CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

• 1133

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order. Our witnesses today are from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, Ms. Françoise Bertrand, the Chairperson,

[English]

and Ms. Susan Baldwin, the executive director, broadcasting.

[Translation]

I did not chair the last meeting you attended, Ms. Bertrand. Committee members asked to have you come back. We would like to thank you for your availability. I gather there was no time to raise certain questions.

Unfortunately some members are taking part in the debate in the House on a bill on national parks that comes under the same department. They will be a bit late but in the meantime, we have quorum and we can begin our meeting.

Since we've already heard your presentation, we can begin questions immediately.

[English]

Mr. Obhrai, do you have any questions for the witnesses?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming. It's nice to see you here. This is my first time out here questioning the CRTC, although I have some serious concerns. The concerns have to do with your increasing Canadian content in radio broadcasting.

• 1135

I have two questions. The first one is with regard to the increase of Canadian content from 30% to 35%, arbitrarily made by the CRTC. We feel this goes against the policy of what Canadians want to hear. The private broadcasters themselves are opposed to this idea. In listening to constituents, it seems they are extremely unhappy about your commission forcing them to listen to what they feel should be their freedom of choice—whether they want to listen to Canadian musicians or artists, or whether they have the freedom or right to listen to whatever they want to.

You may have some ideas and goals to increase Canadian content—and one could argue fine, it could be a good policy—but to force it on the listeners as well as the people who deliver the services, in this case the broadcasters themselves— they find it pretty hard to take that. It's a kind of reverse censorship on them. We have a serious concern about this and we would like to hear from you in reference to this.

The second question is one that has come into my riding quite strongly, and is that the CRTC, on the other hand, will not allow religious broadcasting to go through, but has approved channels like Playboy going through. Many of my constituents find the decision the CRTC has made on that very reprehensible.

I would like your comments on those two.

The Chairman: Mrs. Bertrand.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand (Chairperson, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Yes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come back in front of the committee.

On the radio policy, it was really part of the whole plan we had put forward in the sense of revisiting the landscape of regulations in the broadcasting area. We had been doing a lot of work on the telecom side, given the policies of the government towards competition, and it was time that we revisited all the landscape of broadcasting.

We will be, in the next two years, revisiting all the policies—the campus and community radio, and the ethnic policy about radio. There's also the commercial radio policy, which was the pièce maîtresse of the entire revision.

The policy has many components, one of which is the 35% Canadian content. That's one dimension of the policy. There are many others, like the concentration of ownership we have allowed for. Given that we have protected small markets where we feel that there would not be enough diversity, we have established a rule that we could consider applications for concentration of ownership in markets where there would be at least five stations.

But let's come back to your concern, which is the 35% Canadian content. Let's be clear about that. We were at 30%. As we know, music mainly comes from the FM stations. If you take an average FM station, it plays about 200 tunes a day. When we go from 30% to 35%, what we ask of that station is to have an increase of 10 tunes a day, which does not take, over 24 hours, a very big effort.

• 1140

Where the effort is more important and more demanding to the broadcaster is during the day, because from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the past we were not enforcing the 30%; we were more at 25%. And we've asked now that even during that period when there are the most listeners— We felt that it was important that the Canadian content would be as prevalent there as it would be during the night, because that was where the listeners were.

So we felt that it was not undue detailed regulation. We felt that it was just in respect to the cultural objective that we had to pursue a balance between the financial situation of the broadcasters, which we took care of in the element of the policy of the concentration of ownership, and at the same time we had to make sure that the cultural objectives are met. And given the increase in the prosperity of the Canadian record industry, we felt that there was a possibility to go further but not to an undue level or threshold. We felt that 5% was something that could be met.

As for the listeners' choice, more and more of the listeners already have the possibility of tuning to a different radio station. But also, with the advent of digital radio, the listener will be able to make his own choice even in terms of genre in a manner that he has not yet been able to do, because the radio stations, although pursuing different genres, were really interfacing, whereas now with the digital radio listeners will be capable of selecting much closer to individual—not individual choice, but certainly more by category.

So we felt that on balance, given the environment that was changing, we could ask for that extra effort from the broadcasting industry, given that we were in the policy adopting the idea that had been put forward of a better collaboration between the record industry and the broadcasters in order to really work together not only to develop Canadian talent per se but Canadian talent meeting the tastes and the needs of the Canadian public.

So that would be my first answer to your concern about the 35%. As for why the Playboy channel was on the eligible list and why are we refusing the religious stations, first, last year it was really a public process that was given at a time when we wanted to put forward the launch of new Canadian specialty channels, and it was really the position of most of the cable industry that in order to offer a bouquet of interesting programs there was a need to also add at the same time as the Canadian channels American channels on the list. We felt, given the market studies we had, that there was a real demand for this. And from the analysis we could do from what was happening in the United States, we could see that it was a selling point for buying the bouquet.

For filling the Canadian channels to a point where they could be sustainable financially we really needed an important point of penetration in almost all of the cable distributors. The specialty channels could not be sustained unless they had a high degree of penetration. So that's why we were really concerned about creating a potential bouquet for the cable that would be interesting to the consumer.

As for the religious stations, we have licensed different religious channels over the air. Recently in Toronto there was Crossroads. And what was the other one?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): We also licensed a station in Lethbridge in 1995.

• 1145

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In Lethbridge.

The point is the religious policy of broadcasting at the commission is one that it cannot be of only one faith; every channel, according to the policy in the Broadcasting Act, has to present a balanced point of view. This comes back to the fact that because we have a small population, a channel could not be sustained with small penetration. So in order to have a religious channel there was really a bias for a balanced point of view. It can be of Christian faith, but it has to represent all the different faces of the Christian faith. On a digital channel, there was one that was considered for Asian television, which has some components of different elements of faith.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can I—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Obhrai, but can I come back to you in the second round so that we give others a chance? I'll come back to you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I just had a follow-up and I don't want to lose my train of thought.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you.

While listening to both your cases, I would like to say that I do not agree with what you have said for the simple reason that while you say it's only 30% to 35%, the question still remains that it is the choice of the Canadian listeners to decide what they want to do. You may have tried to create a balance by saying you have a couple of radios, and you're stopping in here, but in the end, it's like you're imposing something on this irrespective of the fact your policy may be that and the policy could be subject to change. And you have opposition coming in even from the broadcasters themselves, despite the fact that you have increased this thing.

In terms of the reasons you have given, the cultural objectives, I think the Canadian artists and the Canadian record industry are quite capable of doing it, and we have a serious problem when you come along and say now we have to do this. That is curtailing the free enterprise and the market that these radios can go after. I'm personally not satisfied that the policy you're pursuing is the right policy.

In reference to your second one, I'm from a different faith, and I do not feel at all threatened by Christian channels coming in. I think if the listeners are willing to do that— I agree with you that there has to be a balanced view, but that balanced view will again come forward, and more and more people will come forward, but for you to narrow the scope of these things creates a problem in the final analysis.

So my final point here would be that CRTC should take a couple of steps back and let the listeners and the artists themselves have a free hand in this. Is that eventually going to be a goal, you taking steps back and removing what I would call these restrictions?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I listened to your point of view. On the radio policy the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, as we speak, are quite clear in terms of the necessity to bring Canadian content and to move forward cultural objectives.

The choice of the listener and the choice of the Canadian is obtained by the fact that there are many stations, there are many forms of distribution, and that we're not enforcing when and how it should be, and what kind of genre. So in that sense the Canadian has a choice. If he doesn't like at one point one tune, he can change easily. It's not enforced to the point of regulating the content from a point of view of choosing the pieces or the tunes; that's not the case at all.

As for the religious approach of the commission and broadcasting, certainly the wide array of choices that will be possible with the development of technology will bring the commission to revisit its religious policy, not in a given sense that only one single faith can be represented, because it's quite clear in the act that it has to be always a balanced point of view, but certainly we'll be able to put forward more choices that are more representative of the diversity of faith that exists here in Canada.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Thank you for coming, Ms. Bertrand.

• 1150

I have two questions of an economic nature that also involve accessibility and the basic rates.

For instance, you've authorized monthly increases in the rates of between $5.35 and $8.55. Everyone, including the Consumers Association, agrees that this could affect whether certain families are able to have a telephone or not. We know that 21% of Quebec families and about the same percent of Canadian families are low income families. By agreeing to this increase, are you not in fact allowing a service that is essential to people's security to be jeopardized for a number of low income families?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: First of all, you are referring here to the total increases over the past three years.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I see. That is what we call rate rebalancing. Following the introduction of competition for long distance calls, the government is of the opinion that competition should also be introduced for local telephony. In order to encourage competitors to enter this area, a rate rebalancing was absolutely necessary for the rates to reflect costs more accurately. Historically in the monopoly situation in Canada, residential telephony was subsidized by long distance and commercial services.

That being said, it does give rise of course to the kind of pressures we are seeing. That is also true for the remote areas.

We are aware of the problem and are undertaking two parallel approaches. The first is to keep constant watch of affordability and determine whether there are Canadians who are no longer able to afford the service, and a resultant decline in the use of the telephone.

The last time we did the study we noted that on the contrary, there was an increase in the number of telephone lines, when there is already a certain degree of saturation in the Canadian market. It does of course cost money but we have not yet noted that people are unable to afford the telephone.

Will we go one step further and try to find out how we can help people afford this high cost? We are hopeful but we cannot make any definite commitment. In the case of long distance calls, the introduction of competition resulted in a price drop of 35 to 40%. We hope that the same thing will take place for local telephone calls. As Canadians, we have chosen competition to encourage greater innovation and more technology so that there will eventually be lower prices for the consumer.

Still we think that over the next two or three or four years, this problem will remain in the remote areas. That is why we began last week a process of hearings that will go on for the next two months. We'll be travelling throughout Canada in the remote areas to hear people from the regions who are not receiving service and those who are being served but at a very high cost, to determine how we can set up mechanisms or solutions to assist these people and communities have not only access to telephone but to the Internet. We are considering wide band services that will allow for access to Internet.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'd like to remind you, Madam Chair, that section 7(b) of the Telecommunications Act sets out as an objective:

(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;

You have allowed an increase and, secondly, a differentiation to be established between urban and rural rates. That is almost in contradiction with the Act under which you operate, the Telecommunications Act, and more particularly section 7(b). However, as consultation is under way for the next two months, we will wait for the results to see whether there is compliance with the spirit of this section.

• 1155

I have two other short questions. I was also surprised to find out that there is a charge when an answering machine kicks in. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. When someone makes a call and gets an answering machine, a charge is levied. Don't you think that this is a bit borderline? I suppose it happens automatically. Is there no way of correcting the situation?

Now for my last question, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bertrand can give a brief answer to my first. The second deals with violence on television. An investigation was done by Pacijou, I believe. I don't know whether you commissioned it. It dealt with violence in television. No, you didn't commission it. In any case, here are the conclusions.

During the period under study, the French networks TQS and TVA broadcast 48 films with a high level of violence—"very violent" means more than five deaths per film—on Friday and Saturday evenings before 9 p.m.

On TVQ and TVA on Saturday at 6:30 p.m. 24 children's films were characterized as violent programs whereas the Family Channel fully complied with the guidelines relating to self-regulation. As for UTV, the English language counterpart, it broadcast six violent programs out of eight. There was no Quebec program that fell into the violent category.

What bothers me are films like Alien and Terminator. Will the CRTC one day come up with a definition for a zero tolerance policy concerning violent television programs for children?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In reply to your first question, it is rather surprising. I know that different companies do have different practices. So you may find that when you get a reply from an answering machine, even if it is a long distance call, there is no charge. The practices vary. It is not a practice that is regulated directly. It is considered to be one of the competitive areas that are not subject to regulation. I realize that this may not only cause a problem but that it may also be an annoyance.

As for violence, I think that you are referring to a study made by the Social Communications Bureau. I believe that the classification system had not yet been entirely implemented. I'm thinking of the little vignette that is shown on the screen.

That being said, I think that the Family Channel, whose mandate is to provide programs for children, should be congratulated for their initiative. The fact that they are doing children's programming does not mean that violent images are necessarily absent. We know that there are lost of cartoons, including Japanese ones, that are extremely violent. It is also a fact that American programs, particularly movies, show a great deal of violence.

The choice of the Commission has been in favour of self-regulation and working in co-operation with the industry. We do not attempt to impose principles through coercion. Through dialogue and regular reports, not only written ones but reports made by persons and thus put on the public record, we attempt to give a higher profile to these questions and encourage the main stakeholders, that is the broadcasters, to take responsibility towards their public and at least make the effort to avoid such violence when children are likely to be watching television in the hope that one day such violence will eventually disappear from the screen.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Bertrand, I don't envy you your job. I look around the room and I know that absolutely everybody is angry with you about something, whether it's violence on TV, Howard Stern, or the cable rates.

• 1200

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): No.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, most people are. Jacques is not, and that's great.

I want to talk to you about Baton and CTV. I am mad about the fact that I'm seeing mergers occurring and small communities are losing out in terms of their local broadcasting.

Two weeks ago, 300 lay-offs were announced by CTV-Baton, and local broadcasts in places like Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, disappeared. They woke up one morning and found out their newscast wasn't there any more. They weren't going to hear about the fire that happened down the road.

I asked Ms. Copps about that in the House and what she was going to do in terms of continuing to support local voices, which is what the whole heritage portfolio is all about. She told me that if I knew of any regulation that was being violated here to let her know. That's really a hollow rhetorical question being asked back to me about something I thought she held near and dear.

I've heard you say the CRTC is moving into a new era of being less regulatory and letting the market take its course. How will we continue to protect local jobs, local voices, and the whole sense of local democracy in what is being said and heard in our country? I need some real comfort on that issue. You have a copy of a letter I'm sending to Ms. Copps, but I'm afraid it hasn't gone out yet. Maybe you can just tell me right now.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We certainly share your concern and your questioning of where it is leading us as a country, given the priorities and the objectives of the act, and how we can find our way there as Canadians and citizens. Those are exactly the kinds of questions, in a very broad manner, we want to address by the process that will be held in September with the Canadian programming.

On the one hand, we are observing and know that at one point there will be other movements coming. Everybody has heard about the WIC situation. We don't know how it's going to end. We haven't see any application yet, but we know there's movement there, so the business community side of the broadcasting system is moving. How should we as Canadians and at the CRTC take that into account, yet make sure we still serve the objectives of the act? That's exactly the kind of question we're asking ourselves.

We've seen, for example, that lay-offs have been occurring lately at Baton and CTV, but they've been occurring on a large scale at the CBC and with many broadcasters around the country. At the same time, we've seen the rise of the independent production community, so there's been a transfer of labour force, which of course has different characteristics, purposes, and goals.

This is the kind of element, structurally, we'll be studying and analysing in September to help us understand how we should support it, or whether we should refrain from supporting it. That is why we are going to every region of Canada to hear from the Canadian public itself. We'll be in Vancouver on June 22. We're going to Calgary this coming Friday. We're going to Halifax on June 27. We'll be going across the country before coming to the hearing in September. We'll be talking with the Canadian public about those issues so we can really incorporate those preoccupations.

Ms. Wendy Lill: But people are saying they don't have their own local broadcasts any more and everything is being centralized in Toronto. We are seeing the CBC cut so far, and even the Juneau report several years ago said there is not enough money now for them to continue with the CBC's mandate.

• 1205

What do you want to hear from these people? What more do you need to hear, other than that in fact the CRTC has to start regulating for the people of Canada for the social democracy goals that were set out originally for this commission? What has to be heard now?

It seems to me, very clearly, you're hearing WIC and Baton, and you're not hearing the mayor of Prince Albert nor the cameraman of twenty years at ATV who has been laid off. What's the need for any more talk here? I don't understand it.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, the process is not that we can hear comments and act immediately. What we need is to build the public record, and from the public record, build the policy on which afterwards we can renew the licence with special and specific conditions of licence that will bring specific implementation in the communities.

Unfortunately, it's a long and arduous process, but one we're really engaged in systematically, and that is why we are taking our time and making sure we are bringing those kinds of comments to the public record, so that we can really take into account those concerns as well as the business plans that any corporate strategy can bring to the table.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Is there any possibility in your mind, in your wildest imagination, of some sort of roll-back in terms of some of the mergers that are occurring now? Would there ever be an opportunity for the CRTC to actually try to deregulate or just stop mergers, for the public good in the media?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: By way of background on how the commission approaches mergers or restructuring in the industry, those transfers are always subject to commission approval, and the commission looks at it generally from the public interest perspective, the puts and takes being brought to it. Oftentimes those transfers involve significant tangible benefits to the broadcasting system, where money is injected, either in Canadian programming or other objectives the act has identified.

Through that public process, the commission evaluates and balances the good or the bad of the transaction. There have been instances— I evoke one case from last year, dealing with TQS, the first situation where Videotron wanted to acquire TQS, an example where, on balance, the commission came to the conclusion that it was not in the public interest and therefore said no to the transaction because of concentration of voices in the area and concentration of media. So that's how this process works. That's one example, but it's not the only example.

Afterwards another party came along, and with the appropriate structural divisions, the commission found, on balance, that proposal was in the public interest. So that's one aspect.

Going into the amalgamations or restructuring, there is an analysis. It is examined.

With respect to your specific question of unscrambling those eggs once they've occurred, that's a far more difficult question, because you then involve the commission in affecting acquired rights, and from a legal perspective that is very difficult.

That being said, there is a point where licensees who have their fingers in too many pies end up not being able to go on on a going-forward basis, and they themselves will have to realize that they have to get a finger out of one or other of the pies, because they won't be able to live under the regulatory environment of the commission.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): I would like to add here that we have had a consultation with all of the major, large groups, some of which have been formed as a result of mergers. All of the transcripts are on the public record.

But one of the issues in terms of how the commission looks at the corporate strategy of these mergered companies is when they come before the commission for renewal of individual licences, we would like to look at the overall corporate strategy and then understand how that strategy works at the local level. That is something that has been discussed with the participants in the companies and something we will be doing so that the local issue becomes predominant as part of the Canadian television programming hearing in terms of going-forward policy, but also very explicitly at the renewal of the network group licence, or at the level of the individual station licence renewals. That again affords an opportunity for the communities themselves to come forward and put on the public record much of the information related to that specific community.

• 1210

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madame Bertrand and colleagues, thank you for coming back here again.

I have a couple of questions, but first of all, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I share the concern of Ms. Lill about services to the “less populated” parts of the country, shall we say. We certainly experience that in Ontario, let alone in some of the other provinces. I think that's a national concern, coast to coast to coast, and I share it. I'd be interested in what progress we can make in that area.

My first question, however, is about the whole area of public education. When you were here before, you mentioned that, and I have some questions about it. This flows from a question from Mr. Obhrai, and it is about the attitudes of Canadians.

I think we know the attitude of the Reform Party to Canadian content. We will agree to disagree with them on that, even though they're quite inconsistent in how they discuss it.

Mr. Abbott was here another time when we had the CBC here and he was complaining that a show on Vietnam was not Canadian content. He obviously didn't live in Canada during the Vietnam War and didn't see the direct relevance to this country, but the inconsistency of wanting— There was a criticism of that program because in his mind it didn't have Canadian content, and now we hear another member of the same party basically saying he doesn't see the point of these Canadian content rules. We disagree. I disagree.

This leads to a question on polling. Has there been or will there be an attempt by the CRTC to poll Canadians on this question of whether they support the idea of Canadian content on our radio and television?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: It's almost your question— I'll address your question too, because I suppose your comment in supporting Ms. Lill was more a comment on that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Your point is well taken. I can assure you that we'll look seriously at it.

As for the polling of Canadians, Ms. Baldwin and I were discussing that yesterday afternoon, about going into the CanCon hearing and the necessity to have that ingredient, because although we are trying very hard to get the public comment into the record through our town halls all across Canada, we felt we needed something that was more measured and, if not more scientific, at least more systematic. We discussed how we would need a poll.

Of course, if you want to do a poll across Canada, that means a lot of money. I think the people from Heritage have left—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: —but we'd like to share some governmental poll wherein we could introduce a few questions about this very issue. We think it would be a plus to have that.

It's one thing to say it's in the act— And certainly that gives us the obligation and the responsibility to implement, but it would be interesting to have, as we speak in 1998 going to 1999, information about where Canadians are vis-à-vis those questions.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right. I'm pleased to hear you're considering that. I'd like to think that the majority of Canadians would understand the need to have, in a country like Canada that is next to a cultural behemoth like the United States— I believe most Canadians understand the necessity for Canadian content regulations, but it would be nice to see it quantified. I look forward to that.

I'll just take one more question, Mr. Chairman, and then I think my colleague has some questions.

I have a little more sympathy for the position of Mr. Obhrai on the religious channel, but I'm not sure I understand exactly how it would work.

Is it not possible to approve a religious channel and then say it has to be open to broadcasts from all of the various major religions of the world? Is that how you would envisage it operating? Just how would you see it operating?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: On your earlier point concerning the public process, in 1992-93 the commission ran a public process on its religious broadcasting policy. I think over 3,000 people wrote in and made submissions. That's quite a considerable response.

The commission set out, in light of the act, the religious policy on how it would generally see the licensing of religious broadcasters. That is precisely the point: that in order to get that balance, one element of the programming of this religious broadcaster would have to reflect the diversity required under the act. And there have been two instances.

• 1215

Others can apply if they wish to, knowing in light of the policy how it works. As I mentioned earlier, we licensed somebody in 1995 in Lethbridge and another one not far from Toronto in 1998. There is absolutely no barrier to entry to the extent that the balance provided in the policy is respected.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: The balance being between Christian and non-Christian religions or the balance being between various denominations within the Christian religion, if I can put it that way?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: All of that. Religion in the widest sense of the term.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: And the policy applies strictly to Canadians. It cannot be applied to U.S. segments.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, I'm sorry that I missed your first presentation. There were other committee meetings taking place at the same time and so far all the scientists I've contacted have refused to clone me. So I'm afraid I missed that.

I have a comment to make and a question to ask. Unfortunately I'm making this remark before you but it is not addressed to you but rather to my colleague opposite.

[English]

You have at numerous times consistently opposed the application of the Official Languages Act, especially section 29. You have manifested your position to multiculturalism. Now you are manifesting your position to Canadian content on our channels. Then you claim you represent Canadians. I would simply like to invite you to show a bit more modesty in your claims of representation.

[Translation]

My question concerns the AMI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investments. Like many of my colleagues from various political parties, including the Bloc Québécois and the NDP and the Conservative Party—once again, the Reform Party is an exception to the rule—I voiced my concern about the consequences of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments.

This agreement may have very serious repercussions on your work, your mission, your ability to act and your responsibilities. I have two questions on that point.

First of all, I'd like to know whether you have issued any position. Is it, in fact, your responsibility to formulate a position on the agreement? If so, I think it would be important for you to be involved in the process and to make your reservations known. I can only assume that there will be reservations since you wish to increase the Canadian content. A failure to do so would be a contradiction of sorts.

Now for my second question. Are there organizations that would be considered your counterparts in other OECD countries that have also expressed reservations about culture with respect to the MAI? If so, have you had any contacts with them and will you be establishing a common position or front?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: As far as these policies are concerned, they do not in any way come under the authority of the Commission. We are subject to government policies in the matter. For the time being, the cultural exemption and all that goes along with it is the prevailing approach. That is our understanding of the way in which we are to exercise our responsibility.

Whenever people from departments, whether it be those responsible for culture or trade, have required opinions or information, we've always been very open and available in providing assistance but we do not play a leading role, far from it, since this does not come under our immediate responsibilities.

That said, in relation to this matter, the Canadian chapter of the International Communications Institution came up with the idea of an international forum of regulatory organizations. As part of this forum, which the CRTC had the honour of presiding, we had the opportunity to exchange views with various regulators in different countries, more particularly our European colleagues in view of the common issues. At a meeting that took place in Birmingham, I believe, there was a European representation under Mr. Hervé Bourges, my counterpart with the CSA in France, and they expressed their opposition.

• 1220

Of course the environment and the prevalent conditions in France and Europe with respect to such matters and the government system are somewhat different. I can tell you that we are engaged in a dialogue aimed at mutual understanding, and knowing about what is happening elsewhere, but that's as far as it goes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: May I just add a short comment? It isn't a question.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I simply wanted to join with Ms. Lill and Mr. Plamondon—I think that that is what he was referring to when he quoted section 7(b)—to call for a serious effort to ensure that services are provided in remote regions. Such services are even more essential for them.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In reference to my colleague across, when we challenge on outdated ideas, they naturally will squirm, and that's pretty good. We have more confidence in our artists than you guys do.

Nevertheless, you're here, so I need to talk to you.

I have two questions. Of course the first question, raised by the opposite side, was on the appointment of members of the CRTC. Obviously, when the people on the other side complain—not us, but them— The people who were appointed into CRTC positions were from certain industries and probably with certain views. Could you shed light on how the appointments are done on that and whether it is tilted towards one side on those appointments?

Secondly, am I to understand from you, as I said here when I asked the question, are you going to backtrack on Canadian content sometime in the future? Or am I to understand you having said that you're going to increase those Canadian contents to 40%?

Ms. Francoise Bertrand: On appointments, I was asked about those the last time I was in front of the committee. It's really appointments of the government. I won't talk for myself, because it's always difficult, but I come from the academic world and from the broadcasting industry, and I can certainly say proudly that my colleagues around the table have great expertise of different experiences. Some are consumer advocates, and some have worked in the industry, either broadcasting or telecom, and have been in law practice. They've all had some background that is pertinent to the wide landscape that we have to deal with every day in telecom and broadcasting.

Given the challenges and what Ms. Lill was saying earlier, that instead of having congratulations when you're appointed to the commission, it's almost condolences, I find that having some background and expertise is very important at this important moment of a very demanding, complicated, and complex challenge.

The way the commission works—and I think it's important that you should know that—the work is prepared through a public record, either with a hearing or written process, and the work is done by staff and presented to the commission, either in full commission or committees. I can assure you that there is always a very good analysis, recommendations made by staff and real discussion, so when a decision comes it's really built out of a consensus, and that is where the various and diversified expertise is really helpful in reaching good, balanced decisions.

As for the Canadian content, it's 35% in the radio policy. The policy says it's 35%, as we were speaking, on April 30, which was as of May 1. The broadcasters had to implement that. Going forward, the policy is to stay for five years. There was a proposal in the policy, based on what had been presented during the hearing, of a more collaborative approach between the record industry and the broadcasters, from which we were hopeful that if that collaboration was very fructuous, we would get to 40% Canadian content without the necessity of making it mandatory. Then the 35% would not be a ceiling but would be more like a floor. And given that fructuous collaboration, we were hopeful that we could attain 40%. But it's not in the policy per se that it is mandatory that at the end of the five years it has to be 40%; it's an expectation.

• 1225

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This collaboration you were talking about would start going from say 35% to 25%. Then what?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, it has to be 35%.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It has to be 35%. Tough.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Plamondon, do you have any comments?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know whether you dealt with this during your first appearance. It concerns the effect of one of your decisions on community television. I remind you that section 3(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act clearly states that the Canadian broadcasting system is made up of public, private and community elements. We know that mainly in Quebec, there is a community television network that is unequaled in Canada. There are 95 community stations in Quebec. They provide a very dynamic contribution to each of the regions of Quebec. In appearing before the CRTC, the National Assembly, representing the views of all political parties, called on you to maintain this obligation requiring cable companies to support community television.

The Quebec cable companies were in agreement. Of course, the Quebec Association of Cable Television Programmers made its own demands. Why did you decide to weaken the community network by relieving cable companies of this requirement to support community television?

There was something else that surprised me. I read that you had a reproach to make to Vidéotron on May 31, 1995, on issuing their license. You told them that they would have it for only three years. You were not satisfied with the way in which they had fulfilled their responsibilities concerning community programming. Before this three-year period is up, namely two years later, you took decision 95-264. You amended the policy and lightened the cable companies' obligations relating to the community channel.

Now that the blow has been dealt, what can you do to help community television other than go back on your decision?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: First of all, I'd like to tell you that as far as Vidéotron is concerned, the license condition requiring Vidéotron to pay particular attention to its community channel or its community expression is still in effect. I remember that during the public hearing on concentration of ownership or mergers between CF Cable and Vidéotron, this concern was voiced and it was discussed with Vidéotron at the time.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: At the time.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: At the time, last summer, while we were reviewing policy. In our view, there's not necessarily a contradiction.

The aims of the Broadcasting Act are varied and contain several dimensions. It is true that when we reviewed the rules relating to distribution, the funds were allocated differently. For a three-year period, if I remember correctly, we emphasized production funds, having noted that community channels were the responsibility of cable companies, that they constituted a way of establishing a contact between the cable companies and the communities and that there was therefore a business incentive to maintain and even improve these community channels. Therefore, for strictly business reasons, we felt that it was possible to change the balance and have them make a larger contribution to furthering the aims of the government, namely a contribution equal to that of the cable companies' fund for the encouragement of Canadian production in documentaries, entertainment and fiction.

• 1230

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you carry out an analysis of the effects? In my community television there is one full-time staff member. I discussed the situation with her a few weeks ago. They are very concerned. It means the disappearance of community TV. That is probably where we are heading. In many regions, it turns out to be the same thing.

I recognize it is specific to Quebec. Your comment seems to apply to the Canadian situation. I think it is correct but the dynamics in Quebec are unique. It seems to me you should have given some thought to how you could bring about this impressive experience in the other regions of Canada rather than downgrading the practice in Quebec. As a result, this dynamic relationship among the various community televisions in all the different regions will not be taking place throughout Canada.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In some regions, there still is a possibility of maintaining all the funds. The smallest communities were able to keep all of their money. The situations are fairly similar in all Canadian provinces. Over the years community television has become a very important player. This may be because of the link we referred to. Insofar as the broadcasters, whether it be the CBC or the private companies, do not have as extensive a presence as they once did at the local and regional levels, community channels are becoming increasingly important.

I am unable to reassure you today, Mr. Plamondon. I can't tell you that when we adopted these rules last year, we realized we would have to examine the impact and have another look at the rules in two years. In January 1999, we'll take up our pilgrim's staff once again, review the effects and through a public process make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave for another meeting. Can I ask another short question?

The Chairman: A short one, yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's about those people that I consider to be polluters of the airwaves. I know that you have made decisions following complaints relating to Mr. Stern, for example, who is broadcast in Toronto and Montreal from the United States. I know that under this decision, the Toronto and Montreal broadcasts are first of all listened to and racist and prejudicial comments are removed. I'm referring to Stern. Even at that, we still get complaints from Toronto, particularly about the kinds of racist remarks he makes in his programs.

Is there a more global approach being taken to this matter, that is the assessment of these talk shows whose only aim is to earn money through sponsors and at the same time show a lack of respect to their listeners? They spread prejudice. I refer to Mr. Stern but we could also include Champagne, Arthur, Galganov, etc. I think there would be some merit in taking a look at these call-in shows, particularly the need to watch over the kind of language they use, or at least, open expressions of racism.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I cannot refer to any particular complaints because we are a tribunal but generally speaking, the Commission has a number of strategies to examine content.

First, the Act says that what is broadcast on the airwaves is to be of high quality. The Commission is certainly concerned with ensuring that this is the case. At the same time, we must take into account the fact that the Act states that broadcasters are responsible for content. We also have to look at the matter of freedom of expression.

• 1235

That does not mean that the Commission is idle. One of the strategies we have adopted, particularly with Quebec broadcasters, are guidelines that the broadcasters establish for themselves. This was the case and still is I believe for CHRC in Quebec City, and Chicoutimi as well, where Mr. Champagne is. So there are very strict license conditions for them and the broadcast content is expected to meet certain requirements. This is done following our public process of license renewal.

Furthermore, the commission also favours a system of self-regulation through a standards council so that broadcasters take responsibility for content. So, we feel that complaints really must be dealt with by this standards council first. If necessary, the Commission can take action later if the person making the complaint is not satisfied with the outcome.

The Commission constantly monitors this problem. We receive a large number of complaints, and we take them very seriously.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, and then Mr. Bélanger.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm very interested to hear about this Canadian content poll that you're going to do. I hope it's not framed in terms of “What do Canadians want—better health care, better education, safer communities, or Canadian content?” because we know where Canadian content will end up in terms of that kind of poll. That's unfortunately how it often seems to play out.

I'm really interested in Mr. Plamondon's comments about community channels, because the whole idea of allowing regional voices and local voices to be heard has to be happening. Community channels really have to be supported. I don't believe they are reaching their potential at this point. I think they're sort of being left at the discretion of the cable owners.

The cable owner in my community has a fabulous parking lot and wonderful plants, but there are no voices on the cable channel. We need seed money to be put into these community channels, and not simply so that the odd harried volunteer can go in there and do a little sort of makeshift talk show. That's depressing-looking, and it's insulting to people, and it has that look of “Well, that's just the community channel”.

What we need is seed money and a commitment to that idea so that communities can produce decent programming—documentary and news programs they can be proud of. Certainly the potential is there.

Putting that into a question, do you see regulations on cable companies that require them to put a certain percentage of their subscriber fees into community TV?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's already the case. What has been changed is the proportion given the next three years, especially for the big cable owners, where we have asked them to put some more into the fund to make sure that the community expression was still to be there. At the same time, there was the possibility, as I was explaining, to support Canadian content in the domain of drama and entertainment and documentaries.

It's always a balancing act, and that is exactly the kind of question we'll be discussing in terms of the structure of the broadcasting system. You have the cable and eventually the new distributors, the DTH and the MMDS, which have the responsibility of having a community expression. Then you have the CBC, which is the public broadcaster. Then you have the larger players, either the national networks like CTV or the groups, as we call them—either Baton or WIC or the Shaw people—and eventually you have the local broadcasters.

What are the expectations, and how is it framed so that everyone contributes but you don't have everyone doing exactly the same thing? You have to allow for diversity. Probably the local and the community expressions come from where it is closer, and you keep the Toronto and the Montreal people and the Vancouver people for much more kind of national expression in terms of drama and documentaries.

However, some others will say that's not the way to go. If you take the Salter group, that's a very strong regional group that has national distribution. That is exactly the kind of question we will need.

• 1240

As for the poll, it will have to be focused. Otherwise— I used to be a pollster myself, so I know it's going to give no support to any thesis. We must have the courage to ask the question in a focused manner that will help our reflection and our decision-taking.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Good afternoon, Ms. Bertrand.

Mr. Françoise Bertrand: Good afternoon, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm sorry for coming in late. I was in the House, where we were debating a bill that we have already debated here. I apologize.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Don't worry about it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have two or three series of questions. I'll try to ask them quickly, Mr. Chairman.

The first question, which I touched on briefly towards the end of your last appearance before the committee, has to do with the issue of community of interests.

Perhaps you'll remember an incident that happened here in the region not so long ago. The cable company allocated spaces on the basic lineup to television stations from Hamilton, claiming that Hamilton and Ottawa had a much greater community of interests than Ottawa and Hull did, and that the CRTC regulations said at the time that community of interests had to be on a provincial basis.

I would like to know whether these regulations have been revised and whether the CRTC now recognizes that two communities in different provinces can have a truer community of interest than two communities within the same province. That's my first question.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, we have begun a process, but I'll ask Ms. Des Roches to provide more details.

Ms. Anne-Marie Des Roches (Manager, French Language Broadcasting, Broadcasting Planning, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission): Yes, we did recognize that in the new distribution legislation which came out on January 1, 1998.

We rewrote the regulations in terms of distribution of services. In other words, the stations in Hull, CHOT and CFGS, take priority over stations in the same province, Ontario, that is to say, the Hamilton stations. That problem was corrected, and an adjustment was made for the national capital when Rogers tried to drop CHOT. We realized there was a problem because the national capital region is a perfect example of community of interests.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are there any other similar situations in the country, for example, communities on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border? There also are border communities between Manitoba and Ontario. Are there other places where the CRTC will show the same flexibility?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: In light of this first step, we are going to look at the other situations where the same kind of flexibility could be shown.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. May I continue, Mr.Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The next topic is the matter of cable television and the fees. It's a complex matter, and I'll start by seeing if we agree on something—that the whole question of cable television is evolving. Perhaps now and in the near past there may not have been a great deal of competition and ability for the consumer to go elsewhere than to the cable distributor. There are starting to appear some choices, some alternatives, but we're not there yet. We're two or three years away from being able to say there's true competition. Can we agree with that basic premise?

Ms. Francoise Bertrand: Yes, we do.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Good.

[English]

Then you have a situation in this community, and I presume elsewhere, where you have a cable distributor called Rogers, which has, for all intents and purposes, still a monopoly and which for the time being is offering specialty channels free of charge. And I'm not talking about negative option billing here. We've been through that before.

Ms. Francoise Bertrand: No, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't necessarily want to revisit that. But we have a situation here where, after offering these specialty channels for quite a while, this company decides that it will now ask the clients to pay for it, which is fair. I have no problems with that. It decides on a package called MeTV and says it will be $4.95 a month, or whatever the exact amount is, if you care to have it. Fair enough. I have no problems so far, and I don't think most people in their right mind will have a problem with that.

• 1245

But what it does say then is that if you don't take this MeTV package and keep the rest, you're still going to have to pay more for the rest. It's $2 and something more.

The arguments that I've heard from people in this community and elsewhere is that this might be seen as perhaps not very adroit economically, but it nonetheless can be seen as somewhat exploiting a quasi-monopoly situation. Would we agree on that interpretation of the situation?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We'll certainly agree on the fact that it is really a burden for the consumer. It's not the way, if there was a competitive market, to really keep your consumers and subscribers.

When I met with la conférencière for the CCTA at their opening last week or the week before, I kind of said that it was a real concern for the commission, because although we had opened the market to competition, we couldn't say that there was really a share that has been going to the competitors that made them less— I didn't use the word “monopolistic”, I said “predominant”. They're still predominant, and we're concerned about that.

We've shared that with them, and we're talking about revisiting the entire situation of the cable economy as we speak. I even said in an interview that if pushed too far—this is although, as we speak, the regulations allow them this because they're not regulated for their discretionary period—it could go as far as reregulating an element that we have deregulated.

We're not there yet. We're concerned, and we're in a phase whereby we're really doing the analysis.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then to conclude on this aspect, if there is an agreement— I think the facts speak for themselves. The cable companies still have a quasi-monopolistic situation, and it won't be for two or three years that there will be real choices for the consumer. That's number one.

We seem to mostly agree that there is indeed a situation here where the predominant player has currently used his predominant situation in a way that it could be seen as unfair. Perhaps that's not very bright, because consumers, when they have a choice, might decide to say sayonara.

But here's the question therefore that I want to put to the CRTC. Indeed, we still have a couple of years to go, or two or three, before we have a situation where a concurrence is possible. We have a situation here where Rogers is essentially saying that if you want the same service, you're going to have to pay more because you're not taking the extra package, which is very difficult for a lot of people to accept. Also, it takes two years for the CRTC to reregulated, or whatever the word is to review its regulations, because it's a long process. But if you decide to do that, by the time you do it, it'll be too late and the consumers will have had to pay.

Is there any other way? First of all, is there a will for the CRTC to act rapidly? Are there ways to do that or do you need the government's support, if you decided to act, to tell Rogers to hold off until there's true competition? Can the CRTC act? How rapidly can it act?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Well, I've expressed my concern and that of the commission. As for the rest, I'll Jean-Pierre enter in—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I understand your concern. Perhaps we should refocus a bit in the sense that it perhaps is not— I realize that for people who are in Rogers territories, it's an important concern, and Rogers is an important licensee. Nevertheless, our surveyance of the situation suggests that it's a phenomenon unique to this particular licensee, and that other licensees have been better and more adroit in making sure that they will survive on a ongoing basis.

As Madame Bertrand noted, we are certainly monitoring the situation closely. The tactics or marketing approach of Rogers is not in their long-term interests, and I think they certainly realize that.

• 1250

The other point I think we have to remember is that since the early 1980s, the commission has not regulated the discretionary aspect—that is, those services above the basic services. I realize that consumers maybe don't always see the distinction between the basic service and those discretionary services, but that is a strong policy approach the commission has taken over a number of years.

Competition is en devenir, and there's a certain frustration in the transitional period. Nevertheless, that's the approach of the commission, while keeping a close eye on the situation.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: But if I may, Mr. Bélanger, it's a concern. We're looking at it. There isn't a will to act this week—I won't lie about that—but we're really concerned. We're not saying it's not possible, but the message to the CCTA a couple of weeks ago was there are many elements we're concerned about. Others are undue preference, vertical integration and access in a world where the unlimited capacity that was to be provided by digital technology is not really occurring either.

Those are all issues we're looking at and studying very intensively, for which we'll take appropriate action. Of course, it isn't possible to say it will happen today and I will take the phone, but there is a real will to look at it and not let it go, that's for sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr.Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: We have barely ten minutes left, and Mr. Bonwick has asked to be recognized, which I will do. I'd like to ask a question as well, so maybe we can split our time.

A voice: You take one minute, he takes five, okay?

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Benefits of the chair.

I apologize as well for being late. I was with my colleague Mr. Bélanger in the House this morning.

My first question falls in line with Ms. Lill's comments on the importance of community-based programming. Do you consider community-based programming to be part of our overall way of promoting or accessing, on a micro level, our diverse regional culture? Is it a way for us to promote those diverse regional things?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, but it's very difficult for a commissioner to say yes or no, because at the same time we have other objectives, and I cannot say I don't support. I do support entirely the policy we have established as the distribution of signals. At the same time as I support the expression in the community, I support the production fund and the necessity to help and support Canadian content in other genres.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'll take that as a yes.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, but—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I guess that sort of answers my second question, which I thought would have afforded you the opportunity for a fairly succinct answer as well. Do you agree that it's important that we maintain, maybe even develop, this base or focus of programming as a way for us to promote our regional or our very diverse micro-level culture on community-based programming? Is it important for us to develop that?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, it's important for our broadcasting system to offer that expression. Is it the way we've always known, strictly by community expression of the distributors? I don't know; it can be that also. Can we give back some voice to the CBC? Yes, but the community expression is absolutely important within the broadcasting system.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: When you say broadcasting, I think we would be naive to think the CBC is going to run a weekly episode relating to the north end of my riding, specifically dealing with the historical components and promoting cultural benefits within that specific area.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That's naive.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's why I asked whether you put it up on a pedestal, or do you believe we should be encouraging the development of these community-based programs?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The point is there are a lot of objectives the commission has to balance. The one on local sources is one of the sources mentioned in the Broadcasting Act, but it also talks of regional, national, and international sources.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: But will their community expression always support yes? It is, as we speak, in the policy we put forward last year.

• 1255

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Could you maybe highlight what you think is one of the more significant problems incurred by these cable companies that are attempting to promote community-based programs while still remaining profitable?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: In fact some of our studies suggest that the community program is a marketing tool for those companies.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wasn't asking what their—

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Not for marketing of their services, but to distinguish themselves in a competitive environment. That community base is something, for instance, that a DTH provider can't offer and a cable provider can. So there are certain benefits to them.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Perhaps I didn't word my question properly. Could you give me your opinion on what the most significant problem is that is incurred in promoting these community-based channels and in developing them in such a way that they are professionally done and not an embarrassment?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: You mean for the commission in terms of supporting them?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: You mean more money.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Is that what you want me to say?

A voice: Oh, say—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I want them to tell me!

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I think there are actually a couple of viable options here. In fact, what we're starting to see is that because it is valuable for cable to have community channels, it does differentiate them. We're also seeing the development of software that allows for much more sophisticated production at a much lower cost at the local level. And I think we will see that as the larger companies become experienced, some of the smaller companies will also acquire the software and will be able to do much more sophisticated productions. It will work within their own communities.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Timing— I'm having to share with the chairperson, so I can't overrun. I guess I was asking the question and didn't want to make the statement because I wanted to hear it from you. Certainly my opinion was that it was one of finances, but I wanted to hear from you what your feeling was about their most significant problem in developing this.

And lastly, what strategies are you implementing to assist them in overcoming these hurdles?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: No, it's not a recognition that— It is a problem. I just said money because I know that's the word you wanted me to say, but I don't recognize that the solution for more community expression will go through a change of the policy— It might, but at this time we support the policy we put in place just last year. Next year, in January 1999, we'll review. If the impact is such that the community expression is disappearing and nobody is carrying it through the day, we'll take the appropriate measures then, because it's an important objective in the Broadcasting Act.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Bertrand, I would like to ask you a question that will certainly require more time than what we have today. You could perhaps give us a written response if you want.

As you know, we are doing a study on Canadian culture and how it relates to the major issues of the next century, which we have divided into three main components. We certainly can't look at all aspects of Canadian culture, but the things that we think are the most crucial are, first of all, the globalization of trade; secondly, demographic changes in the country, or in other words, the ageing population, the changing structure of the country and the ethnic communities; and thirdly, the emergence of new technology and the pace of technological change. I'd like to ask you a question about this third component.

How do you envisage the CRTC's responsibility, actions and policy in light of this technological revolution which will soon bring us satellites that will be beaming hundreds of TV channels into our homes, along with Internet access and all that, all sorts of multimedia possibilities? How will you be able to keep on protecting Canadian content within this entire jumble of channels?

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: That is quite a broad question, which we can't—

The Chairman: I realize that.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I don't know what your deadline is for such questions.

The Chairman: We have until the fall.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: We could send you an approach that we developed for a public process, actually a public hearing that will be held in November. We were asking these questions in light of the support that we might or might not have, depending on how things go, in the area of new media.

• 1300

So we could send you the public notice that we will be bringing forward, along with a more personalized letter. The public notice will be ready—

[English]

on new media, when will it be ready?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It will be ready in June.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: By the end of June.

The Chairman: Great.

[Translation]

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Unfortunately, the public hearings will not be held until November, so at that time, we will be able to give you better answers to these questions, once we have heard all the various points of view out there.

The Chairman: At least, that will give us an idea of what you are looking for.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Yes, all the questions we've been asking. Fine.

The Chairman: All your questions. If you could send that to the clerk, he could forward it to the committee members. Thank you very much.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: I'd be pleased to do so, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai had to leave early, and he asked me to thank you for coming today.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I too thank you, Ms. Bertrand.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise another issue, if you don't mind. I'm sure you recall that two or three weeks ago, the committee agreed that we would try to hold two other meetings, one with the CRTC, which we've just held, thank you, and another one with the broadcasters. We wanted to give them a chance to appear before us as part of our discussions on culture. We received a letter from our good friend, Mr. McCabe, about that. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we will be able to have that meeting before the House adjourns.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, I passed that on to the clerk right after our discussion, but unfortunately, the clerk is not here today. So, I can't give you any more information than that, but I do know that it was being considered. As soon as he is back, I will tell you whether we are going to have that meeting before the House adjourns. I too hope that we'll be able to do it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We'll try.

The Chairman: We'll try.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Bertrand, I would like to thank you and your officials for coming here today. It's the second time you've appeared before us. We greatly appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The committee stands adjourned.