for many years may not be there for many years again, there's a window of opportunity to support a stronger broadcasting system.

This is not in the sense of passing the bill to the government and the taxpayer. It's more in terms of what we can do differently together so that there's an incentive for broadcasters to put more of their money in because they'll get more of a return on their investment. That is the real question we're posing.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Without wanting to be unpleasant, I would like to encourage you to give answers which are a bit shorter.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Oh, excuse me. It's because I am passionate about this issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We understand.

Ms. Tremblay, please.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Métis, BQ): I want to ask questions about six topics that are of interest to me. Of course, I won't ask all six right away, but I want to give notice now that I want to speak again during the second round and if need be during a second meeting with the CRTC representatives. I'm taking you up on the free reign you gave us in the beginning.

Ms. Bertrand, thank you for your very interesting presentation. The vision you described and all of the work which awaits you seem equally interesting.

One topic interests me particularly. Under the Broadcasting Act the CRTC must ensure that it is promoting— Broadcasting includes three elements, ie the private, public and community domains.

In a recent decision the CRTC eliminated the obligation for cable distributors to fund community television. Your organization and yourself as chairwoman are no doubt aware that you are compromising the future of community television in Canada. You know that there were poor payers—the CRTC had even imposed sanctions on them—who were not shouldering their responsibilities properly and were not respecting the conditions of their licences. Without naming the organization that received a penalty, I refer you to decision 95-264.

I wonder why you eliminated that obligation for cable distributors in spite of all the emphasis placed on retaining it by everyone, including Quebec. It was obvious that the Bloc Québécois was opposed to that decision and the Assemblée nationale even passed a motion to that effect. How can you justify the elimination of that obligation?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Ms. Tremblay, I think that here again, the Commission's approach was to balance the various points of view presented to us. It was when the review was taking place that we drew up the policy on broadcasting distribution modes.

We were also faced with a great deal of pressure relating to Canadian content and the fund that was created with the cable fund, which involved a partnership with the government in that area. We felt that the needs were greater in the smaller communities and in that regard the policy and regulations stipulate that the smaller systems are entirely free to offer community television with the help of the total contribution.

We were more demanding with regard to sharing the wealth between, on the one hand, the needs of communities, and on the other, the television fund involving the large systems in cities where we were under the impression that community television even if it played a very important role, had to balance the greater and the lesser need. We felt that there was also a very strong demand for a product or a—

[Editor: Technical Difficulties]— the balance we arrived at. We felt that in large cities, where there were large systems, there remained a sufficient amount of money to support community voices.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm sure you are aware of what the newspapers have to say. People want to make more and more money and that seems to be the rule to be competitive: some people want to put as much into their pockets and give the consumer as little as possible.

• 1140

Take the area I live in as an example. Radio-Canada was everywhere, and its presence was eliminated without even asking the CRTC for authorization. They modified their licence themselves without caring a hoot about the CRTC and that is the sort of thing that makes us wonder sometimes whether you are really useful.

Secondly, you have just freed the cable distributors from their obligation to provide funds to community television, to those communities that had organized themselves to communicate in the absence of a large system to do the job. That leaves us with television that is doing its best although it comes entirely from Montreal.

How will the communities, including Francophone communities outside Quebec, be able to resist? As an example, take the case of the Montreal cable distributor who was financing the cable distributors in his neighbourhood and who has now centralized everything in Montreal. We now have community television from Montreal, just like the big network.

People aren't interested in that kind of broadcast and their interest is going to fall off increasingly, and they will prefer to turn toward the Internet. One wonders whether television will still be there in the year 2020. I hope I will be there to see what is left of it, but it does not look very promising right now.

Ms. Anne-Marie Desroches: I would like to clarify something about the possibility of installing Vidéotron in Montreal, to speak only about that case. Following requests from the Association des programmateurs de la télédistribution du Québec, the final decision stated that as a condition of the licence a cable distributor could take all of his money but he had to come there, and Vidéotron has not yet shown up.

Thus, for a cable distributor such as the one serving Montreal, that may have a large number of subscribers, the 5% share may be an overly large sum of money to invest in community television. Once capital expenditures have been made, he may decide to bring back his funds and invest them in a smaller system. There is, then, a contribution on the order of 1.5% for the large class 1 systems or the small class 1 systems. In Buckingham, for instance, there are 6,100 subscribers and there is little money, but Hull-Aylmer will contribute more. The cable distributors can consolidate their funds and distribute the money, the means and the financial resources and see to it that regional community television is subsidized by the big distribution networks.

Even if decisions are now made more at the corporate level at Vidéotron, it is quite possible that the large cable distributors in Montreal will be able to subsidize the medium or smaller distributors. I think that request had been submitted to us in the very briefs of the community television programmers themselves and we have been able to introduce provisions to meet that demand in the regulation. So, on the contrary, I feel there has been a great openness.

I have before me an article which states that the Association des programmateurs de la télédistribution du Québec is favourable to the Commission's new regulation and feels that the Commission listened to the interventions on that issue. That being said, the association continued to keep an eye on us and on the cable distributors to ensure that the money was not going elsewhere. We always follow the application of the regulations and study their impact. If the impact is too broad then, as Ms. Bertrand stated earlier, we react. But we are not in favour of regulation at any cost. I think that community television programming has fallen into place since the first intervention.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Ms. Tremblay, you are right on the issue of service closer to home. This is a notion that seems to be on the way out and that concerns us, perhaps more for the Francophone communities where the phenomenon has been more notable, although we are beginning to see the notion appear also in Anglophone communities. We are continuing to keep an eye on the situation. I know that at this time we are thinking about Canadian programming. We will be holding our first hearing in September. But in March, we will be renewing Radio-Canada licences and we will certainly talk about the services provided in the regions at that time.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I will ask a third question in case I don't get another chance, about violence on television. You know that a research group at the University of Montreal examined that issue.

• 1145

During the 60 weeks of the study the French networks, basically TQS and TVA, broadcast 48 very violent films, films where there were five killings, on Friday and Saturday nights before nine o'clock. On those two networks, on Saturday, at 6:30, 24 children's films were found to correspond to the criteria determining a violent program, while the Canal Famille (family channel) respects the self-regulation code Saturday morning. On YTV, its English counterpart, there are six violent programs out of eight. No Quebec program was classified as being a violent program.

Since the beginning of the 1980s, we seem to be witnessing a vast campaign to promote violence on television and that is one of the conclusions of the research done by the Université de Montréal. Are you going to examine that question? The CRTC had said that it would ask the industry to self-regulate. This study shows that that approach is not effective. Could you ask for such a study to be carried out on television throughout Canada? Something has to be done before we too have young people who come out of their schools at 13 years of age and go and kill four of their schoolmates. We shouldn't wait for that to happen. Prevention can take the form of concrete action.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: As you know, this question has not only been a concern but a topic of supervision on the part of the CRTC. My predecessor was very proactive and the entire Commission has taken some fairly important steps to work in partnership with the industry. He was not content to speak of self-regulation; he told the industry that it had licences, that it spoke to consumers and citizens and it also had responsibilities. Having broadcast antennas is a privilege. A lot of concertation and collaboration took place.

I don't think we have achieved miraculous results and you're right to be worried. We still don't have the famous V-chip in our televisions because of the whole digitization issue, although we hope to see them at a later date, but the fact remains that the icons that have appeared on our screens represent a step in the right direction, and the broadcasters now recognize that they are broadcasting programs that have a violent content. They don't like it very well if the icon appears too often and reminds viewers that they are broadcasting violent programs.

We will be receiving, next week or shortly thereafter, a report about the first year of operations for the stakeholders who had gotten together in the spirit of self-regulation, and we will be able to see what progress was made. I believe you are right and we have to continue to be vigilant and to push. It could have been worse, although that isn't all that reassuring, but we are headed in the right direction. We have to continue to be very attentive and even proactive.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Lill.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): It's a pleasure to finally meet you and to hear some of your visions about the CRTC.

You have talked about the CRTC's role in regulating and supervising the Canadian communications system in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act, and as Madame Tremblay knows, the Broadcasting Act contains many responsibilities for the CBC, responsibilities to provide news and current affairs and information for Canadians. I just would like to know, in your estimation, how important the CBC's role is in providing news as a way of meeting the conditions of the Broadcasting Act.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Crucial. I think the public broadcaster is a pièce maîtresse of the whole system. That's where we all come from in broadcasting. There wouldn't even be private broadcasting if it weren't for the public broadcasters. So in terms of news, in terms of making sure that Canadians do talk to one another, it's of course an expectation that we have of the whole system, but mainly, I would say, of the public broadcaster.

But by mandate and by law there are even more expectations that need to be fulfilled by the CBC, and that is why in all the workplans that we've developed for the next three years we've said every time that when we talk about the private sector matters the CBC has to be at the table. We want to hear about them because they're part of the system. They're a complementary element. We'll talk about the CBC when we come to the renewal time next March. We'd very much like the public broadcasters to be around the table. It's really still very important. It's a core of our system.

• 1150

Ms. Wendy Lill: I must say I'm very glad to hear that because sources have reported to my office that heritage wants to see the CBC get out of news and current affairs programming. Obviously that would cause you a great deal of problems and a problem to the CRTC.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It hasn't come to my ears. I think we'll hear different types of views when we come to that proceeding. Our intention is to have regional town hall meetings before the national public hearing about the renewal of the licences. I'm sure we'll hear from the Canadian public that they still rely very much on the news element of the CBC everywhere in the country.

Ms. Wendy Lill: There have been some concerns expressed to me about the fact that the CRTC and the whole environment we're facing now is one of very big players, big producers and cable companies with powerful lobbyist calling the shots. Also there's a question of whether the appointments that are being made to the CRTC are in fact appointments that are favourable to lobbyists as opposed to the consumers and the citizens.

I understand from what you're saying that public participation is very important to you and to your vision of what the CRTC is. How do we make sure that these concerns are not poisoning the entire trust and faith that people want to have in the regulator at this point in time, with these rumours flowing?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Let's be quite frank about this. The ways about the CRTC are very complicated, even when you put your best mind forward and you have the help of the staff, like when I commit as a commissioner. The type of process we have is intimidating.

When we say we want to reach out and reach more public, that means we have to go out of our way. I think the best way to take away that kind of perception you're talking about is really by being successful in reaching out. It's true that because it is a very formal process, as we know, it is more in line with what companies will feel comfortable with, because they have loads of experts who can attend those proceedings. It's the same with the organized associations.

When we say we want to reach the citizens, that means we have to be very imaginative and very informal in order to do so. Only by succeeding at doing that will we be able to really alleviate those kinds of concerns and preoccupations, because in reality we'll be reaching out. That's the only way I know, demonstrating our good faith not only by saying things but by doing them.

The town hall meeting we held in Saint John three weeks ago was very much in that direction. We're going to be in all the remote regions of Canada in the next month in order to hear about telecom and broadcasting preoccupations of Prince George, Whitehorse, Prince Albert, Timmins, etc. On va être partout. I think the only way we know is to be doing it.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I believe that is a tremendous step towards that.

I don't know whether this has ever happened or been considered, but is there any kind of limit that could be put on the amount of moneys that can be poured into one particular point of view versus another? We're looking at David and Goliath kinds of scenarios here. If a cable company is able to put millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign and the small community of Smuts, Saskatchewan, has no money whatsoever, we're looking at really large discrepancies in voices and resources to affect the decision makers.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's an interesting question. You know that in telecom the consumers' association does participate and their consultants and experts do get paid by the participants of the industry, given the advice of the commission and whether it was really worth it and real advice. The bill is sent to them. In the Broadcasting Act we don't have such a provision. That's why we are doing original research at the commission to provide the general public with that kind of access to information so they can use it for their own points of view and bring it forward.

• 1155

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd like to start by thanking Madame Bertrand. It's great to have you here, and there are so many questions that we could probably spend a week here but still not get through it.

I'd like to start by touching a little bit on the cable industry. I have a couple of questions there, and then maybe we could move on to something more cultural in scope.

Am I understanding correctly that the cable industry has been deregulated?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The cable industry has been only partly deregulated, because the basic service is still regulated. The cable industry will be more deregulated in order to go by the policy that we adopted last year, when there is real competition out there. It's not happening yet. It's not licensing competitors that creates competition.

Things have not unrolled to the point where we are able to totally deregulate. The threshold we have established in the policy is 5% of their market. When a cable company can demonstrate to us that 5% of not his penetration but his market households are lost, then we will deregulate. At this point in time, we haven't deregulated any of the system because there isn't one who has yet experienced real competition.

Mr. Mark Muise: Could you explain that maybe by using numbers? For example, if you have a community, what percentage of that business would the existing cable company have to lose in order to—

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I knew my friend would be very helpful, Mr. Chairman. He's the head of distribution, and I would want to make sure you have the exact information.

Mr. Wayne Charman (Director General, Broadcast and Distribution Technology, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): In the regulations for cable and other distribution undertakings, we have set out a very objective test as to when the rates for basic service can be deregulated, and it's essentially a two-pronged test.

The first part of the test says there must be available to at least 30% of your subscribers the service of an alternative provider of services. You have to have something available as an alternative.

The second part of the test is that at the point where you have lost 5% of the subscribers you had when that competitor entered your market, your rates can be deregulated upon application. If you're a cable company with 100,000 subscribers and a competitor comes into your market, and if those 100,000 subscribers are reduced to 95,000 at some point in the future—meaning that 5,000 have gone elsewhere—then we believe there's an indication that there is an alternative that is sufficient to warrant deregulation of the rates.

Mr. Mark Muise: You're talking about rates there. What I was talking about was how many cable distributors there can be in one specific area or location. Am I right in understanding that, based on the class of licences, if you have a cable distributor in one area and another one makes application, the new distributor still has to follow the same rules as the incumbent distributor who is there even though this new cable distributor might distribute to a lower number?

Mr. Wayne Charman: With respect to a new entrant into a market in competition with an incumbent cable operator, the rules with respect to the signals they must carry, the services they must provide, are the same. However, the rates of a new entrant, a new competitor will not be regulated.

Mr. Mark Muise: The rates are not regulated.

Mr. Wayne Charman: The rates are not regulated, because in order to really succeed, the competitor has to achieve market share. Rates are something they're going to have to use to acquire customers.

Mr. Mark Muise: How does this promote competition? There's no hidden question here. I guess what I'm trying to do is basically understand it a bit better. If you're saying you want to promote competition, why not give the new distributor who wants to come in the opportunity to play it by the rules or to have the amount of programming he or she would like to have?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That was a choice the commission made last year: that we would give the same rules to every player in the field, whether you have one technology or another.

• 1200

For example, let's take the digital distributors. Our rules haven't given the opportunity to those distributors to take advantage of the addressability. We have imposed the same type of rules in terms of preponderance, for example, of English Canadian type of services. We haven't allowed for any distinction at this point in time, but we know that we'll have to reassess and re-evaluate. That's why in our working plan we have provided that even if it is only two years, next year we'll be reassessing the situation, because we cannot strictly say that we want a preponderance of Canadian signals. If there is no competition, we have a problem. We will have to relook and reassess the situation and maybe take a different view.

We felt we wanted a level playing field in the sense that it's the broadcasting system we're talking about here, not only cable versus Expressvu or DTH-type of distribution. We felt that by doing this it was a support to all the speciality channels and to all the Canadian channels we had licensed over the years, to make sure they would have a window in every household in Canada.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm understanding that when you say “competition” you're not saying two or three cable distributors but, rather, a cable distributor and the different mediums. Is that correct?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, because traditionally the cable has been the monopoly. Let's face it, it was very territorial. By territory there was only one. The new competitors we are licensing now, whether it's the DTH or the technologies of an MDS or LMCS, it's to compete against cable in the same territories. We haven't seen any cable competing with cable in the same territory as we speak. That may happen, who knows, but at this point in time we haven't seen many of them.

So different technologies are coming into the same territory, and we'll try— But it's not because we have licence, I repeat, that there is really competition as we speak. The penetration and the deployment of those technologies are quite expensive and we haven't seen them. No one has come and knocked on our door every two days.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The last question, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When you said that in September you would be doing some consultations, you mentioned that you stopped, I think, in Timmins. Will you be going to the maritimes as well, Atlantic Canada?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Oh yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: And at that point I guess my question is, will you be discussing the competition aspects, the reassessment of what we were discussing earlier, all those things?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes. When we do town hall meetings, the only formality is that people have to register a day ahead of time. They don't need to present any briefs or anything. They can talk about any issue that is their concern. Everything is open in terms of the responsibilities of the commission.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm done, Mr. Chairman. Just a supplementary.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Muise: Is it possible to get a list of the locations that you will be visiting—

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Oh yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: —so we can advise some people who have concerns?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes. It's on the web, but we'll make sure you receive a copy.

Mr. Mark Muise: If you would, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. O'Brien and then Mr. Mills.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the joys of being on this side is that you get to ask the questions last. And there are many more of us so we'll have to share them. I have two or three.

First, I want to thank you for your presence and for your presentation. On page 3 of the brief, Madame Bertrand, you speak to protecting fairness and competition. Maybe I missed it, but I would have liked to see something about fairness to consumers in your brief, and that leads me to my question on that theme.

How do we assure through appointments to CRTC—I guess the question would be better aimed at government—that there are going to be representatives who come from that perspective, and I know they have to have a certain expertise in the area, but that their expertise includes ensuring fairness to consumers. How can government enact that? Could it be done by changing the nature of some appointments, or do you have any other suggestions?

• 1205

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: My short experience as the chair of the CRTC—although it's going to be two years this summer—leads me to feel differently. We have a bias toward the consumer, each of us around the table, as commissioners. I think the best way to develop that more and more, for the commissioner and also in the preparation of the work we're doing with staff, is really to make sure that we reach out.

I don't think we can have one appointee to take care of the consumer interest. It has to be, at all times, the concern of us all. I think, really, the most appropriate way is to have diversity around the table, different points of origin from different points of Canada, different languages spoken, and to make sure that in the work we're doing every day we listen carefully and that we go and meet with the public. I think that's really the best way.

As for the government appointments, the more diversity we have around the table, the points of view of men and women, French, English, I think that's the best way to do it. We should have people who come from telecommunications, from broadcasting, from education and so on, so that we can have really good discussions, good debates and arrive at best decisions.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I would agree with that, but I would like to indicate, as one MP, that I don't think that bias to the consumer has been conveyed to the consumer, not based on calls to my office. When we get into an issue like negative option billing, I guess the questions I had was what is the CRTC— I'd like to put those questions from my constituents to you now.

What was the role of the CRTC in that, and if they had a role, for God's sake why weren't they protecting us from something as ridiculous as negative option billing?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I guess also that the role of the CRTC is not always well understood, either. It's a balancing act. We are not a consumer advocate, either. We are there to protect a Canadian system, and a strong Canadian system, that oftentimes needs to have every Canadian participating in it in a maybe forceful way to make sure that we have Canadian voices. Otherwise, the ones we'll have, which will be cheap in rates, will be the American ones. I guess that's the kind of balancing decision we always take.

It is not to say that it was very brilliant in terms of marketing manners that some cable company has done. I'm not here applauding, and we didn't either. But to say that we didn't jump in and kind of re-regulate or say that this should not be done is really out of an understanding that we cannot, on one hand, support Canadian programs and Canadian signals and a Canadian system on small markets, yet at the same time not allow for some flexibility for the business people involved.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: My last question, Mr. Chairman.

I know what you're saying. My colleague Mr. Bélanger helped to educate some of us about that vis-à-vis services to francophones, and I think that's very important and I support it. However, it still leads me to my main theme, I guess, as an educator, and that is about your educational strategy.

You talk to it on page 5—my phrase, not yours—but I hear you saying you need a better educational strategy. I would agree with that. Town halls are a good first step. If not now, at some point when you come back—Madame Tremblay said we'll have you back; I think that's great—maybe at that time, if not now succinctly, I'd like to hear more about your educational strategy.

From my point of view as an MP for five years, my constituents don't know who you are or why you exist and they don't understand the relevance you have in their lives. Those who have some understanding think the perspective is misplaced, that you're not protecting them enough as consumers. Fair or unfair, those are the observations I have for you.

Are you fleshing out an educational strategy beyond town halls?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We have to.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I agree.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We have no choice.

There are many ways you can reach out and understand the public more, and that was the kind of diagnosis we've done for ourselves. But I'll certainly agree with you that maybe because of the nature of our organization, the quasi-judiciary process—oh, look at my lawyer here—we have always been a bit shy in communicating, in fear of saying something with a nuance that would be different from the written decision. That has probably kept us from communicating enough with the public. The questions are complex and complicated, and we need to go out. So we will do more, and we'd be delighted to come back and talk more about it.

• 1210

But we have a communication plan that we're about to adopt in terms of really making sure. That's also with the participation of the people we work with in this system—it cannot be only on our shoulders—about the CRTC but also about the businesses we're regulating.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'll come back to those themes a little later on.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): My intent was never to educate. It was perhaps to share information, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my question of Mrs. Bertrand, I have a short preamble.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We'll try to accommodate you.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mrs. Bertrand, this is a montage of a broadcast by a disc jockey in my community of downtown Toronto.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Mills, you're aware that we're broadcasting now. So I hope we're not putting anything on the air that—-

Mr. Dennis Mills: I want this to be broadcast because this has been approved by the CRTC—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fair enough.

Mr. Dennis Mills: —and I just want to make sure that the chairman of the CRTC feels that this is consistent with her vision, values and regulations.

[Editor's Note: Audio presentation)

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I did say we had a lot of latitude.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Madame Bertrand, I would like to give you a copy of this tape. It's about twenty minutes long, and I would like to humbly challenge you to act as the leader of the CRTC and do something about this in my community. I cannot believe that you or any of the members of your commission find this consistent with the vision, the values and the rules of the CRTC.

This is not just in my community, by the way; it's also in Madame Tremblay's.

I'll let it rest there.

My second point has to do with Canadian content. I've been a member of Parliament now for ten years, and the very first time I met a commissioner of the CRTC, when I was sitting in a committee like this—he was the acting commissioner; his name was Mr. Sherman—I couldn't get anywhere with him on this question, so I will try with you.

• 1215

I have a very close friend who is a Canadian rock star. His name is Richard Séguin. Richard, of course, has lost a lot of faith in Canada right now. One of the prime reasons he has lost faith in Canada is because the only place that he can be heard is in his own province of Quebec.

I would like to know what you could do to promote Canadian recording artists on all radio stations across Canada so that they can sing in the language that makes them the rock stars or the artists they are. If I go to any part of Quebec I can hear Bryan Adams, but once I go outside Quebec I can't hear Richard Séguin.

Certainly my city is a multicultural city. You talk about promoting national unity and the linguistic duality. I guarantee you that in the hundred or so radio stations in Toronto—I'm talking about the CFRBs and the mixes and all of these others—I can hear Howard Stern but I can't hear Richard Séguin.

I'm sure you don't have a specific answer here today, but before I leave public office, I would love to see if we couldn't turn these words into reality and promote Canadian recording artists on all Canadian airways throughout the country.

Thank you.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, I would make a general comment that the commission is expected to play many roles. We are not denying our responsibility. I'm not listening to Howard Stern and saying we have nothing to do with it, but we're not a censor board. We have opted for self-regulation.

Having said that, there's a body looking into the complaints right now. We're expecting a report tomorrow about it again. We're following it, but we cannot say on one hand that we want broadcasters to be more responsible, yet every time some Canadians— There will be as many Canadians as those who don't like Howard Stern, like me, who as citizens will say that the commission should not step into what is freedom of expression. Whatever source it is, they really do feel strongly that the commission should not interfere.

So it's a question of not managing in place of the broadcasters. We're not managers of the stations. What we do is establish rules by which each player tries, with everybody else, to create a system that does meet the objectives of the act.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Are you telling me that you could feel that this might be possibly consistent with the values and vision of the CRTC?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Not with mine as a person.

Mr. Dennis Mills: But you are the regulator.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, we are not the regulator of what is moral or not moral; we are the regulator of a system, which is very different in terms of whether it's good taste or bad taste.

Mr. Dennis Mills: So you have nothing to do with content.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We have a lot to do with content in terms of making sure there is Canadian content in terms of programs and songs—we will be rendering decisions very soon in matters of radio that will deal with Canadian content—but we're not there to make the choice of programs in place of the broadcaster.

Mr. Dennis Mills: This is a judgment call, though. Do you judge? When you hear something like that, do you have some kind of doubt in your mind that this is an acceptable sort of broadcast language and message for our Canadian system?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In the case of Howard Stern, what we said was very open.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes, excuse me, Madame Bertrand, this has gone to the CBSC. I got a letter in April after I handled this in January. That's almost three months later, and they're going to give them another 30 days to see if they can't change Howard Stern's style. Anybody with half a brain would know that nobody's going to tell Howard Stern how to change his style when he's all over the place. We seem to be dancing around this.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, what we have been doing is following what they're doing. What they've imposed on the broadcasters who are broadcasting Howard Stern is a mechanism by which the broadcaster takes the responsibility to edit the program of Howard Stern. The broadcaster in question, who is in the Toronto region, didn't have that editing device yet, so the CBSC has given—

• 1220

Mr. Dennis Mills: An editing device.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It allows six minutes by which time the broadcaster has the possibility of cutting out the show parts that he feels are not reproducing what he wants as a broadcaster and serving the Broadcasting Act in a sense that we all agree with. That device for editing the program was not yet available to the Toronto broadcaster.

This device was in Montreal. It seems, from the complaints, to have had an effect, so we're following it.

We might have to step in. We're not denying our responsibility, but we cannot say self-regulation on one hand and that broadcasters have to take responsibility, and then every time, you know—

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I'm finished now, but I just want to say in summary that I have been working for 10 years to try to get a Canadian recording artist on the 1,800 radio stations outside Quebec. I can't get help from the CRTC, but Howard Stern, who comes in here from New York, can just sort of dance all around our system. I find it just a totally unacceptable state.

Thank you very much.

I'll leave this tape with you. I would ask you to play it to your fellow commissioners.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have two questions. The first is a follow-up to what Mr. Mills said.

I just want to understand something. I'll give you both questions, so you can respond to them. Should this arrangement be unsatisfactory—that's whether they get the equipment in or whether they don't make the right kind of judgment calls—does the ultimate sanction rest in your review of their licence? Is that where you actually get to do something? What happens if they don't play the game voluntarily? What if they don't self-regulate and show bad judgment because it brings in more money? What do you eventually do, and by what date? That's the first question.

The second question is quite different. It has to do with one of the main themes of this committee's survey, which is to say, the impact of new technologies on Canadian culture. This really has to do more with the nature of television.

I don't know, even with existing technologies such as cable, what right the commission has now to determine, for example, the placement of various signals in the band, from zero up to the top. But it does seem to me to be important not only for basic service but for all of the other less regulated services, because one does find these arbitrary changes that take place and that cause us problems as members of Parliament.

On my particular one, for example, I can't get CPAC any more. I don't know whether I have a right to appeal this to somebody or other.

But the specific question about the existing technology raises a more general question about the technology of guidance systems for all of the new, emerging television services, whether it's going to be multi-point distribution, pizza-sized satellite dishes, or whatever else.

Clearly, the default position has an impact on which content you watch. That is to say, if the first stuff that boots up to the screen is the Canadian stuff, there's probably a better chance, people being what they are—or maybe it's in the lower range—that they'll have a chance of seeing it. Conversely, if it's away up there in the hundreds or some other place, there's less chance of that happening. This is the technology of hotel room television, right? The first thing they give you on the television set is the preview of their movies.

So can you tell me with regard to the existing technologies of cable both what your authority is in terms of placement for all services and how you're going to be handling this problem more generally in the future?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Mr. Blais will first answer the question concerning what can we do about Howard Stern if the broadcaster doesn't play along with what the CBSC, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, has recommended.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Let me give you some context. I hesitate to talk about specifically Howard Stern because it may end up before the commission at some point. So why don't I give you the general background of how the commission deals with content issues?

The Broadcasting Act is clear that the content of programming has to be of a high standard. The commission monitors that at all times. At the same time, Parliament's mandated such that we should have due regard to matters such as freedom of expression and journalistic independence of the broadcaster. It's a difficult, as you can well imagine, balancing act that we have to do.

• 1225

With respect to certain private broadcasters, we have imposed a condition of licence on them such that they can go through self-regulatory mechanisms. In the meantime, if they are abiding by that and remain members in good standing and meet the codes, we step back and let the self-regulation go ahead. Should they not meet their own industry standards, on a going forward basis that condition kicks in and we end up dealing with it directly. It is incumbent upon them to make sure they meet the standards they as broadcasters have established for themselves.

Mr. John Godfrey: Do you have to sign off on those standards yourself, even though it's self-regulating? Do they consult with you and ask if something would mesh with the Broadcasting Act?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Is their licence reviewed at the time that you intervene or can you intervene before that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The CRTC rules allow for complaints at any time. Broadcasters have to keep tapes for a period of 28 days. We receive a great number of complaints from the general public. They're very active and they listen. We deal with the complaints and consider them on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. John Godfrey: Is there a case where in fact the self-regulation has failed and you have intervened to change something? Is there already such a case? Is there a precedent?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Not to my knowledge. There have been cases where the self-regulation commission has intervened on questions of content.

Mr. John Godfrey: But not since?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: There have been instances in Quebec where people have had specific conditions of licence imposed, conditions dealing with the content on the airwaves. We monitor those closely.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: As for cable, very much like the choice of programs, even—sometimes we'd like to step in in their place—it's really their choice. The only obligation they really have under the rules of the distribution regulations is that on their basic service they have to offer the Canadian services and the local services, so that they're available immediately and when we zap easily we can find them. But that is really the only rule we have that they have to obey. The other ones are really for them to make a business case for themselves and for their consumers, and that's how they've been playing with the channel alignment, especially with the new launch over the fall. They've made many changes.

When there's a problem, though, and it does occur when a cable owner has, at the same time, an interest in some program undertaking, there's a possibility of the program undertaker coming to us and making a complaint. And rather than deal with it in a very conventional way, we do dispute resolution with the interested parties to try to solve the situation rather than get into a long proceeding that may not really take care of concerns rapidly enough.

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me just press the point about the parliamentary channel. If the parliamentary channel itself didn't protest about where it was placed on Rogers Toronto, do I, either as a citizen or as a parliamentarian, have the right to come to somebody and create a dispute that you will then try to resolve?

In other words, I could argue that it was in the public interest that this channel should be widely accessible, even if only nine people watch it, because it's part of citizenship and in the broader sense it's fulfilling the mandate of the Broadcasting Act with respect to citizenship. So how the heck do I complain if it's not on basic cable and they don't complain because they're the parliamentary channel and they're not in the complaint business? How do we solve that?

I guess the longer-range question for our study is, how will we do this in the future? Clearly, as the multi-channel universe becomes more complex, you can't stick with the notion that all you're going to do is regulate the placement of basic cable services, because you could be assigned to electronic limbo. You could be out there and all of those Canadian services could be out in cyberspace someplace.

So I've asked a specific question and a general question.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: There could be a complaint made for CPAC. We haven't received any, but we would certainly be—not delighted, that would be a too strong word—

• 1230

Mr. John Godfrey: You just received one. Keep us posted.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The second thing is the digital universe you're describing. There will be many channels and we'll be in a digital universe. There won't be such a thing as an alignment, because that's a very analogic way of conceiving things. There will be a menu, and probably that's what we'll be trying to make sure of.

The barter channel, as we've called it, will have to present the Canadian face first, but the universe will be such that you'll program your own choices into the device and those will appear automatically. It will not be the distributor who will choose for you the ones you like. I guess by then that's what we'll do, because in the trial markets that's what we've been doing with Bell and Telus, doing trials in broadcasting distribution services. We have asked for the barter channel, which presents the menu to make not only preponderance but really a big case out of the Canadian signals to make sure they are well known.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

We'll go a second round quickly. Try to limit yourselves to three or four minutes so we can get everybody in. If I have to intervene, I will.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I concur totally with Mr. Mills on this issue, because there has to be a limitation to freedom of speech when we see the manifestation of the lack of limitation in the vile murder that took place in British Columbia. This whole issue of a derogatory term being used in the background relative to the homosexual community is absolutely unacceptable.

It does strike me that in addition to the CRTC, we should also be encouraging the apparatus that is available under human rights legislation and things of that nature for them to be going after this kind of broadcast. It does not add to our Canadian society in any way, shape, or form, certainly not to a kinder, gentler Canadian society.

That having been said, did you really say a few minutes ago that the CBC is where we come from and we wouldn't have private broadcasting without public broadcasting? That's what I wrote down. Did you really say that?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I said that.

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's the truth.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I agree with that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You're kidding. That's amazing. So you're saying to all of the private broadcasters that without the CBC they couldn't get along or they wouldn't exist or whatever?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, I cannot rewrite history. It's a system; it's a complementary action. Certainly the presence of the CBC has been of valuable importance to us all. I think the private broadcasters have become better because of the CBC and vice versa. The CBC has become better because the private broadcasters were there.

I think many talents we've seen on private broadcaster waves did come from the CBC. In the radio it has established some standards. As a citizen but also as a radio listener and as a TV viewer, I think it has been very valuable to our country. I'm not saying they're the only wealth in our system. There's been a synergy between the two.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm not questioning the value the CBC has performed in Canadian history. I just find that was a rather extreme statement and I wanted to get it clarified.

Secondly, in response to a question from Mr. O'Brien, I'm not sure if you were at the helm at the time the negative option billing in its first incarnation was going through.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, I was not.

Mr. Jim Abbott: To the best of your knowledge, are you admitting that the CRTC was working against the passage of the negative option bill?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I'm sorry; I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Jim Abbott: At the time, the negative option bill went through Parliament very expeditiously on its second reading. It then got into committee and it struck a lot of us who were observing that particular bill that what was going on was there was a tremendous amount of arm twisting happening between the second and third reading. It nonetheless cleared the House with the third reading and went to Senate, where many of us who were following the bill were of a very clear impression that the CRTC was intervening with some of the Senators and was really influencing the situation.

• 1235

To the best of your knowledge, was that the case?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No. I myself participated in the committee along with Anne-Marie and Jean-Pierre, and we came to explain the situation, especially on the French side, because it was very important to the Quebec side that this measure not be adopted because it would prevent other specialty channels in the French language from being launched. Other than that, to my knowledge there hasn't been any contact at all.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a comment for Mr. Mills. CHOM-FM deleted Mr. Stern's insulting comments from its program, which is no longer broadcast live. But I know that the CRTC was very dissatisfied with CILQ-FM in Toronto. They handed down a decision in that regard on March 25 in which they said that they were going to study the question because they were dissatisfied with—

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Excuse me it's the Cable Television Standards Council.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The Standards Council.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It is the self-regulation organization.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I see. So, we can entertain some kind of hope there.

When your predecessor, Ms. Bertrand, appeared before us the last time we heard the CRTC, he shared our preoccupation with the problem of those who pollute the airwaves. You said earlier that it was a privilege to be able to use the airwaves to broadcast. However, there are several people who pollute the airwaves; Stern is one of them, Galganov is another, André Arthur is one, as is Louis Champagne, etc. These people are present in all of the regions in Quebec in any case, except of course in the Rimouski area, where there are none.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We went out West with Mr. Duceppe who took part in an hour-and-a-half open line television show with questionnaires and all of that. To thank him he was told pleasantly at the end: «You are a nice guy, but full of bullshit». I think that when someone feels that he can say that on air, he has forfeited his right to speak there, because he's not respecting other human beings. What your predecessor said was that in the final analysis, those people do that to make themselves popular at the expense of human dignity and integrity. I think that there is a major problem there which we indeed raised when Mr. Spicer came before the committee. He was also concerned by that.

I would add something else; another thing disappointed me a lot. André Arthur, who had been insulting the mayor of Ste-Foy for four years, knocking her, criticizing her and saying just about anything negative about her on the airwaves on a daily basis, decided to run against her for the mayoralty. He had the airwaves at his disposal five hours a day, five days a week to wage his electoral campaign. The CRTC was of the opinion that he did not have to take holidays during his campaign. I find that completely unacceptable. He managed to obtain close to 8000 votes. You have to wonder about the 8000 people who voted for him.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that that is making a dangerous use of the airwaves. In this day and age where we are trying—I'm going to quote Mr. Mills—«to work for Canadian unity», it seems extremely important to me that the CRTC introduce some provision in its regulation against racists, against those who discriminate against other people, who engage in demagogy, and who lie. The population has the right to have open line programs to exchange ideas among intelligent people and not to allow individuals to say anything they please over the air just to stir people up.

That's insane. Verbal violence will eventually lead to other kinds of violence. If you incite people to hate other people rather than to care for them where will that lead us, and where will it stop? For my part, I think that you have a responsibility in your role as guardians of the airwaves that belong to us.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I would say, first, that there are regulations to that effect. There are codes of ethics broadcasters must respect and they are accountable before the Commission, and those go beyond self-regulation. We are ourselves concerned about this, perhaps not with the same fervour you are capable of, nor with the same eloquence, but I can assure you that, certainly— I don't remember the name of the Rimouski station. Who remembers the passage from the Commission and Mr.Champagne's question?

• 1240

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: It wasn't in Rimouski. It happened on the North Shore.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In Chicoutimi. I don't believe it was an isolated incident. This is a clear indication of the importance we attach to this. As part of our program, we weigh societal concerns to ensure that the airwaves reflect Canada's diversity and respect the values of Canadian society.

Obviously, there is always work to do. I repeat, we cannot police broadcasters in the workplace, but we do have certain responsibilities where they are concerned. Each time we meet with broadcasters, we must remind them of their responsibilities and let them know that this matters to us.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to go back again to the whole appointment process. I appreciate what you say about town halls and the research capability of the commission being available to people, but I'd like to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail, which you may have read:

“Big industry players devote a great deal of energy to getting reliable proxies appointed to the commission,” said Matthew Fraser, a professor of broadcast policy at Ryerson Polytechnical University and a former employee of the CRTC.

If a cable company seeks to promote someone for the CRTC board, “a well-orchestrated campaign of subtle back-room blandishments is usually accompanied by a flurry of letters supporting a particular candidate,” he said. “This gives the minister the false impression that the candidate has industry-wide backing.”

That kind of attitude is certainly very prevalent. It's out there and people have, to a great extent, lost faith in this process. We have a lot of appointments coming up in the near future for the CRTC and for the CBC. Are you thinking of opening up this process, making it a transparent process with scrupulous checks—

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I'm an appointee myself. We don't make any appointments.

I have great confidence in all the appointments and all my commissioner colleagues, as well as the staff. I think we're doing tremendous work. I think we take really to heart the mandate that has been confided in us and I think it can be said that we are from this group or we've worked for that group, but I have knowledge of all my colleagues working very hard, working with staff in order to understand the issues, really trying to understand the pros and cons of every option that is presented to us—and that's what I retain.

Mr. Fraser has been at the commission. It was years ago. I've never met him. He's pretending that I'm seeing Mr. Fox or I'm on the line with Mr. Fox every two minutes. I can tell you that's not the truth. So why should I believe all the other aspects of Mr. Fraser's claims? I will stand here for all the appointees who work very hard and I cannot subscribe to the idea that we came with vested interests to the table.

I know we really take to heart the mandate the government has given us as a responsibility. There is work that is being done. There are 425 people at the commission who work every day, on every issue. There are about 1,000 decisions that are rendered by the commission plus about 2,000 notices or other types of decisions. It's really complementary work between the staff and the appointees.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Lill, this question, should you wish to put it, would be more properly addressed to the minister next time she appears.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's been great discussion this morning, and if we could, I'd like to change the topic a little bit, because there are so many things to talk about.

We're in a world where borders seem to be falling all the time. I'm just wondering how the CRTC is going to help maintain Canada's cultural sovereignty in this world of the Internet and borders being reduced?

I'll just let you go. I know it's complicated.

• 1245

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Those are really the very questions we're debating. That's why we've presented a workplan in terms of saying how can we look at radio and strengthen it so we can have better Canadian content and make sure the music industry is growing stronger? It's the same with television, where we will be hearing people's views about strengthening not only the cultural side but the economics of it, so we can sustain it.

The new media will be on our list, because in November we'll talk about what approach we should take to ensure there's Canadian content on the Internet and in the new media environment. That's been very important to us in the traditional media, so it has to be as important to us in the new media world.

Mr. Mark Muise: I was going to ask whether the Internet can be regulated, but I'm seeing from you that radio can't be regulated. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Radio is heavily regulated. It's not censored, but it's regulated.

Mr. Mark Muise: But can the Internet be regulated?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Certainly some measures can be taken to make sure the values that are really important to Canadians are protected in the Internet world. Will we be able to regulate and import in ways we've been doing in the broadcasting and telecom universe? Certainly not. Maybe if there are elements we could import we wouldn't wish to do it, because it would be depriving us of other benefits.

We'll have to assess what kind of support we can bring to the system to ensure there is access for Canadians on the Internet and that Canadian content is on the Internet.

Mr. Mark Muise: Merci, madam.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I just have one question, and I don't have time to pursue those other themes. I'll do that later. This may be an impossible question for you to answer, but I wonder if at some point the CRTC could offer to this committee suggestions for improving the relationship between government and itself. I suppose that's a bit of a risky question for you to answer, if you follow the question. Again, it's just sort of a notice question right now, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. O'Brien, the problem here—and you may want to incorporate it into your question—is perhaps you're trying to get a response as to how to improve relations with parliamentarians as opposed to government.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes. That's more specifically what I'm interested in having you pursue. But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on your own mandate. It's a bit like asking you to critique yourself. Not every group, let alone individual, is up to the task, but I wonder if you are. I don't answer expect an answer today, but I wouldn't mind one when you come back.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Let me reiterate. When I started my speech, I said it was really an opportunity for me to reach out. I would like the first chapter of the dialogue to be written today, but to have other opportunities to meet. We will be very open to any suggestions you may have for helping us to listen more and bring you the information.

The second thing is that you are asking me about criticizing myself. It's an exercise we've done in the strategic plan, and the vision exercise is exactly that. When I say we have to reach out more to the public because we hear from too many organized groups and not enough from the public, it's a self-criticism. It's not because we're not good, but we can be better, and that's what we intend to do.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): One last question, Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What can we, the general public, do to gain access to greater cultural diversity? I'm tired of channel hopping and seeing the same program broadcast on two or three different channels. I'd like to be able to tune in to the BBC in London, to Italian television, to Spanish television, to Portuguese television, to Greek television, and so forth, something other than the 12 or 25 US channels.

I wish Canadians and Quebeckers had access to a wider range of programming, instead of being dominated by US channels. I'm tired of this and I find it unfortunate that the younger generation doesn't have more of a choice.

• 1250

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I agree. That's why the commission has licensed broadcasting signals from other countries, using an eligibility list. The digital age isn't here yet, but it's coming. This requires money, and as consumers, we are not always ready to pay the price. But the technology is being developed. Direct-to-Home, Expressvu and Star Choice currently offer satellite programming. We can get the BBC, Philippino, Japan, Poland, Russia and ARTE, as well as RFO which is carried by Cancom. We are fast approaching the 500-channel universe.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can also tune in to TFO with DTH.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I told you I don't have a problem with that. The CRTC needs to change its regulations.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I see, to broadcast in Quebec. You're referring to the former designation of Radio-Quebec.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mrs. Tremblay and I have been having this discussion for some time now.

In any event, Ms. Bertrand, I'd like to thank you and—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'd like to ask you about one other matter which concerns the CRTC, namely negative billing.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Go ahead.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Here is how I understand the situation. I may be wrong, but this is why I feel we should not endorse this bill. If negative billing wasn't an option, everyone's cable would have to be disconnected so that no one received any signals at all. The cable companies would have to go door-to-door disconnecting people's cable and each subscriber would have to let the company know if he wanted to be hooked back up again.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's correct.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Then I'm right.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: The second option we had was to go with a kind of equalization system. In other words, everyone pays for a service that not everyone wants, but which could not be provided otherwise because it would be too expensive. Therefore, using this approach, we decided to provide a number of French-language services, recognizing that this is a small market and that basically, the same can be said for the entire Canadian system.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Bertrand, Ms. Desroches, Mr. Blais, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Talbot-Allan, Mr. Charman—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We still have some questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm sorry, but I would like to say a few words in closing.

Thank you very much on behalf of committee members for fielding our questions this morning. I trust you sensed that we were unanimous in wanting another meeting with you. I will even go out on a limb and say that you should come back before this session of parliament wraps up, that is before the end of June.

Therefore, we will try to work another meeting into our schedule. I have to admit that personally, I was somewhat disappointed to have to chair this morning's meeting, because I had a number of questions I wanted to ask you.

With your permission, I will give notice of two or three questions that I would like to raise, not right away, but later. They deal with the whole question of a community of interests. You define the term "community of interests" in your regulations. Consider this example. Apparently, there is a greater community of interests between Hamilton, Ontario and Ottawa than there is between Ottawa and Hull. I don't quite understand this and I would like us to examine this issue more closely.

There is also another matter that I would like to discuss. Getting back to your presentation this morning and your speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, you stated that your preferred to let the industry self-regulate and to step back in only when necessary." My question for you is this: if the CRTC decided that there was no need to intervene, what authority, aside from Cabinet, could force you to intervene? How can taxpayers, consumers and consumer groups force the CRTC to take action when it has decided not to?

At some point, perhaps the committee and the CRTC will have to examine all of the major issues that affect the future of broadcasting. Is broadcasting on the Internet covered by the Broadcasting Act? These are issues that also need to be discussed.

A voice: Perhaps they can telephone one another.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Indeed.

On that note, I thank you.

[English]

I thank colleagues for being here this morning. I declare this part of the meeting over.

I believe Mr. Muise wishes to raise something. If

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, based on yesterday's intervention and the witnesses that we had the opportunity to listen to, it gave me the feeling that when we're presented with legislation and we don't have the chance to hear both sides of the story, we're truly missing something. I would like to propose a motion that prior to or during the debate on Bill C-38, on Tuktut Nogait, that we have some of the people concerned come to the committee as witnesses.

• 1255

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise, we'll take this as a notice of a motion to be dealt with at the next meeting.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned. Bonjour.