HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

0905

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Mr. Serge Paquin (Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada)

Mr. Robert Boulay (Development Officer, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada)

0910

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Robert Boulay

Mr. Serge Paquin

0915

Mr. Robert Boulay

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Robert Boulay

Mr. Serge Paquin

0920

Mr. Robert Boulay

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Robert Boulay

The Chair

Mr. Serge Paquin

0925

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard (President, Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec)

Ms. Lucie Gagnon (Secretary General, Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec)

0930

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

0935

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Serge Paquin

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

0940

Mr. Abbott

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

Mr. Serge Paquin

0945

The Chair

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Robert Boulay

The Chair

Mr. Robert Boulay

The Chair

Mr. Robert Boulay

0950

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Serge Paquin

0955

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

1000

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Serge Paquin

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Serge Paquin

1005

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

1010

Serge Paquin

1015

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Serge Paquin

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

1020

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

Ms. Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

The Chair

Serge Paquin

The Chair

Serge Paquin

Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1025

Lucie Gagnon

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

M. Lanctôt

The Chair

M. Lanctôt

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Serge Paquin

1030

Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

Lucie Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. André Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. André Desrochers

1035

1040

Mr. André Simard (Secretary, Corporation de télédifussion du Grand Châteauguay inc.)

1045

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Lépine (Vice-President, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec)

1050

Mr. Gérald Gauthier (Research and Development Officer, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec)

1055

The Chair

1100

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

1105

M. Abbott

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

M. Abbott

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. André Simard

1110

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

1115

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. André Simard

Mr. André Desrochers

1120

The Chair

Mr. André Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. André Desrochers

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. André Simard

1125

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. André Desrochers

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1130

Mr. André Simard

Mr. André Desrochers

1135

Mr. Stéphane Lépine

Mr. Gérald Gauthier

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. André Desrochers

1140

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

1145

Mr. Ken Collins (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Ms. Lise Huot (President, Fondation Radio Enfant)

Ms. Aline Bard (Member, Fondation Radio Enfant)

Mr. Michel Delorme (Director General, Fondation Radio Enfant)

1150

Ms. Lise Huot

1155

The Chair

Mr. Michel Delorme

The Chair

Mr. Jan Pachul (President, Star Ray TV)

1200

1205

The Chair

Mr. Roger Davies (Individual Presentation)

1210

Mr. Ken Collins

1215

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

1220

Mr. Roger Davies

Mr. Abbott

1225

Mr. Ken Collins

Mr. Roger Davies

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jan Pachul

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1230

Mr. Michel Delorme

1235

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Michel Delorme

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Roger Davies

1240

Mr. Ken Collins

Mr. Roger Davies

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Michel Delorme

The Chair

Mr. Michel Delorme

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

1245

Mr. Michel Delorme

The Chair

Mr. Jan Pachul

1250

The Chair

Mr. Jan Pachul

The Chair

Mr. Jan Pachul

The Chair

Mr. Ken Collins

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Ken Collins

Mr. Roger Davies

The Chair

1255

Mr. Michel Delorme

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 044

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to invite the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec to take their places at the table.

The meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is meeting today to continue its study of the Canadian broadcasting system, is now open.

Today's sitting is devoted to community radio and television broadcasting across Canada. We are very pleased to welcome here a number of associations that are involved in community radio and television broadcasting.

We will start with the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec. Then we will hear from the Corporation de télédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay inc. and the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. The representatives of the Atelier Radio Enfant Inc. group have not yet arrived. When they do, we will see if we can include them in that same set of witnesses. Then we will move to our other witnesses.

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Serge Paquin, Secretary General of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, Mr. Robert Boulay, Development Officer at the alliance, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard, President of the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec, and Ms. Lucie Gagnon, Secretary General of the association.

I would like to invite Mr. Paquin or Mr. Boulay to make a presentation. I do not know which of you would like to speak. Given the number of witnesses today, I would ask you to limit your presentations to around 10 minutes. I will then give the floor to the second group. That way, the committee members will have time to ask their questions. Thank you very much.

Mr. Paquin.

Mr. Serge Paquin (Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you as well to the members of the committee for allowing us to be here.

The development of community radio stations in minority francophone communities is coordinated at the national level by the Alliance des radios communautaires du canada, ARC Canada.

Before continuing our presentation, we would like to point out that ARC Canada does not include community radio stations in Quebec, since our mandate is to coordinate the community radio file for minority francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. Our organization currently has 32 active members in 9 of the 10 provinces and the territories. The Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec represents community radio stations operating only in Quebec. Despite the fact that our two organizations are both working in the area of community radio broadcasting, ARC Quebec is not a provincial wing of ARC Canada, but rather a distinct entity that is quite separate.

Mr. Robert Boulay (Development Officer, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada): The present version of the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1991, the year that our organization was founded. During the past decade we have continually supported our members in their efforts to defend their rights and develop their own community radio stations. As a result of these activities, we have come to question how the CRTC implements broadcasting polices and interprets the act in specific cases such as those that we have had to deal with over the years.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Serge Paquin: Bill S-32, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, has just passed second reading and been referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration.

Sponsored by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, this bill will strengthen the act and give it more teeth. Section 41 of the Official Languages Act would read as follows:

In accordance with subsection 16(1) and (3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Government of Canada shall take the measures necessary to ensure the vitality and the development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

If it were adopted, this bill could be applied to the Broadcasting Act, thus requiring the CRTC to take the measures necessary to ensure the vitality and the development of francophone minorities through the development of new community radio stations in both rural and urban areas.

In its decisions, the CRTC gives little or no consideration to language issues. Concrete evidence of that was provided by the CRTC's consideration of the second licence application by the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto, in the spring of 2000: the commissioners awarded no points for the fact that 85 per cent of the applicant's programming would be in French.

Mr. Robert Boulay: In the Beaulac case, in paragraph 25 of the ruling, the court finally rejected the restrictive approach taken in a case involving language rights in the decision Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Association of Parents for Fairness In Education:

Language rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada; see Reference re Public Schools Act (Man.), supra, at p. 850.

Given this legal precedent, we can take the position that the CRTC, as an institution of the Canadian Parliament, should be subject to the Charter and the Official Languages Act. The CRTC is created and mandated under the Broadcasting Act, a federal law. That being the case, the CRTC has a positive obligation to ensure the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada. Its role in this area goes much beyond simply holding hearings in both official languages; it must also ensure the development of our minority official language communities as set out in Beaulac.

The awarding of broadcast licences should take into consideration factors relating to official languages in minority situations and those factors should take precedent over others like market and competition. The importance of community radio stations has been well demonstrated, since their positive role and impact has been clear since the very first radio station of this type was opened in Canada, that is, CKRL-MF in Quebec City on February 17, 1973. In minority official language communities, these stations play a vital role in the development of the language, the revitalization of the culture and the struggle against assimilation.

We are also of the opinion that the CRTC, as an institution of the Canadian Parliament, has a duty to take into account the principles given in Beaulac when dealing with licence applications or requests from our official language communities in urban and rural areas.

Amending the Broadcasting Act to establish clearly that the CRTC is fully subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Official Languages Act merely clarifies a reality that already exists. We feel, however, that this clarification is necessary, since some CRTC commissioners themselves deny this reality and admit that they do not take it into account in their deliberations.

Mr. Serge Paquin: The federal government should urge federal departments and agencies to provide concrete support for the development of minority communities, in keeping with section 41 of the Official Languages Act. Part VII of this act recognizes the commitment of the federal government, its departments and institutions to promote the vitality of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada and to support their development, as well as to foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. The act thus clearly recognizes the existence of the two communities and their rights.

This new provision was added to this act in 1988. These amendments were very significant and considerably changed the vocation of the Official Languages Act. Recognizing the government's obligation to ensure the development and vitality of official language communities has added a whole new dimension. Without detracting from the parts of the act concerning language of service, language of work, etc., which are all provisions pertaining to individual rights, part VII recognizes not only the existence of these communities, but also the federal government's responsibility to them.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Robert Boulay: The CRTC's report Achieving a better balance, published in February 2001, states that:

The presence of French-language broadcasting services in the French linguistic minority communities in Canada contributes not only to the vitality and development of the francophone communities, but also responds to the needs of all Canadians who wish to obtain a better understanding of both official languages.

The recommendation in paragraph 171 of the report is as follows:

In the current context, the CRTC should continue to ensure that all frequency allocations constitute the best possible use of those frequencies, in the public interest. Accordingly, the CRTC must continue to take into account competitive situations, particularly in major urban areas, where demand far outweighs the availability of frequencies.

However, as has been pointed out by Radio-Canada and the ARCC, the federal government can decide to reserve frequencies for particular purposes, and this power is given under section 26 of the Broadcasting Act. Thus, the government has the power to issue directions to the CRTC respecting the maximum number of channels or frequencies for the use of which licences may be issued within a given region, the reservation of channels or frequencies for the use of the corporation or for any special purpose.

Mr. Serge Paquin: In its 1999-2000 annual report, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages indicates that community radio stations in francophone linguistic minority communities are effective communication tools that reflect the identity of their communities and are counted on by those communities for information, that they have a very high penetration rate and that they play a vital role in the development of minority communities.

In the study theme suggested in its term of reference, the standing committee proposes six subjects under the heading of “Cultural Diversity.” One of those topics is community television, but no mention is made of community radio.

However, the Broadcasting Act clearly mentions the “Canadian broadcasting system, comprising public, private and community elements.”

The act also refers to the fact that the Canadian system should “serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.” It also states that the system should “encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programing.”

The introduction of new radio stations in the country contributes in every respect to achieving this objective, and there is every reason for the revisions to the act to make clear reference to the contribution this type of station makes to Canada's broadcasting system.

Mr. Robert Boulay: The two-time refusal by the CRTC to award a broadcasting licence to the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto makes us wonder how it interprets its own mandate, which is “maintain a delicate balance—in the public interest—between the cultural, social and economic goals of the legislation on broadcasting and telecommunications.” What balance are we talking about, since Toronto, which is the largest city in the country and has over 200,000 francophones and francophiles, has only one source of radio programming in French? Moreover, the one broadcaster, Radio-Canada, has very limited local content, since it offers less than 40 hours a week of local productions, with the majority of programming coming from Montreal.

We need to ask ourselves at this point whether the possible revisions to the Broadcasting Act could not include elements or provisions to encourage the various levels of government to promote compliance with the objectives of this legislation by increasing or at least not reducing the budgets for, among other things, the public broadcasting system.

Mr. Serge Paquin: Cooperation and possible exchanges between the CBC and francophone minority communities: We would like the CBC to facilitate access to its transmitter sites in order to accelerate the development of new community radio stations. This access to broadcast infrastructure would also greatly reduce the capital cost of new stations. The public broadcaster should also enable project sponsors to benefit from its technical and radio expertise. This type of support would strengthen ties between the CBC and minority francophone communities and contribute to fulfilling the mandate of the public broadcaster in these communities.

In major urban centres such as Toronto and Victoria, as well as in isolated regions such as Whitehorse, where local programming by the public broadcaster is barely over 40 hours a week, the act should encourage the sharing of air time with the various community associations.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Robert Boulay: Major extension project of Radio-Canada's chaîne culturelle[cultural channel]: On October 23, 2001, it was announced that the public broadcaster had submitted 18 licence applications to the CRTC to broaden and accelerate the extension of the chaîne culturelle and radio services to all Canadian provinces as early as 2002.

Unfortunately, this plan may jeopardize the availability of frequencies and the possible development of community radio stations in some urban areas. The awarding of so-called “educational” frequencies in urban areas may compromise or at least modify the technical scenarios proposed by the sponsors of these planned radio stations and others that will follow.

Mr. Serge Paquin: Section 26 of the Broadcasting Act gives the government the power to issue directions to the CRTC respecting the maximum number of channels or frequencies for the use of which licences may be issued within a given region, the reservation of channels or frequencies for the use of the corporation or for any special purpose.

We would therefore ask the committee to recommend to the Canadian government that it urge the CRTC to reserve a frequency in every major urban centre in Canada to ensure that francophone minorities will one day be able to set up a community radio station.

Similarly, the Canadian government needs to ensure that the commission implements the recommendations in its report entitled Achieving a Better Balance. The situation is becoming urgent everywhere in the country, with available frequencies becoming a rare commodity in Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto. We need to put a stop to the assimilation taking place in minority francophone communities in these major urban centres, but the CRTC regularly says that it is powerless to reserve frequencies for these communities, for either analog or digital service.

Mr. Robert Boulay: The radio fund: Government of Canada regulations require broadcasting distribution undertakings to contribute to Canadian programming. Each DBS distributor is required, in accordance with licensing conditions, to contribute 5% of its gross annual revenues to an independent production fund for the creation of Canadian broadcasts. Based on our understanding, the wording “Canadian broadcasts” should also include radio broadcasts, because we do produce broadcasts that meet that definition.

In the Public Notice CRTC 1997-98, entitled “Contributions to Canadian Programming by Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings”, the commission concluded that BDU contributions for producing high-quality Canadian broadcasts should not be used for the production of radio broadcast. However, in the same public notice, the CRTC added that it intended to study innovative ways of providing additional financial resources to community radio stations as part of a future process.

The creation of a radio fund could be a tangible solution for community radio programming and local expression. The proposed fund would finance educational programs that would promote community development and contribute to raising awareness in francophone minority communities in the country. It would also consolidate relationships and exchanges among these communities, while ensuring that they have high-quality Canadian content suited to their needs and their specific expectations. Allow me to point out that at present, private radio broadcasters do not contribute to the development and production of programs in the non-commercial radio broadcasting sector.

The Chair: Mr. Boulay and Mr. Paquin, you realize that there are a lot of speakers after you. Please, if you could perhaps--

Mr. Serge Paquin: In conclusion, we just want to mention that we support the briefs submitted by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and by our colleagues from the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

I will conclude by saying that the government could also ensure that the CRTC is given additional means, as it is dealing with more and more work and increasingly complex issues, with fewer and fewer staff members. It is important for the CRTC to be able to carry out its work diligently. So an increase in the CRTC's budget would be well received.

I will now give the floor to our colleagues from the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Paquin and Mr. Boulay.

We will now go to Mr. Bédard and Ms. Gagnon.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard (President, Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec): Thank you. The Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec is happy to have this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to share the concerns of its members with respect to the review of the Broadcasting Act.

Our sector has been contributing to the development of FM radio broadcasting in Canada since the early 1970s. However, it still has and has always had trouble receiving recognition. In this regard, the mandate of the study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system has left us somewhat puzzled. The study themes, including cultural diversity, ownership and the contribution of the various sectors to meeting the objectives of the act make no mention whatsoever of the existence of community radio stations.

Before going any further, we want to take the time to tell you about our association and its members. ARCQ is an independent, non-profit organization founded in 1979 and dedicated to fostering the development of and promoting community radio. ARCQ represents 25 community radio stations in Quebec which broadcast in total over 3,000 hours of original programming every week thanks to the contributions of 1,500 volunteers supported by 230 employees. These community radio stations have 18,000 members and a listening audience of over 650,000 people in 16 regions of Quebec. They are accessible community radio stations.

Community radio stations take the voices of citizens into the public arena. They air the debates that concern citizens and support social projects. Local and regional information and the promotion of all kinds of cultural expression are priorities in community radio broadcasting, and the bulk of all resources are devoted to these areas.

Recognized in Quebec as businesses that are part of the social economy, community radio stations are unique institutions that combine a public mission with community ownership and management, an entrepreneurial component and programming that provides the community with access to the airwaves. These radio stations are an effective way of disseminating local and regional information, among other things.

Essentially, we are here to tell you that this model of broadcasting, which was developed mainly thanks to the Canadian legislative and regulatory system, needs better support to deal with media concentration, to rise to the challenges related to technology and to maintain its place in the world of communications in Canada.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon (Secretary General, Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec): The aim of the spirit and the letter of the Broadcasting Act is to ensure that the interests of Canadians are well served by a broadcasting system providing extensive Canadian programming that enhances our national, regional and local identity by enabling members of the public to share values and ideals that shape their lives.

Community radio stations meet these needs in an effective, satisfactory way, since they are structured in such a way that members of the community can get involved in their operation, management and programming. The programming offered reflects the needs and interests of the communities in which these stations operate. Community stations are critically important to upholding the spirit of the Broadcasting Act, which stipulates that the Canadian broadcasting system must enhance our local identity and include community programming.

It is therefore essential and vital that any changes to the Broadcasting Act be aimed at strengthening the presence of the community sector within the Canadian broadcasting system. It is vital that organizations that are created and managed by Canadian citizens and not profit-oriented, be better supported and encouraged through legislation. A key way of achieving this particular objective would be to guarantee that the community sector always has a role to play within the Canadian broadcasting system as technology continues to evolve in the present and the future. Frequencies must be set aside in anticipation of the arrival on the scene of community radio stations so that expression can be given to local community needs. Furthermore, cable companies must set aside one station for local community television. We strongly feel that the Canadian system must be regulated if our Canadian identity is to survive with its wealth of national, regional and local diversity.

The terms of reference of this study by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the Canadian broadcasting system do not reassure us at all as to the intentions of the government in this regard. In recent years, we have experienced, in Canada and elsewhere in the world, a high level of media concentration. Deregulation has, among other things, made it possible to own more than one station in the same market. It has also diminished the obligations of community radio stations in terms of local programming, while allowing them to sell advertising in these markets. The result is real disparity in terms of the listening audience served by the large networks and the share of advertising revenues they have. Community radio stations are having more and more trouble financing their operations.

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission recently launched public consultations on the proposal for a strategic framework for community media. The proposal introduced two new community TV licences that would be available to for-profit corporations.

ARCQ strongly opposed this shift in the concept of community media by pointing out that it runs counter to the intent of the Broadcasting Act of 1991, which identifies three sectors: the public, private and community sectors. However, we do not feel that the act is explicit enough in defining these sectors.

In order to avoid any other unfortunate distortion of the Canadian broadcasting system, the Broadcasting Act should take into account the importance of the community sector in the industry and protect its development by defining it more precisely. In this regard, we are requesting that the Broadcasting Act define a community sector based on its non-profit and participatory nature, and recognize its contribution to meeting its objectives.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: As the regulating arm of the Canadian broadcasting system with responsibility for implementing the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has worked to ensure that each sector contributes to the attainment of the previously stated objectives. It would be counter-productive to think of restricting its authority or of allowing certain components of the broadcasting system to stray from the aims of the legislation, as the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage seems to be proposing in some of the options set out in its terms of reference. The aim of the broadcasting system is not to ensure profits for shareholders in private broadcasting undertakings or to protect them from foreign competition.

The intense pressure being brought to bear by globalization is threatening the occupation of Canadian media territory. It is more necessary now than ever before to protect the fundamental elements of it, including community media, which meet the needs of communities in terms of local and regional information and which promote Canadian cultural diversity.

In this regard, the mandate of the CRTC must be strengthened. It is also critical that the act, in these areas, become a tool that establishes clear limits beyond which the commission cannot go. Protection for the community sector, protecting it from takeovers and buyouts by large networks, is one of these essential limits.

While pursuant to paragraph 3(d)(iv) of the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting system should be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change, this does not mean that these advances should dictate the kind of programming offered. New technologies should not lead the CRTC and the legislation to stray from their stated mission which is to preserve and enhance Canadian identity with all its diversity. The important thing, however, is to offer programming that reflects values and national, regional and local identities.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: In light of the comments we have presented today as well as the elements included in our brief tabled in September, we ask members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to maintain the main objectives of the Broadcasting Act to ensure that the legislation defends the interests of Canadians by keeping the commitments made to members of Canada's broadcasting system, mainly to support and promote the broadcasting of Canadian content and the expression of Canadian diversity; to maintain the current regulatory regime which prohibits ownership of Canadian media by foreign interests; to maintain the CRTC's role as a regulatory body, and more specifically, to assign it responsibility for safeguarding the place of non-profit community media; to recognize, in the Broadcasting Act, the non-profit community-owned sector as a fundamental part of the broadcasting system; to ensure that the act safeguards and supports community broadcasting, which is embodied by all community-owned organizations in which the public is directly involved in management and programming decisions; to encourage the establishment of a fund for radio programming and support for showcasing future cultural talent with a view to giving the community sector an opportunity to effectively meet the aims of the Broadcasting Act; and to ensure the community sector has access to technology by setting aside frequencies and the use of part of all new regulated technologies.

It would now be our pleasure to answer any questions the committee may have on our presentation today and on the brief that we submitted in September.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Bédard, the two briefs that we have received have provided us with very important suggestions as part of our study, and we appreciate that very much. You highlighted very specific points that the committee should examine. I assure you that we are going to pay very close attention to your suggestions and recommendations.

We will now start the question period with Mr. Abbott.

¿ (0935)

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Again, as the chair has said, you've given us a lot of food for thought.

I'm curious as to what both of your groups would see as the most effective way to achieve the objectives you're talking about. I guess my question focuses around regulation or lack of regulation.

In other words, if we have regulation with respect to language, that's one thing, but in terms of the kind of programming--multicultural programming, bilingual programming--the actual nature of the programming itself, as opposed to just looking at it from a purely technical perspective, but more from the point of view of more music, or more talk, or more classic.... You understand, what I'm laying out here is a buffet of ideas about things that can be done in programming.

I guess my single question to both groups is, to achieve the objectives you're speaking about, to become more relevant, to claim more of the ground that perhaps we're losing in the whole area of radio, do you see the committee potentially making recommendations for more or less regulation?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paquin. If anyone else wants to answer, please do not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Serge Paquin: As for your question on programming, I think that the Broadcasting Act is explicit and diverse enough to guarantee a variety of musical content and sufficient high-quality verbal content.

I agree with the comments made by my colleagues from Quebec. I think that one of the fundamental changes to regulations would be with respect to access to the airwaves for communities across Canada. It is a matter of guarantying accessibility to the airwaves for the current and future development of our communities. That is absolutely essential to avoid situations where there will no longer be development opportunities, especially in minority communities where there is no francophone voice.

You raised the linguistic issue in comparison with the legislative one. The situation our communities face is very different from the one faced by communities in Quebec, but I think it is possible for the bill to focus on the fact that we must promote the rights of these communities and emphasize that the CRTC could take them into account in its decisions.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: At present, community radio programming is mainly threatened by potential threats to its economic viability.

What we are seeing with the concentration of the press is a concentration of advertising revenues in the hands of the large networks. That is what is threatening our existence and the possibility of producing local and regional programming.

Moreover, the appearance of the concept of for-profit community media is jeopardizing the very existence of community radio stations. The day we allow for-profit community media, any network will be able to buy it. At present, the reason community radio stations have remained independent is because it is legally impossible to buy a community radio station. It was not because they did not want to that Astral and the other big networks did not buy these stations. It is because they could not do so legally. This protection is not solid enough to protect us at present, because "community" is not defined in the act.

¿ (0940)

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm unfamiliar with your community stations. Perhaps you could help me understand, do the community stations go out and solicit advertising to offset some of the expenses?

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: Absolutely. Funding for community radio stations is mixed; it comes from various sources. Advertising represents roughly 50 per cent of its revenues, whereas fundraising activities of all kinds represent about 28 per cent, which leaves about 21 per cent for government assistance, in Quebec, of course.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: In terms of the advertising, is there a particular kind of advertiser or is it just across the board? Would it be the General Motors or Ford dealership or would it be more the corner store?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: Local advertisers, mainly, are the ones who are interested. As we mentioned, the main goal of community radio stations is to serve the community, the local market. So, yes, our advertisers are mainly local. There is a little bit of national advertising, but above all on some community radio stations that are alone in specific markets. That is the case of the radio station in Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands, which is the station for the community. There may be bigger advertisers on these radio stations. Otherwise, we are talking about local advertising and small budgets that go hand in hand with these types of advertisers.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you.

I listen assiduously to community radio stations, I know their problems well, as well as the quality of the diversified cultural programming that they broadcast. I must say that you are doing excellent work and that you have a local influence. I know what that involves.

The whole issue of the survival of community radio stations is something I can relate to, because I know about the fundraising that goes on in the community each year. It is very difficult to raise funds from the private sector.

Moreover, you say that there are federal regulations, but that you receive no financial support from the federal government. You must have enough freedom to choose your programming. If the federal government invested in your sector, your freedom of expression would have to be protected. What kind of financial help are you asking for? Do you want subsidies, or would you rather have something else? You said that private broadcasters could give you a rebate. Please clarify this for us.

Mr. Serge Paquin: As we mentioned, there is already an order obliging cable broadcasting companies to dedicate 5 per cent of their gross income to Canadian content. Despite our requests and despite the fact that we do produce programs with Canadian content, the government did not deem it necessary to open the door to funding community radio stations.

We believe that, as in other countries, it would be quite in order for private broadcasters to contribute by helping us produce quality programs, programs with educational content. This is being done in other countries. Currently, television and video production is the only focus and nothing is being done for community radio stations.

In our case, besides government funding for 50 per cent of invesments in fixed assets, we receive no other subsidies from either the federal or the provincial governments. Thus, as soon as a station goes on the air, it must be self-financing. It is no small challenge to fund 45 to 50 per cent of our operational needs through voluntary contributions from communities, fundraising campaigns, bingos. This leaves precious little energy for producing quality content.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: The funding of community radio stations in Quebec has reached its limit. And this limit was reached because, in the environment served by community radio, businessmen and citizens as a whole are already contributing a great deal. In some regions, citizens contribute up to $10 a month to keep their community radio afloat, which is a fair sum of money.

With regard to federal support, as we mentioned in our brief, of course we think it is possible to access the Canadian television fund, which has indeed helped improve the quality of television. Besides, large networks involved in transactions could also be asked to contribute to a fund dedicated to radio production. Thus, there are two ways of going about this.

As far as we are concerned, we feel quite comfortable with either solution.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have another question. We visited the western provinces a couple of weeks ago, and we were made aware of the situation of francophones outside Quebec and of the possibility of connecting the entire francophone community--they call it the francophone population--which is quite scattered in some provinces of Canada.

Mr. Boulay, perhaps you could tell me what they meant when they said that 5 watts was not enough to connect the very scattered population of Saskatchewan and that it would take a transmitter of--I am not sure of the wattage--perhaps 100 watts.

But if, for example, there were a recognition that the specific standards do not suit them, which is understandable, if the CRTC were asked to relax its regulations to meet the needs of the francophone community, would that change the way things work in Quebec? Explain that to me, because in Quebec, we are all grouped together. And what might that mean for the anglophone community of Quebec, which may be more scattered?

Mr. Robert Boulay: If you do not mind, I am going to talk about our regions. If Lucie Gagnon wants to talk about Quebec, I will leave that to her, because the situations are actually quite different.

You are referring to stations which are developing.

The Chair: Yes, I believe an application was made to the CRTC.

Mr. Robert Boulay: That would be Mr. Desgagné, probably.

The Chair: They asked for 500 or 250 watts and were given 5.

Mr. Robert Boulay: That is right. Since January 2000, the CRTC has been approving applications for what are called developmental stations. It is a three-year licence that entitles you to broadcast with a maximum wattage of five watts. It is kind of a way to speed up the establishment of radio stations.

The basic idea is a very good one, except that five watts in Regina or Saskatoon, that is not too viable. We and the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise have often told the CRTC, whenever we had the chance, that it was very nice of them, but that it was like giving us a one horsepower automobile. So we ask that exceptions be made and that we be allowed up to 250 watts, or even 500 watts especially in urban areas. You have just been to the Prairies and have seen how vast the territory is and how spread out the francophones are. We are not going to set up 10 five-watt transmitters; that would not be acceptable.

What we are asking, and what people in the West are asking, is that you, committee members, ask the CRTC to extend those approvals on a case-by-case basis; it could be 250 watts in Saskatoon and 500 watts in Regina, but we should have that option.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Right. About the second part of my question, how would such a change or approval affect Quebec?

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: Very differently. The Association des radios communautaires du Québec is against the establishment of developmental radio stations.

One of the main reasons for our opposition is that this promotes uncontrolled development of radio stations all over the territory regardless of stations that are already established. In Quebec, there are already a good many community radio stations, and in some areas, adding more stations could provoke a significant economic imbalance.

So our recommendation was to keep dealing with new licence applications, in Quebec at any rate, the same way as before; a group or community that needs a licence should have to demonstrate, as all community radio stations have done, that community's need and should get a licence with enough initial wattage to survive. Five watts, that is completely ridiculous. That makes no sense. No organization can survive with five watts. That is what we have seen in Quebec; some stations have tried and none have succeeded. Five watts, no matter where, is too weak to give any station the credibility it needs in order to develop. So we say community radio development in Quebec should not be changed, but we fully understand the specific needs of francophones outside Quebec.

The Chair: If I understand what you are saying, in principle, you are not opposed to such a request coming from francophones outside Quebec and from remote areas, but when it comes to Quebec, you do not feel it would be appropriate.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: Absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming today. I apologize for not being here for your presentations. I have taken a look at them.

In my own riding, the Cole Harbour radio station just started up in the last six months. It grew out of a racial incident at the Cole Harbour High School in Cole Harbour, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. So it's a community radio station that came out of a very strong set of core values, people wanting to come together to deal with racism in the community.

It's been a wonderful example of people pulling together, thousands and thousands of volunteer hours, lots of help from the federal government at the outset from HRD to hire people, and people scrambling to get materials and electronic equipment. But now, the long haul is the problem. I guess I'm interested in what you're saying about the need for a fund that will help community radio stations continue to exist.

Since I have that example in my own community, I'd like to know from your experiences how it is that after you get the initial start-up, get the people onside with the commitment to the idea, how do you sustain it over time and how can we help you as a committee? What kind of recommendations can we make? I hear you talk about a fund, but I'm wondering what that really looks like and how stations would be able to access that. What would be the reasons and the stages where they would access it?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Paquin: What you have to understand about the proposal to create a fund, basically, is that it is not about subsidies or new money; this is money that is already invested in the Canadian broadcasting system. Private radio stations' contributions could be added to that. All of this money would be managed by a fund, by an independent committee that would receive applications from all of the non-commercial broadcasters and that, based on some assessment criteria, could decide on the appropriateness of the applications and grant a certain amount of money depending on the number of applications and the funds available.

That committee could be made up of private broadcasters, representatives of francophone and anglophone community radio stations who, based on certain criteria, would made decisions to fund programs with Canadian content, programs with educational content that would allow those stations to focus on other efforts and ultimately to provide the means to produce quality programming without too much effort and energy, without sacrificing that.

It takes a huge amount of time to manage volunteers and raise funds. The quality of our programming therefore suffers somewhat. It is not that the quality is poor; it is that we cannot focus on that alone. So I believe this fund would enable us to meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: Perhaps we could take the example of the current criteria in Quebec, the Quebec Department of Culture and Communications criteria, for community media access to government grants. Some of the criteria have to do with, among other things, community or public radio access. Public participation in the workings of the radio station is also important. There has to be an independent board of directors that is democratically elected at a general meeting. In our opinion, those are essential criteria to follow for the distribution of funds.

There is also the local content issue. Obviously, stations have to provide some relevant local content. It could be through their news services. Media concentration was discussed earlier. In my opinion, community media, community radio stations are probably the least able to provide local information to the communities they serve. We feel that these are essential procedural elements for the fund to be accessible and for the establishment of some eligibility criteria.

The last thing is support for public training, with respect to the content of programs to be broadcast, the information and the democratic workings of those radio stations.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm wondering how the public could contribute to programming ideas. That's a very attractive idea. We are always hearing that there are private broadcasters doing news in communities, but there's not very much going on in terms of public affairs and really exploring the communities in depth. It seems that the community radio stations are the place to do it. How can people have input into what they want to see on their community stations?

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: In general, it is a participatory process, which is based on two things in Quebec. Community radio stations, of course, have a board of directors made up of members of the public, but a large number of stations also have a programming committee, meaning members of the community who think about the approach and how the station should plan its programming and produce its shows. Basically, the principle behind participation in programming, in terms of both program planning and program operation, is based on a very firm commitment of resources and energy to training, supervision and support for participation. This must be done daily, every day, day after day, and it takes a lot of effort to sustain.

It is more costly than having paid employees do the programming. There is a perception among commercial radio broadcasters, among others, that community radio is less costly than private radio because we have volunteers doing our shows.

It takes considerably more resource people to supervise volunteers doing a one hour show than it takes to tell an employee what to say and what piece to play. It is completely different, and it takes a lot of training, a lot of support. That is how we still manage, after 30 years, to involve members of the public.

À (1000)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, and then Mrs. Bulte.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a moment to thank the witnesses for appearing here before the committee.

In my riding I have probably the most significant francophone population in Niagara, the city of Welland. Using that as an example, because there are many other communities similar to this throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada, I'm wondering what could they expect or should they expect with regard to programming. And could you define for me what's more regional or local? Down in that particular part of the country we're so influenced by Toronto and area that often there's confusion between what's local and what's regional. I'm wondering what could or should they expect, and what input do communities like the one in my riding have into the type of programming they get?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Paquin: We currently have 18 minority stations on the air, and they are all part of a satellite network, the Réseau francophone d'Amérique. We currently produce shows that come from the regions. We produce them at the flagship station. So each community radio station is independent and can pick and choose any or all of our news reports and other production.

To answer your question, the success of community radio stations is based on community participation and commitment, and it is up to the community that wants to set up a community radio station to decide on programming content. A bit like Ms. Gagnon said, there are committees and boards of directors who make sure the station reflects the needs and wants of the community it is supposed to serve.

In Welland, for example, there was already an attempt by the francophone community to set up a project, but at that time, they did not necessarily have all of the expertise and tools they needed, and the community was perhaps not adequately equipped to pursue the project. But fundamentally, when it comes to local or regional content, clearly the programming committee or staff, based on directions from the board of directors and programming committee, could decide to allocate some of its programming based on regional affinities with Toronto. That is not out of the question, just as it is not out of the question for the programming to focus mainly and almost exclusively on the needs and circumstances of the greater Welland area.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: I think that in any event, for stations wanting to develop in major centres, what was said at the outset about the availability of frequencies and about reserved frequencies for community radio is conclusive. No community will be able to do its own programming if there are no available frequencies left.

Mr. Serge Paquin: I think the Welland area is in fact a problem case given its geographic location, because it is influenced by American and Greater Toronto stations. The airwaves also cross lake Ontario, so it may even already be too late for your francophone community. I have no specific studies on that, but in my view, very few decent frequencies remain available. So it is urgent for us because there are areas like Vancouver and Toronto where the scarcity of frequencies is a big problem and where future development is practically impossible. People say wait for digital, but we have been waiting 10 years for that. What are we supposed to do while we are waiting? We are stuck with five-watt radio stations.

À (1005)

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to begin by thanking you for your presentations.

Let me begin, Monsieur Paquin and Monsieur Boulay, regarding your comment that you felt that part VII of the Official Languages Act needed to be amended to provide clarification. May I strongly suggest to you that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is currently doing consultation with respect to the action plan of the minister responsible for consolidating the issues of official languages, and yesterday the different francophone communities throughout Canada appeared before the committee. I would strongly urge you to come before that committee and work with that committee to address your issues within part VII of the Official Languages Act, because I think we can work jointly there. But I would ask that you bring your message there as well.

Secondly, I was very interested, Madame Gagnon, when you spoke about the inability of private broadcasters to buy community stations. If I was correct, could you tell me where that is precluded? Again, would it be a benefit to allow this? You used Astral Broadcasting as an example. That's one question.

I also want to ask this. You said in your conclusion, and I believe this is echoed by Madame Gagnon and Monsieur Bédard:

The government should ensure that the CRTC reserves frequencies for Canada's francophone minorities in the major urban centres.

I don't disagree. My concern is how do we fit that in? The CRTC implements the Broadcast Act, and while you speak in your brief, Monsieur Paquin and Monsieur Boulay, about section 26, which allows the government to issue directions, I would submit that is a piecemeal approach--to issue directions. Help us here to effect a policy that wouldn't require a one-on-one constant review by cabinet and then a return to the CRTC. How do we work with the independence of the CRTC and the Broadcast Act? Should we not be looking at amendments to the Broadcast Act as such?

Finally, my last question. I want to go back to the fund that you talked about. Now, Monsieur Paquin, I believe you said this would not involve new money.

One of the great successes of the Canadian Television Fund has been the partnership between public and private sector moneys, of which part of that 5% goes toward the Canadian Television Fund, but that is also matched by the government. That has been its true success--the ability to lever funds that way.

Have you spoken to the private broadcasters? My understanding is that within that 5% fund it is the option of the distributors to decide where to put their moneys. There is not a mandate from the federal government to say put it into the fund or put it into private.... What can we do to bring that partnership together? I'm trying to find the solutions within. How do we bring the message forward?

That's to all of you.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: First of all with respect to ownership, the CRTC's definition of community broadcasting stated in Public Notice 2000-13 includes a reference to community radio as a not-for-profit corporation. In other words, in order to get the frequency, you have to be not-for-profit. Therefore, a commercial undertaking could not decide to buy a community radio, because the definition of community radio includes the “not-for-profit” concept.

What concerns us is that in the context of a new round of public consultations, the CRTC has just introduced the concept of for-profit community television. We are completely opposed to this. We are opposed to any introduction of the for-profit commercial sector into the area of community radio or television, because, once we let them in, local radio and television will disappear for good.

There are still some independent commercial television stations in Quebec and elsewhere, but this will not last. So what we have to do is to ensure that the act, which states what the CRTC must do, is very clear about the fact that a community undertaking is not-for-profit. That is one of the most important points at this time. It changes everything. Canadian radio and television will no longer will the same at all if we allow that. So our view is simply that the act absolutely must define community radio and television properly.

As far as the fund goes, I will let the people from the ARC answer the question about the CRTC's decision not to give radio programming access to the production fund. It is true that commercial radio and television stations can choose to suggest investments in all sorts of things when they make transactions. With respect to the 5 per cent of BDUs, the CRTC also has a say.

À (1010)

Mr. Serge Paquin: To answer your question about part VII of the act, I would say that our analyses of the various decisions, including the one regarding Toronto, have shown that the CRTC does not take language into account. For example, in Toronto, there is virtually no radio in French with the exception of the crown corporation. There is no French-language radio except for 40 hours of local production by the crown corporation. Moreover, I have nothing against ethnic groups—we have a Portuguese and a Chinese radio station. We do have a community here that numbers over 200,000. We therefore think it is quite logical that the CRTC should take this fundamental aspect of the act into account—namely the existence of two official languages in Canada.

Let us talk for a moment about frequencies. Every time we raise the issue of reserving frequencies with the CRTC, it says that its role does not authorize it to reserve frequencies. Consequently, it throws the ball back into the government's court, and says that it analyzes the applications it has and will make a decision based on the applications. So frequencies cannot be reserved. Moreover, even the crown corporation, which has a long-term allotment plan, has no guarantees from Industry Canada, which manages the radio spectrum, that these frequencies will go to it in the future. It is all very well to say that the crown corporation has expansion plans, but it has no firm guarantee that in five years, for example, the frequency it is seeking in Vancouver will still be available. This is a problem, because the CRTC refers the question back to the government. Consequently, I think the government should introduce legislation reserving at least one acceptable frequency for these communities, particularly in urban centres. In small communities such as Whitehorse, Yellowknife or Peace River, this is not an issue.

To come back to the question about the fund, our request was turned down with respect to BDUs in a cable fund. Clearly, the 5 per cent fund will not go to community radio stations. However, private radio stations contribute to some extent to funds such as Factor or MusicAction. They contribute to the cost of galas, and in the case of transactions, they make tangible contributions. However, it is clear that at the moment these transactions and contributions are not directed to community radio, because it is often seen as competing with private radio.

There are some sectors in Quebec or even in our province in which the community radio station has higher ratings than the private radio station. So there is a spirit of competition. Asking a competitor to contribute voluntarily is no easy matter. We do require a provision in the act that would entitle us to a reasonable contribution.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Very briefly, Ms. Bulte, we have to move on.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It will be a very quick question then. In your last conclusion you talked about Radio-Canada. Do they not see you as a competitor as well? I think this is a wonderful idea. How do we implement your last recommendation, Monsieur Paquin, Monsieur Boulay?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Paquin: Radio-Canada radio sells no advertising, it does not raise any funds. It is 100% government financed, and therefore has no worries, except about renewing its financial agreements. It is not a competitor at all. In fact, we have a number of projects in cooperation with the corporation, which are very satisfactory.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: You asked for a brief question, Mr. Duplain. It will have to be brief.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): No, I do not have a brief question; I have many questions.

The Chair: You may ask one question.

Mr. Claude Duplain: You are cutting off my time, if I understand correctly.

I want to start by thanking you all for being here. I was pleased to hear your remarks and I would like to tell you that I fully support the community sector. Do not be concerned about the fact that we are in the process of reviewing the act, Ms. Gagnon. I think this is rather a very good time to make demands, and to get support for them. I think we are all well aware of the importance of Canadian content and francophone content and the importance of minorities, principally, as far as I'm concerned, for Quebec.

Since I have to restrict my questions, I would like to talk about an area on which I would like more information—the concentration of revenues. Community radio will always be somewhat marginal. Consequently the revenues will be marginal, with contributions from really local sources. In what way does the concentration of the majors impact you?

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: Sales of national advertising, even though it was not a significant source of revenue for community radio stations, did amount to $600,000 to $700,000 a year on average. At the moment, there is a significant reduction in national advertising revenue, particularly for radio stations located in urban communities or close to major centres.

The reason for this is very simple. The greater the concentration in the major networks, the more we see the following phenomenon: buying at CKOI or elsewhere, for example, is buying the whole metropolitan area, right up to Drummondville. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to buy in small regional and suburban radio stations. We reach people in these locations through the major networks.

That has had an impact. It is causing a reduction in our national advertising revenues, as it does for independent commercial radio stations as well.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I agree that this is harmful to you. But what are your comments on your demands? What changes would you like to see?

I think that is where we are at. Developments in broadcasting have meant that there are majors, and I don't think we can change that.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: That is why we put so much emphasis on the establishment of a fund for non-commercial radio stations. It is urgent.

Mr. Claude Duplain: You have different points of view. Earlier, you spoke about five-watt frequencies, and you said that Quebec was opposed to them. Are you not opposed in order to protect your turf to some extent? Are you afraid that some competitors could come on the scene?

Earlier, Ms. Gagnon was saying that there is a great deal of concentration in Quebec. I do not think that is the case. Quebec is as vast as Saskatchewan, and some locations in Quebec are not accessible either. No? Then the arrival of other--

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: I am sorry, but I did not understand your question.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: I can give you a concrete example of this. Recently, in Quebec City, where there are two community radio stations, one that has been there for 25 years, and the other for 15 years, there was an application for a low-frequency community radio station in the Charlesbourg part of town, which is really very close to the centre of the city. The result of this policy is often that applications for community radio stations come from places where there are already other such stations. Finally, the only result of these operations is to make the existing radio station more fragile.

We should not deceive ourselves. People who are interested in community radio make up only a very small percentage of the population. All we are doing is to further break down this percentage of the population by having a number of different community radio stations.

In addition, this erodes the station's share of the advertising market and even the grants available for all of the stations in the same market.

À (1020)

Mr. Claude Duplain: But when you have a community network in some cities in Quebec.... I do not know their range exactly, but you cover Quebec City. Let us take the example of Portneuf. You definitely must not reach as far as Portneuf.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: Yes, we do reach Portneuf.

Mr. Claude Duplain: So you are in Portneuf as well. You go that far! But with respect to your demands--

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: We also reach Charlesbourg, which did not stop another radio station from opening up in Charlesbourg.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: That does not mean that there is no need or capacity in Portneuf, for example, to develop a local station. What we are saying is that in order to develop a radio station, significant local investments are required in the long term. At the moment, it costs between $300,000 and $350,000 a year to maintain a community radio station. The people of the community must be able to make an investment of this size. We say that if we are to have strong media, that really meet the community's needs, in whole, not just in part, they must be established in communities that are able to provide the necessary financial support and participation.

Therefore, we simply say that we should pay attention to the frequencies offered for the development of stations, without much consideration being given to their potential, because this is a dangerous practice. We would like more thought to go into the decision before a station is established. We are not asking to control--

Mr. Claude Duplain: Just for my information and out of curiosity, tell me what you get with five watts. In Quebec City, what range do you have ?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: Five watts can cover a neighborhood more or less, with a range of ten kilometres.

The Chair: I would like to ask just one question. There is a sort of confusion in the Broadcasting Act between regional and local services. Radio-Canada and CBC have interpreted the act to mean that it referred to regional radio and television broadcasting.

Do you think the act should be clarified to define clearly the difference between regional and local services?

Mr. Serge Paquin: We consider that the CBC's Canada-wide mandate on issues of interest to all Canadians is essential in ensuring this country's sovereignty.

What we are less in agreement with is the CBC's initiatives in local radio. I do not believe that local radio is part of the CBC's mandate. For example, some stations in Moncton deal with issues of interest to the Atlantic region. That is fine. However, when the CBC goes into community halls that cover small local events, I think we end up with duplication.

Obviously, the mandate of community radio is to thoroughly cover local and regional issues, and...

The Chair: If we focus solely on the legislation, should we include a more precise definition of regional and local to avoid confusion between the two?

Mr. Serge Paquin: Yes, we would like to see that, because it would make things clearer.

The Chair: Do you agree, Ms. Gagnon?

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: As far as we concerned the issues are not that clear. However, precise and well-defined legislation generally promotes better understanding by everyone.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, you have time for a very brief question.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We talk a lot about local broadcasting and making a distinction. In my opinion, you should also highlight the fact that you are a different kind of radio. When you turn to FM 93 in the morning, you hear things of local interest, as well as other news. At the same time, your programming really sets you apart from private stations. For example, the music shows that reach so many different communities, your comments, and your focus on the news make FM 93 different.

I would call you different, and I listen to you because you are different, because your approach is community-based. That is often what distinguishes private stations and public stations.

À (1025)

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: If I may, I would like to point out that community radio prefers to be defined on the basis of ownership—access to the airwaves. One of the basic reasons for that approach is that many community radio stations in Quebec—over half, in fact—are the only ones in their market niche. There are no other local radio stations.

When you are there by yourself, there is no way to set yourself apart from the others. There are no others. Those stations do not necessarily sound different from the others, but they have a different approach in terms of access and ownership.

Mr. Claude Duplain: The chairman has his attention elsewhere for a moment, I would like to take this opportunity to ask a question; sometimes, we are afraid of the question...

A voice: Mr. Chairman...

The Chair: Forgive me. I was interrupted.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): May I ask a brief question?

The Chair: Ms. Lill would like to ask a question as well. Please be very brief, because I have to give the floor to others who have comments as well.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to clarify one point for your committee. I know that I am not part of the standing committee, but since I am here, I note that we're listening to different demands.

With respect to the 5 per cent figure, some parts of Canada would like it, but not Quebec. Isn't there some way through which an established station would have a sort of acquired right, and would not have its footprint encroached upon by a new station? Couldn't we draw a line between them, a sort of median, that would still allow the new station to expand?

I am saying this to help your committee, because I heard two different things. Couldn't there be some sort of compromise that would protect existing stations yet allow new stations to expand?

Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard: That's already how it works at the CRTC. I might add that once you are assigned a certain frequency, there are other ways of getting out on the airwaves. And those other things are sometimes difficult to get. For example, it is difficult to get your frequency out through a local cable broadcaster, or through the new satellites, for people who pick up satellite television channels and radio stations. These are new aspects of the situation—cable and satellite are accounting for increasing market share and audience percentage. That goes primarily for satellite. There is very little local broadcasting in the ExpressVu or Star Choice menu. In my opinion, there is something wrong about the way these new systems operate. We end up knowing more about what's going on in Israel and Afghanistan than what is going on in our own community.

Perhaps we could recommend that the committee ensure that new methods and systems implemented by the media leave some room for local media to operate.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Mainly, I would like to make a request for information. We've heard this morning that the CRTC has been introducing the idea of for-profit community TV. I'd like to understand how that is happening under the act. I want to make sure that we are clear on what it is that's transpiring now and that we are clear about the impact that's going to have down the line on community radio and TV stations.

I'm not sure whether you have anything you want to add to that to illuminate the issue, but I would like the researchers here to help us out on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Paquin: I don't think we can change the term “community” and use it to make money, to establish a for-profit company. Basically, if we allow a community television station to operate, but that community station is actually a private company operating for profit, that leads to confusion, not only in radio. There would be confusion across Canada about what a non-profit organization is. Who knows? Anyone will be able to use the term “community” to make money. In my opinion, this would set a precedent that could lead to enormous problems for society.

À (1030)

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: If I could just add to that, the CRTC introduced that concept in Public Notice 2001-129, which proposes a policy framework for community-based media, and particularly a development framework for community-based television, which is having many problems. They will certainly be able to give you more details.

This brief is available for public consultation. The council's final decision should be made public in June. We are very concerned about this concept and oppose it, but we do not know how that position will be received by the CRTC.

The Chair: Mr. Paquin, Mr. Boulay, Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Bédard—thank you for your presentations, which were very useful to the committee.

Ms. Gagnon, please do not worry too much. We listened to your concerns very carefully.

Ms. Lucie Gagnon: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We will now hear the Corporation de tétédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay inc., and the Fédération des télévisions communautaires du Québec.

I would like to welcome André Simard, secretary of the board of directors of the Corporation de télédiffusion du Hrand Châteauguay inc., and Ms. Isabelle Fortier, an administrator for the board.

Mr. André Desrochers (Coordinator, Reconnection Committee, Corporation de télédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay inc.): Unfortunately, Ms. Fortier was unable to come. We came yesterday during the storm, and she is seven months pregnant. She did not want to risk travelling.

The Chair: I think she was quite right not to.

Mr. André Desrochers is the coordinator of the Reconnection Committee.

We have several representatives of the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec: Stéphane Lépine, Vice-President; André Desrochers, Administrator, who is appearing for both organizations, and Gérald Gauthier, Development and Research Officer.

Please go ahead, Mr. Desrochers.

Mr. André Desrochers: First of all, Mr. Chairman and committee members, on behalf of the board of directors and our volunteer members and volunteers in the community we serve, I would like to thank you for this opportunity for the Corporation de télédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay to express its views on this matter. During our presentation, the CTGC does not plan to repeat what is written it its brief, but it will be pleased to answer any questions pertaining to it.

As you could see in the few pages of our brief and in appendices, a very large community is currently at the heart of a broader fight pitching the interests of fibre optics against those of the social fibre. We are a chartered organization, which was what the community wanted, and we are being urged to go back on the air as soon as possible. But we currently have no access to any broadcasting channel. Vidéotron cancelled our agreement on November 29, 1999, and because of its licence, it can broadcast whatever it wants when it wants. We are still producing, but for the time being the documents are used only for internal viewing or for the archives.

Recognizing our efforts and our tenacity in defending free access to Canadian community networks, as part of the International Year of Volunteers, the City of Châteauguay awarded the CTGC the grand prize in the cultural category at its awards gala for volunteers in 2001.

Under its new structure, Videotron-Quebecor handed over programming control to its Montreal offices. It no longer uses the local production organizations. Despite the CRTC's recent policy statement whereby a percentage of production and broadcasting must be local, our written requests for access to a channel that is supposed to be a community VOX channel have remained unanswered.

With your review, the standing committee can implement the tools required to stop these abuses and leave room for this legislative poor cousin, but one that is vital for the democratic spirit of this country.

We were initially very concerned when you issued the notice of study last spring. Nothing in the topics, questions or objectives published dealt directly with the community aspect. But over the past few weeks the CTGC has been reassured. We are following your activities very closely through the transcripts on the Internet site.

First of all, there was Ms. Sheila Copps, the Canadian Heritage Minister, who asked you to pay particular attention to the resources for quality programming, to the diversity of opinions, but especially to ensure that local broadcasting meets the needs of communities.

Then at your meeting on January 29, which was attended by professors David Taras and Marc Raboy, the committee agreed that an interim report should be published and would highlight the question of local and regional programming.

Finally, on February 19, the last date for which the transcript is available on the Internet, you asked some pertinent questions of the representatives of cable companies about the significance of community channels and especially on its future funding. In the CTGC's view, that shows a real determination on your part to ensure that the community aspect of broadcasting will be evident in the future.

However, one detail escapes us: why didn't Vidéotron attend that meeting, and when does the committee plan to hear them?

A few weeks ago, the CRTC appeared before you in this very room and admitted to the level of importance given to community channels right now in Canada. I quote Mr. David Colville: “We are currently working on new policies to help community services become an integral part of Canada's broadcasting system.” That is additional proof, as if it were required, of the fact that we still are not part of the system.

Yet in 1991, the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force's report had been unequivocal. by including a community element in the legislation, the control and responsibility for the community channel had to be given to the communities themselves by creating their own licences that would be available to non-profit organizations. The CRTC never enforced those rules and community channels have always remained a competitive commercial advantage for cable companies, a serious mistake the council is trying to partially correct through its draft policy 2001-129, which unfortunately allows community licences to be given to non-profit organizations whose only purpose is to ensure the economic viability of a television station.

Community television is not and must not become a service provided by an individual to meet his own financial needs or his own personal ambitions, but must remain a democratic tool for a community's social development.

In Quebec, the provincial government has regularly supported us, partly through two motions of support that passed unanimously at the National Assembly, but also through the community media subsidies program of the provincial Department of Culture and Communications. It is planning to give us financial support in the coming weeks so that we can replace our obsolete analog equipment with digital facilities. But the demand for media closer to home, particularly community television, is to be found not only here in Canada.

À (1035)

In Australia, where a digital frequency is reserved solely for community channels, in the United Kingdom, with the introduction of the restricted service licence in 1997, in Ireland, where the first policy on cable community television was implemented in March 2001, in Germany, with the open channels, in Holland, which authorizes one local broadcaster per city, or in the United States, where 2,600 community televisions broadcast via cable, the demand is increasing. The public is demanding access to television because it is increasingly aware of its major impact. It no longer wants to choose from a few programs offered by conglomerates; it wants to be involved in the production of the message being transmitted.

The Canadian system can now offer hundreds of channels to the public, but the number of choices does not necessarily lead to a diversity of opinions. The CRTC recently showed you its figures. There are over 700 community channels in this country. But most of the channels belong to three or four major groups that centralize their activities at their headquarters, far from the communities, whereas those very communities, under their licence, are deprived of their production and are merely invited for weekly magazine-type programs which provide access to airwaves four minutes every three weeks; you cannot call that access or diversity of opinions. Giving access to airwaves does not just mean giving three to four minutes every three weeks to a few citizens or a few community groups that a cable company would have previously identified as not harming its interests. The access must be constant and reflect the interests, needs and divergent opinions of the entire community.

According to a study conducted by Kim Goldberg in 1972, over 75% of community programming was produced mainly or entirely by community volunteers with some technical assistance from the cable provider. In 1978, this had dropped to 44%; 25 years later, access has become a major disaster.

Marc Raboy writes in one of his works:

[English]

We live in an era of unprecedented availability of information. Increasingly, power will depend on people's ability to use information to promote their own social objectives. The question of 'access' is thus a qualitative, not a quantitative one.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, the real problem for community channels is access to airtime. Since 1998, when the CRTC no longer required cable companies to have a community channel, the losses have been considerable.

Our brief describes the current situation in greater Montreal. In Canada, the airwaves belong to Canadians and fair use of that resource must enable all citizens to enjoy an independent channel, one that has nothing to do with cable providers' licences. Television must also be produced with, by and for the communities that express their needs, and not only with, by and for the shareholder portfolios.

À (1040)

Mr. André Simard (Secretary, Corporation de télédifussion du Grand Châteauguay inc.): We would now like to present the recommendations of the CTGC to the committee.

To meet the challenges facing the broadcasting industry and its operations, particularly with respect to community operations, and in addition to supporting its federation's recommendations, the CTGC makes the same recommendations contained in its brief.

First, we must keep the CRTC.

Second, community representatives must be elected to sit as commissioners at the CRTC.

Third, we must create an entity which would hold the CRTC accountable for its actions and decisions.

Fourth, community broadcasters should not need a cable licence, and non-profit community broadcasters should operate under a separate licensing, policy and regulatory system.

Fifth, we must recognize the status of independent community broadcasters and apply their model throughout the country.

Independent community broadcasters have been operating in Quebec for 30 years. Some of them have organized themselves into federations which have been used as a model for Ireland's broadcasting policy. They have been quoted as a reference in a study conducted by the CBAA, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, which was produced for the Australian government and which examined the place of community television in digital mode. Western stakeholders, who are now aware of our existence, have recommended that the CRTC apply our community model, which is a non-profit entity, to their communities, instead of applying the cable model. By this we mean community TV, which focuses on the interests of the community, be they for profit or not.

Sixth, all cable companies should provide community programming free of charge.

Seventh, cable companies should be forced to maintain their social obligation by contributing to the Canadian Television Fund and to earmark a certain amount of the fund for community programming.

Eighth, a spectral band should be reserved for community programming throughout Canada.

We hope that our recommendations make it into your final report. The report should contain not only measures to make the television distribution business more profitable, but also an action plan outlining specific requirements to protect and foster the development of community television, which is the only outlet citizens have to speak their views. It is something which significantly contributes to the development and dissemination of culture, as well as to strengthening the relationship between communities from coast to coast.

Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers and Mr. Simard, I want to congratulate you for your presentation and especially for your brief, which contains extremely substantial and detailed recommendations which will help us greatly with our work. Congratulations for all your efforts. To present such a brief in both languages represents a lot of work for a community TV operation and I would like to congratulate you for it.

We will now hear from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, represented by Mr. Lépine and Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Lépine.

Mr. Stéphane Lépine (Vice-President, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec): Good morning. From the outset I would like to mention the brief we will read is not the same one you have in front of you. We will read a summary of that brief, since we only have 10 minutes to make our presentation. We would also like to apologize for the fact that our President, Ms. Louise Nadeau from the Télévision communautaire de la région de l'Amiante, is not here today. She had important business regarding this issue to carry out in Thetford Mines.

Members of the committee, we would like to begin by thanking you for giving us the opportunity to express our point of view with respect to the review of the Broadcasting Act. We were extremely concerned upon reading the study reviewing the act. There was no mention of community broadcasting. And yet, community broadcasting is fragile, because it must abide by rules of competition which really should not concern it. Deregulation has greatly undermined the situation of community broadcasting.

We are pleased that the standing committee changed its position. After four full years of deregulation in the broadcasting industry, what is the state of community television? If we look at the situation from the point of view of citizens, who are the natural supporters of community broadcasting, we realize that a significant shift must occur.

Since its creation in 1998, the aim of the federation is to make people aware of the fact that community television is under threat. That is very true. We would have preferred to come here and say that it is in good health, that it has been given the tools to grow and thrive, as was recommended by the Caplan-Sauvageau report in 1991, but that is unfortunately not the case.

In the last few years, we have met with several stakeholders, including some of you, but the issue is not moving forwards. In the meantime, in Quebec alone, at least 13 community stations have stopped their broadcasting operations and entire communities, such as Châteauguay, which is represented here today, as well as Laval, Saint-Jérôme and Repentigny, to name but a few, have been unable to broadcast locally. Production and broadcasting operations for their local programs were moved to Montreal where technical operations were centralized. The underlying principle which has guided the CRTC over the last 30 years, which is that the public has a right to an open and free broadcasting service, has been undermined.

Let me stray from my next for a moment to tell you what our radio friends have been saying. It seems that the public is much more informed about what is happening in China than in their own backyard.

The decisions taken by Vidéotron, which controls 75% of the cable distribution network in Quebec, raise many questions. Instead of acknowledging the intent of the word “community”, which means not-for-profit, the CRTC has chosen to mask the precarious situation of community broadcasting by subjecting it to market deregulation.

The markets have clearly demonstrated that a company like Vidéotron, which is more concerned with profit-making than providing information or looking after the well-being of citizens, would not wait for very long before it took over a community station and turned it into its own mouthpiece, given the fact that the company would have a broadcasting distribution licence granting it legal responsibility.

What it basically comes down to is not a question of money but a question of space. Until now, we have managed to gain the attention and interest of the relevant authorities, but their support is not enough. Community television now needs a good shot in the arm and meaningful public support.

No one is better placed than the Canadian government to ensure that community broadcasting retains its place and space, which was the original intent when it was included in the 1991 legislation. Is the spirit of the provision contained in the legislation to provide private cable companies the right to oversee, manage and develop content and to provide access to whomever they choose?

Community licences must belong to a given geographical community and be not-for-profit. Further, locally produced programs which are broadcast must also have access to any existing and future distribution channels.

Community television is the only type of television based on the active participation of citizens and local involvement. This type of television focuses more on substance than style and appeals to its viewers' judgment, in other words it asks its viewers to watch its programs with a critical eye.

According to the CRTC, there are over 700 community stations in Canada. Why should we undermine this well-entrenched network which is the envy of many other countries throughout the world? Shouldn't the Canadian broadcasting system feed off local and regional sources of information and create educational and community-based programs? Shouldn't it be innovative, reflect Canada's linguistic diversity, inform Canadians about a diversity of opinions on subjects of interest, and especially allow Canadians to become involved in community television, either as volunteers or as active participants in the creation of these programs?

All the characteristics contained in the Broadcasting Act of 1991 must be maintained. They are what make our broadcasting system so great. Because independent community television has all these characteristics, it must play a significant role, one which is currently not given the support and protection it needs.

À (1050)

Moreover, the act must define the framework and provide direction for the community element so that people do not get bogged down in the interpretation. An essential aspect in defining this framework would be to stipulate that the services offered under the community element must be strictly reserved for collectively owned organizations.

The other aspect that defines the community element is the local nature of the programming. Community television and radio belongs to a specific geographic area. We reflect that geographic area.

Independent community television is a not-for-profit organization set up by and for a community located in a specific geographic area. It is very important to understand that definition and all the characteristics of independent community television, since the word “community” tends to be played down by the CRTC. Because of the linguistic situation in Canada, the word “community” has two interpretations.

In Quebec, we are the advocates of independent community television, which we want to maintain and develop. The independent community television model, of course, includes a board of directors that is elected locally and that represents the local population. It is that entity that manages the community channels.

We feel that the community element of the Broadcasting Act should belong to those that give it its name. The community element is to the people and their communities what the public element is to the public media, and the private element to the private enterprise media. We know that more and more people involved in this issue in English Canada also want to adopt this model.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier (Research and Development Officer, Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec): If asked today, the CRTC would probably respond that it is reexamining its responsibilities and that it is developing a stricter policy framework that is more open to new voices and would say that it recognizes that deregulation has had detrimental effects on some community channels.

We do believe that the commission's draft policy is a significant step forward for the community element, in comparison with the situation that has existed since 1998. The Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec has analyzed the draft policy and has, of course, presented its comments to the commission. A number of other groups have made representations similar to ours, expressing strong caution to the CRTC if it goes ahead with public notice CRTC2001-129.

Although we are not here to analyze this draft policy, we feel bound to say a few words about it. Among other things, the commission intends to offer two new licences for community television entities: one by low-power antenna and the other using digital technology. The licence would be available to both for-profit and not-for-profit enterprises. The commission has not included the notion of access to programming or community involvement in the management of these two licences. It refers only to local programming.

The federation is of the view that any licence for community television services and for the community channels must be strictly reserved for collectively owned organizations, that is, not-for-profit organizations, cooperatives or social economy enterprises. The comments made by Télévision communautaire des Bois-Francs, in Victoriaville, make this case very well, and we would invite you to read them later. They are in the document that you have before you.

If the CRTC were represented here today, it would also talk about the numbers. It would try to convince us that there is more local expression now than in 1997, that is, before deregulation. We would urge you to read paragraphs 18 to 21 of our document, which clearly demonstrate that the funds allocated for local expression have decreased since 1997 by some $6 million. There has not been a modest increase, contrary to what the CRTC says.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada's provincial council representing the communications sector is of the same view, and I quote: “The commission is not really trying to encourage the development of community channels; it tolerates them”.

Although cable companies used to be under an obligation to facilitate local expression, the community channel has become a sort of provision enabling these companies to cut back their mandatory contribution to the Canadian Television Fund.

Has community programming become an afterthought? The Fédération des télévisions communautaires feels that it will be impossible to have a healthy system of community television unless the money needed for development is available. As elected representatives of this country's citizens, it is up to you to put in place the financial mechanisms necessary to ensure not only the survival of the community element but also its development.

The CRTC is giving importance to community media in all good faith. Some aspects of its draft policy demonstrate that. However, the initial and fundamental problem will remain. The CRTC does not want to separate community channel licences from broadcast distribution licences. With its draft policy, the CRTC is doing too little too late.

I now want to say a few words about the importance of continuing to have an entity that oversees broadcasting, which is a public good and must remain so. In order to properly carry out its role as watchdog of the Canadian public airwaves, the CRTC needs to be entirely independent of both government and industry, but in particular it needs to listen more attentively to the general public.

I now come to our recommendations and our conclusions. We recommend that community channel licences be distinct from broadcast distribution licences. We recommend that funding for community television be made available through a Canadian community production fund that all distributors would contribute to, as is the case with the Canadian Television Fund, which is reserved for private-sector producers.

The CRTC must be preserved for the reasons we have indicated. We also need to promote citizen participation in the process of appointing commissioners. The federation recommends having commissioners from the community sector.

À (1055)

The federation also recommends that the Broadcasting Act continue to recognize the community element as an integral component of the Canadian broadcasting system and that this study be used to better define that element. A better definition is needed, now that we know what can happen as a result of ambiguity. Defining the community element means first indicating in the act that these are not-for-profit services that exist for and through the efforts of citizens. There is a justification for community channels only if they remain on a human scale and adequately represent their local communities.

On February 25, the committee heard testimony from Mr. Richard Ward of the Community Media Education Society of British Columbia. He said, very appropriately, that community television is not a business proposition but a public benefit, and its existence depends on the CRTC's openness. That is true in both languages, in eastern Canada as well as in the West.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lépine and Mr. Gauthier, for your presentation, your brief and your recommendations, which we will read and study with careful attention.

I would like to point out, Mr. Lépine, that I am very much aware that there has been considerable concern on the part of those involved in community television and radio as to our initial mandate, which was very broad. It referred to cultural diversity, community television, cultural minorities, etc., and created a lot of concern in your sector. But right at the beginning, in response to the concerns you expressed to me in your letters, I indicated to you, on behalf of the committee, that we had no intention of excluding community radio and television. So there has not been a change of heart, as you said. We have always had the very clear intention of studying this issue, which we consider to be a fundamental aspect and a priority. It has become almost a regular issue in the presentations that are made to us. The whole matter of local and community broadcasting comes up all the time. I can assure you that all committee members are very conscious of this concern. We discuss it regularly in our working meetings. So I can assure you that there has not been a change of heart, that this has always been our intention. Perhaps we could have been much more specific in our mandate, but it was very difficult to be as concise as we would have liked when the issues are so broad. So it was a misunderstanding. I can assure you that we certainly did not intend to ignore you.

Mr. Abbott.

Á (1100)

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would reflect the chairman's perspective, and certainly I have a tremendous heart for community TV and radio. I am particularly concerned about the issue of what I call local access on private broadcasters as well, and I'm going to be raising that issue on Thursday when the Canadian Association of Broadcasters appears before us.

I believe that community TV and radio and local access are the very foundation stone. They're the starting point. They're the capillaries of the flow of information from citizens to those people who are in positions such as we're in as members of Parliament, members of a legislative assembly, or other public officials. As such, we must ensure that those smallest capillaries are in good working order, so certainly you have my commitment, and I'm sure that everyone on this committee has that feeling.

I do have a question, though, because we have to be practical about these things. I believe it was Mr. Gauthier who talked about putting in place the financial mechanisms to fund the community channels. In the presentations we've heard today, the question of who should pay, where the funds come from, really wasn't addressed.

During the prior presentation I asked about the funding. I understand that 50% was from advertising--this was for radio--and then we had the further breakdown. I think it would be valuable--if indeed it is the responsibility of parliamentarians--to put in place the financial mechanisms to fund the community channels. What recommendations do you have for our consideration?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: I would just like to say something quickly before Gérald answers. Community television is not allowed to do conventional advertising. All that we have the right to do is sponsorship advertising, that is, to indicate who is sponsoring a program. Moreover, under the current policy, the advertising cannot contain any movement. For a medium based on images, that is a bit strange. With the new policy that is expected to be adopted in June, we will be allowed 15 seconds of advertising with movement. With only 15 seconds, it has to be fast.

I will let you continue.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: As Stéphane said, this is prestige advertising. However, we had already made a sort of proposal to the commission regarding access to the Canadian Television Fund, to which community television does not currently have access. It is mainly and almost exclusively for private-sector producers. The contribution level right now is 5%. I will just try to clarify what this 5% means.

Right now, all Canadian distributors have to contribute 5% of their revenues to a Canadian fund, which means that satellite distributors invest 5% of their revenues in the Canadian Television Fund.The cable companies also contribute 5%. They are required to do this. They have no choice. They have to contribute 5%.

But there is one exception. Cable companies had what is called “local expression.” They already had the community channel when there was a monopoly situation, and they had a requirement at that time to provide funding for local expression, as was done for the Canadian television system. Of the 5%, they can set aside a certain amount, usually between 1.5% and 3.5%. Some small cable companies may put their 5% entirely toward local expression, but that is very rare. The amount is usually between 1.5% and 3.5%. They can set aside that proportion of their 5% and use it for their system of community channels.

Now, this represents a loss, since before 1998 the level was 5% and even higher. So a lower percentage is being earmarked now for local expression. We are told that there has been an increase in the number of community channels, that there has been an increase... According to our calculations, it adds up to a decrease in funding.

We had recommended, with respect to public notice CRTC 2001-19, which was part of the process to review the policy on community channels, that all distributors, including cable companies, put their 5% into the Canadian Television Fund, but that 20% of that fund be reserved specifically for not-for-profit community programming. That would have been a solution to the problem, but it was rejected. It would have been a way to get the money from the funds that were already available, without trying to get new money.

I am not sure if that answers your question, Mr. Abbott.

Á (1105)

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: With new technology...I wonder if you could provide me with some information with respect to direct-to-home satellite, DTH. Does it have this 1.5% to 3.5% requirement, or is that a requirement only of cable providers?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: Only the cable providers can set aside an amount within the 5%, since they are the only ones that can currently offer local expression, in the same way that it is used by the CRTC to apply to a specific geographic area under a specific licence. Satellite companies are national distributors right now. It seems, from what they have said, that they are unable to target particular areas. So the 5% contribution in their case goes entirely to the Canadian Television Fund and not to community programming.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

If I might suggest this, I would find it very useful, and I suspect the whole committee would find it useful if you were to submit--to use my quote I wrote down from you, “to put in place financial mechanisms to fund community channels”--any suggestions you may have as to what we should take a look at rather than for us to continue to canvass this at this point. I think we would be very happy to receive any suggestions, because it is a very important issue; you can't go to air if you don't have a program, and you don't have a program if you don't have the financial resources to put it together.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: We would be pleased to provide you with the submission we made to the CRTC last spring.

The Chair: Yes, please send it to the committee clerk.

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your presentation.

As the chairman said, we are very receptive to what you are looking for and the survival of community television is of concern to us. We know that it has an impact on society. It is also a learning environment; not much mention is made of that. Earlier on, we talked about community radio stations, but community television is also a learning environment to enable young people to learn about this type of media.

I would like to go back a bit so that we can understand why the CRTC decided to issue the licence to the cable operators. I think they wanted more out of community TV stations, and for them to have more technical support.

Were these the objectives when the change occurred? If there were objectives, do you think they were met?

Mr. André Simard: I could answer as a local TV station, but not on behalf of the federation. The cable operator's licence, at least in the Montreal region, was granted to Vidéotron via Mr. Chagnon, who was the president and who said that his philosophy was that community TV should be by the community, in the community. I think that had an impact on his obtaining a distribution licence for community TV. In his model, each community would piggyback on this licence. That is why in the Montreal region, in the periphery, there were 10 community television stations about 15 years ago.

Over time, a number of things occurred. Of course things change and eventually in 1998, a review of the act governing the CRTC was undertaken. For us, the review of the act came as a surprise because we were not aware, as volunteers, of what was happening with respect to CRTC rules, until someone apprised us of the situation and told us to be careful because of what was coming. That is when the Victoriaville TV station prepared a brief advising the CRTC to be careful, warning it that if the obligation for cable operators to maintain community TV were to be removed, there would be a problem. That is what happened in Montreal. The problem remains unresolved.

I do not know if that answers your questions.

Á (1110)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: I would like to point out that until 1991 or 1992, there was an association that fell apart at that time. It was recreated in 1998, but between 1992 and 1998, anything could happen in Ottawa and Quebec City.

What we were doing on our side, was coverage like we do today. We went to all of the local activities that take place in communities, whether charitable organization events or city council meetings. We really focused on the community. We were unaware of what was happening in Ottawa and Quebec City. In 1998, we learned that sister stations were shutting down and we were afraid that it would happen to us, we decided that we had to get back together. And that's when we tried to pick up the pieces, but it was clear that the period of time during which we were not together did not help.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: What has to be understood is that the regulations were actually quite strict before 1998. Any cable operator with a monopoly was required to provide and broadcast a community channel to the community, with sufficient financial backing. Those involved in community television did not really ask themselves too many questions. But when the new Broadcasting Distribution Regulations were enacted, some cable operators—not all, fortunately—saw an opportunity to create networks or more widely broadcast stations because they said they held both a broadcasting licence and a cable television licence. That is when we started having problems. The requirement was no longer there.

What we asked the CRTC to do was bring back the requirement. That is not what it did. Instead, it reworked the 1991 community channel policy in an attempt to give it back its teeth. That is all well and good. We are glad to see the CRTC is concerned about the community, but as was said earlier, it is too little, too late. A lot of stations have already shut down. Some cable operators who have set up networks and so on say that despite what the CRTC is attempting to do, they feel they will still be able to continue to increase the centralization of production centres and provide less public access.

That is where there is an inconsistency. That is where we really want to sound the alarm; it has to be not-for-profit. Once businesses are involved, their main concern is profitability. I do not mean social profitability, I mean financial profitability. People come out the losers, because there is already a private element. Those who want to make money with that should really stick to the private element!

But there is also a community element that is there for the local public. We need to come back to that and stand by it! That is what we are here for. We want to convince you, and we are confident, judging by what we see here and by the questions you are asking, that you are convinced that the community element needs to be given back its rightful place.

Á (1115)

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: It is important to mention that the community television channels of the suburbs surrounding Montreal have been grouped together into one specialty channel. I am sorry, but it is no longer a community channel. All the money goes back to Montreal. All the production is done in Montreal. Whether you are in Boucherville, Châteauguay or Laval, you get Montreal's view of things. Whatever is going on in the community itself has disappeared. That is no longer covered, or gets three or four minutes a week, if not every two or three weeks.

My television channel is in the Saint-Raymond de Portneuf area. Things are going very well there. I have no idea why things are going badly elsewhere when they are going so well for us. It is beyond me. Since things are working for us, I felt I should go help people where things are not working. I could have stayed at home where things are working and said who cares about anywhere else. But I decided to go help them because I do not understand why it works for us and not for others. I do not get it.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You say things are going well for you. Does that mean that it is more local broadcasting? Is it because of a local cable operator or perhaps people who keep up the pressure and stay involved in community television? Why Montreal? Could it be because the community gave up, and ultimately, national teams are too strong?

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: I should say that we do not have Vidéotron in our area. We have a smaller cable operator, Vidéo Déry Ltd. It has about 21,000 subscribers in all of Quebec. That is the answer to your question, but the involvement goes further than that.

The head of the cable office in Saint-Raymond sits on our board of directors. He is not entitled to vote, but he always states his views. He participates and is even a volunteer on some of our shows. The cable operator gives us free reign and sees in us a competitive advantage over Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu. It is strange, but we have far fewer people switching to satellite than in other places. I think it is probably because of that. It must help, anyway.

Mr. André Simard: Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, perhaps I could add that in the Montreal area, this did not happen overnight. Back when the CRTC was reviewing its new modus operandi, from August to November 1997, which was not going to come into effect until January 1998, Vidéotron had already begun to change its approach to community television.

For example, in Châteauguay, prior to 1997, there were about 24 hours of broadcasting per week and about five hours of shows produced for those 24 hours. In November 1997, we were told that it would no longer be like that, and that we would now have two hours of regional broadcasting per week and could only produce two half-hour shows. That was a bit frustrating, but in my view, it was highly orchestrated.

Mr. André Desrochers: You see the concentration of big companies. I understand the biggest companies appeared before you in Vancouver. Shaw is doing the same thing in the Vancouver area. It is slowly eliminating CMES and ICTV, which used to produce up to six hours of programming and now gets only occasional contracts. Westman testified that as a small co-operative cable operator, it is active in 19 of our 35 communities. It seems the larger the network, the more they try to merge everything into one channel.

Soon, the CRTC will have to decide on bundled licences for each zone. From now on, there will be licence applications for only six zones in Canada. There will be no more licence applications for Montreal and Toronto. There will be the province of Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario and so on. Canada will be chopped up into six parts. Licence renewals will be for an entire zone, not just part of a zone. That scares us. Now that there will be only one licence per area or province, will there be only one community channel per province? That is the danger we see.

Á (1120)

The Chair: What makes you think it will be like that?

Mr. André Desrochers: It's because of the present attitude of Vidéotron and Shaw, who are doing exactly what the CRTC and Caplan-Sauvageau asked people not to do. The communities should have their own licence with not-for-profit entities. Vidéotron is in the process of taking over television at the present time. It has networked Montreal and Quebec City, where the same programs are being shown. They're also being sent in part to Victoriaville, etc. When there is only one licence to apply for, will that mean that there is only one community channel, since the act specifies that there is only a single community channel per licence?

The Chair: I see. Thank you.

Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I'd be interested in some explanation of your point of view. Under the CRTC Act, the CRTC must require that 60% of the community programming be produced locally. There's reference to local programming. In our cross-country tour of Canada when we spoke to these various organizations and companies, we were told that cable companies as a whole invest $80 million a year in community television.

How are they able to centralize this production if programming is to be local? How are they able to do that? It may be that local programming is improperly defined. Mr. Lépine, if you have television in Saint-Raymond, it is local. Quality is what will attract viewers.

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: I think that you are raising an important point. What is to be understood by “local”? It could be 10,000, but in the case of Vidéotron, it may be 2 million.

Mr. Claude Duplain: But isn't it defined by the CRTC?

Mr. André Desrochers: As part of their new policy, the CRTC is attempting to redefine the term local. Previously the programs were expected to reflect local interests. Now the requirement is that such programs be partly produced by local television, that is 50%. They even define local as being the community holding the licence. But they clearly pointed out that there is a problem in the Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto areas since there is not only one community within these large urban centres but rather several. They are asking cable operators to attempt to redefine the communities covered by their overly extensive licence. This means that the CRTC would provide a definition of local based on the cable operators' definition. This means that we would depend on the view of the cable operators who will say, for example, that the Greater Montreal community is the North Shore community as well as the South Shore one, that is both of them together.

Is that what we mean by communities? We don't think so. There is the community made up of the Greater Châteauguay region as well as the Greater Beloeil area and it is up to each of them to define their geographic extension. As for the large urban centres, the problem remains unsolved. The CRTC has even asked them to make suggestions. In Montreal the next licence renewal is for 2005. Should we wait until then? Does that mean that we are closed until 2005? We are asking the CRTC to call for proposals once the policy is presented.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Can you explain to me the distinction between community licences and cable operators' licences?

Mr. André Simard: In the Montreal area, the licence is granted to the cable operator. That means that the operator is entitled to have a community distribution licence. In the Montreal area, the operator took this licence and entered into associations with the communities, that is Châteauguay, Saint-Jérôme, Repentigny, etc. There were 10 televisions producing and broadcasting from their own facilities.

The problem has arisen with the new legislation. The cable operator has said that he will be shutting down the community televisions and bringing everything under one roof in Montreal since it is far less complicated. But it still only one licence. There is still the licence that was granted to Vidéotron-Montreal area. Vidéotron also has a licence for the Quebec city area and so forth. That is how it works.

We don't have a licence. We are a non-profit organization working on a volunteer basis.

Á (1125)

Mr. Claude Duplain: I understand, but I'd like you to explain to me the distinction between the cable operator's licence and the licences that you would like for community televisions.

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: It isn't complicated. With the type of licence granted for non-profit television, there is a board of directors responsible for managing community television. When we talk about a cable-style television, it is a system where the cable operator manages its community channel. When they talk about the $80 million, that is what they mean. I have no idea where this amount of $80 million is being spent.

In a particular case, we do have a good contribution from the cable operator but we do not think that the situation is the same with other community televisions.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: Let me clarify this matter. When the operator obtains a broadcasting distribution licence, it is automatically accompanied by the right to operate a community channel. There are not two licences, but merely a single one. This is where the difficulty arises because most of the time cable companies are interested in making a profit. We are aware of certain abuses that occurred and resulted in the loss of access to the community channel when the cable operator had the licence. This is not common practice everywhere, there are places where things function well and where there is cooperation, but because of these abuses we are aware of, it would probably be better for everyone concerned if the community itself were to apply for the licence to operate the community channel. It would have the paper required of any company that wishes to operate in the Canadian broadcasting system, that is a licence. Under this system, the only obligation for the cable company would be to broadcast the community channel. It would not have to make any decisions about the programming. That would be the responsibility of the not-for-profit corporation. Members of the community would decide and would work together with the community to provide the greatest possible access.

Mr. Claude Duplain: So that would mean that Châteauguay, for example, would have a chance of becoming a local station again with its community television and programming.

Mr. André Desrochers: We would have our own licence, rather like the radio stations. Community radio stations have their own licence and transmit their signal. The television infrastructure is too complicated for that. So what we are asking for is to have our own paper licence, it would be a recognition, and the requirement that all types of television distribution provide the community channel. This channel belongs to Canadians and exists in the interest of all Canadians. Whatever form it takes, we want this channel which belongs to all Canadians to be available in every household. What we are asking for is a licence to function, along with the requirement for the television distribution system to make our channel available, through whatever means. And if they are members of the Canadian Television Fund, we are asking to receive a certain amount of this money for funding.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have a few more questions. My time is up? All right.

The Chair: I will give you the floor later.

Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you again for your presentations. I have a few questions.

You've been speaking a lot about the CRTC making the definitions for local, for community. The CRTC implements, supervises, and regulates the policy of the government.

One of the things we found two years ago, when the CBC came before us, was that there was no requirement in the Broadcasting Act that addressed local. It was all about regional or national. I'm just wondering if perhaps it's not time the government looked at setting those definitions of what is local and what is community, and having them entrenched in the act, as opposed to leaving it to the CRTC to decide. The CRTC is supposed to do what the Broadcasting Act and the government policy tell it to do and not be constantly subject to these orders in council or directions that the previous speaker spoke about.

I'd like you to address that. If you think it's a good idea, I wonder if you could possibly forward to us how you think these issues, local and community, should be defined.

Monsieur Simard, you spoke about the need for a watchdog. I wonder if you could elaborate on that, because I think it's important. Monsieur Desrochers spoke about the fact that many times the decisions of the CRTC have unintended consequences. You are not the first one to come before us and tell us that. What would be the role of the watchdog, and how would that work?

Again, not to belabour the issue of this fund, but Monsieur Gauthier spoke about the community development fund. Would it come from part of this CTF? Would it come from the 1.5% that's left over? Perhaps if you can't address this now because of time, you could address it in the other ways.

Last but not least, and probably most difficult, you've all talked about the need for accessibility. Monsieur Simard, you talked about the need to have guidelines. What was it? A licence policy and regulations for community TV? Again, where should those regulations be? I'm loath to leave it to the CRTC, because that's not the role of the CRTC. I would like to see how you see us in this, looking at the Broadcasting Act and updating it, and whether these should be issues that are addressed by the act itself, as opposed to the CRTC.

I guess they're not very short. Sorry.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Mr. André Simard: You said yourself in your question that the CRTC already supervises the implementation of the legislation. We maintain that there should be a definition of local non-profit community television within the act, and that the CRTC should make sure that the definition is respected and applied on the ground by the cable operators.

In connection with this, we mentioned earlier that community television stations wanted to have their own licence. Of course we want to have our own licence, but there would be conditions attached to this. We would be responsible for the implementation of the CRTC regulations for our licence. The cable operator would no longer be responsible; it would be us, our organization. Therefore, it would be up to us to respect the regulations. When there are complaints, the complaints would be made to the CRTC and not to the cable operators, as is the case today. The CRTC's regulations have to be respected, and we would be ready to do so if we had our own licence.

Those are my comments regarding the definition within the act, etc. There are probably other comments.

Mr. André Desrochers: In Châteauguay, over a two-year period, we have tabled four complaints with the CRTC stating that our cable business is not respecting the standards that they themselves have established regarding cable community television. We even complained to the Cable Television Standards Council. The Cable Television Standards Council told us that they could not respond, as we had filed our complaints with the CRTC, and that we had to go before the CRTC. The CRTC told us that we should speak to the Standards Council. They passed the buck twice in this way. We complained to the CRTC that several communities in greater Montreal had lost their access to the community channel, and the CRTC simply answered by thanking us for having expressed our interest and submitted our complaints, and said that they had taken note of our submission. Since then, nothing has happened. We told the CRTC that they had made decisions that had harmed our communities and community television, and that they were the only authority in a position to judge this. They become both judge and defendant for a decision that they themselves have taken. How can they judge themselves on such a decision? They will never admit to having made a decision to the detriment of these communities.

Would it be possible to have a complaints department independent of the CRTC, or a watchdog that could be created, that could at least hear people's complaints against the CRTC? For the moment, the only thing one can do is to go to a superior court, where no one has ever won. Heritage Canada told us very clearly to not even try this because we would spend a huge amount of money. The CRTC is independent and has legal authority over everything.

We want all organizations having a reason to complain about CRTC decisions to have access to some kind of democratic process.

Á (1135)

Mr. Stéphane Lépine: I would like to answer the first question regarding definitions. This is what we are waiting for. We want the terms to be clearly defined and we want to know what we mean when we are talking about communities, when we are talking about local television and when we are talking about regional television. If only a policy statement is made, then clearly it can be bypassed. If it is entrenched in the regulations and in the legislation, we would certainly be in agreement, and we would be on board. We have nothing to reproach ourselves with. We do local television. That is what we are doing according to the law.

Mr. Gérald Gauthier: Of course, we are moving ahead in that direction. As the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec said, the clearer the definition, the easier it will be to interpret its future direction.

You often come across a kind of definition of “local”. It was quoted a little earlier. You will find it in your papers. It is defined as the “designated geographical territory”. It may cover a vast area, but usually it is no greater than the size of a county.

In Quebec, regions are divided into RCMs [Regional County Municipalities], but, by definition, it is up to the community to define what its designated territory is. When independent community television stations are created, it happens because certain people share certain interests: they include municipal councillors, federal and provincial elected officials, and school board and hospital representatives. Certain elements characterize a local region which distinguish it from a larger area, another province or from the country as a whole. It's like the Russian dolls concept, but it has to be defined somewhere.

To answer another question regarding the fund, which was raised a little earlier by Mr. Abbott, we will submit a document in which we explain how the money contained in the Canadian Television Fund could be better spent.

And since we are talking about financing, let's move on to another point.

There is another way the government can help finance us, which is through government advertising. You can also help decide how the government spends its advertising dollars. The government of Quebec does this and there is no reason for the federal government not to, either.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill, we'll conclude with you. We've got to move on. There are other witnesses.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think a lot of my questions have already been asked, and I appreciate all of your comments.

I was going to ask you about what impact the creation of the CTF had on community programming, because across the country, when we talk to cable stations, they always say, well, you know, we can either put 5% of our money into community access TV or we can put it into the CTF. I never really got a very satisfactory answer about what were the criteria by which they would do one or the other. It seemed pretty arbitrary to me.

If your revenue is dependent on this amount of money, it's not clear to me how it is that you can feel secure with that decision being left to the cable stations. Maybe you could talk about that for me for a minute--about what CTF has meant to your stability of funding.

[Translation]

Mr. André Desrochers: At the moment, we do not have direct access to the Canadian Fund. Since 1998, cable companies have had the freedom to decide whether they want to invest in community stations or not. Cable companies also have eligible expenses, including those for technological infrastructure. So, it is not necessarily money coming in which goes towards programming.

We are asking that part of the fund... not-for-profit, independent, autonomous, community television stations should get the licence instead of cable companies. We are asking that the cable companies and all television distributors continue to contribute their 5% share to the fund and that a percentage of that money go towards radio or television community programming. The money would be split between TV and radio. That way, the money would come directly to us.

If their social obligation to broadcast our programs is maintained, it would represent a fair sharing of the airwaves for all Canadians throughout the country. Were not talking about additional or new money. We are talking about a percentage which is already being contributed and which we would receive directly to create programs. They would make the technology available to Canadians.

Á (1140)

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Simard, Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Lépine and Mr. Gauthier, for your presentations. You have been very helpful. What you said has reinforced what previous witnesses have told us, but even more, you have shed light on the issue of financing and related matters. We will read Mr. Gauthier's document with great interest.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

We will now hear from Fondation Radio Enfant

[English]

and from Star Ray TV, Mr. Jan Pachul; and Mr. Roger Davies and Mr. Ken Collins.

Before we begin, I should mention to you that unfortunately today there are several committees of the House functioning at this time. Unfortunately, we are going to be losing some members around ten after twelve. I'm terribly sorry about this; it's just that there are so many committees, and a lot of people belong to two or three of them. If you want to be questioned and heard by the members, the more concise your presentation,

[Translation]

the better it will be for committee members because some of them will have to leave for other meetings.

I would like to welcome the Fondation Radio Enfant, which is represented by Mr. Michel Delorme, director general, Ms. Lise Huot, board member, and Ms. Aline Bard, who is also a board member,

[English]

and to Mr. Jan Pachul, the president of Star Ray TV; and to Mr. Ken Collins. I guess Mr. Roger Davies is not here, Mr. Collins?

Á (1145)

Mr. Ken Collins (Individual Presentation): Mr. Davies went to the washroom. He didn't realize we could get five in a row.

The Chair: Oh, I see.

Mr. Ken Collins: I expect he'll be back presently, if someone hasn't gone to get him.

The Chair: That's fine. When he comes back he'll be heard. I guess it's important for him to go where he did.

A voice: It's important for all of us.

The Chair: Yes, we should have a break sometimes, but I'm sorry.

[Translation]

We will start with the Fondation Radio Enfant (Children's Radio Foundation). Will Ms. Huot be starting?

Ms. Lise Huot (President, Fondation Radio Enfant): Yes, I'm going to start.

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Huot.

Ms. Lise Huot: Thank you for listening to us. It is a pleasure for me to present the views of the Fondation Radio Enfant about the Canadian Broadcasting Act which, among other things, is supposed to meet the needs and aspirations of our children and teenagers.

Our foundation's objective is to offer our children an environment favourable to their development. We came here today to suggest that the Canadian Broadcasting Act take into account our children's development needs.

My name is Lise Huot, and I am the President of Fondation Radio Enfant. With me is Michel Delorme, who is the foundation's administrator, and Aline Bard, who is one of our members.

In our presentation we want to highlight the significant aspects of the initiative we undertook a few years ago. Our mission is to provide a place where children and adolescents can express themselves. The project is to offer radio services produced to a large extent by young people.

Ms. Aline Bard (Member, Fondation Radio Enfant): The objectives of Fondation Radio Enfant are to promote the participation of young people in radio; to offer a different, alternative, citizen's radio that meets the needs of this age group with all the richness of a young people's radio; to enable our young people to get to know the media and to develop a sense of participation; to support the development of francophone culture among children, particularly in Franco-Ontarian minority communities, and finally, to encourage the management of cooperative projects between francophones on both sides of the river in the national capital.

A radio for and by children: In Canada, the 15-to-18 age group is the least well served by radio. While television offers many specialty channels and many hours of time on the general channels, radio has almost no programming of interest to children. Radio-Canada does set aside a few hours for them in the evening, but this is in no way equivalent to their demographic importance—20% of the population is in the 15-to-18 age group—particularly compared to the service received by other age groups.

As a result, children listen to cassettes and digital discs, often shut up in their room or on their walkman. The Nouvel Observateur made the following comment:

The number one leisure choice of teenagers, their music, is as varied, diverse and multi-faceted as they are themselves. It reflects their anxiety, their rebellion, but also their hopes and desires. It may be from way back in the sixties, or it may be the latest hit. It is not easy for adults to understand and to recognize the new stars that make their children dream.

Mr. Michel Delorme (Director General, Fondation Radio Enfant): Radio is certainly the most suitable medium for children. It fosters creativity and stimulates their imagination. It is also the medium of personal participation and commitment, which are so essential to education. Radio fosters an active attitude by encouraging people to read and find out more. It is an intimate medium—listening to the radio is a personal matter. For teenagers, radio, with its virtues as a basic means of communication, creates a group, collective environment. As Unicef has said, communication through the media is also an excellent way of protecting children. Radio could serve children in Canada much better than it does at the moment.

In Canada, children are completely ignored, because we fail to broadcast on the radio programming specifically for them. No musical productions for children are broadcast, although many high-quality ones are available.

Canada recognizes children's righst in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which includes the right to express themselves and to take part in communication, particularly through the media. The CRTC should analyze this issue of services for children: how should the right of children to take part in media communications be translated into reality?

The foundation recently proposed to the CRTC the establishment of a pilot project for a radio station for children and adolescents in the national capital region. This application was turned down. The foundation applied to the CRTC for a short-term licence as well. We are doing our tests today in preparation for the on-air launch of this radio station for children and teenagers.

When it put forward this pilot project, the foundation also presented a plan for the development of this practice throughout Canada. The foundation asked that for an initial five-year period this pilot project of Radio Enfant be non-commercial—in other words its revenues would not be based on the sale of advertising. According to the application we presented most of the radio station's funding would come from broadcasting and distribution undertakings. These tangible advantages for Canadian programming are currently directed by the CRTC and the Department of Heritage to the production of films and discs.

Our numerous applications to the CRTC have all been turned down. The CRTC's decision to refuse to grant a permanent licence to this pilot project for a radio station by and for young people will have a significant impact on the development of radio for children, both in the national capital region and elsewhere in Canada. The project we presented to the CRTC included satellite distribution, because our signal from Ottawa will be rebroadcast throughout Canada by ExpressVu. This will happen soon, for the next 106 days. Broadcast from the station whose studios are located in Hull will be rebroadcast throughout Canada by satellite and children throughout Canada will be involved in the programming through broad band Internet connections.

The foundation would like to stress that this project will begin tomorrow, March 20, the International Day of the Francophonie, but will last for 106 days only, because the CRTC has granted a temporary licence for this period only. Despite its temporary nature, the radio festival for children and teenagers will be an innovative contribution to Canadian programming and an excellent way of marking the 10th anniversary of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which will be celebrated in grand style in New York in May. Our challenge is to turn the microphone over to children.

I turn now to the issue of media concentration. The current system of mandatory contributions to Canadian programming by private broadcasters, which was laid down by the CRTC—and this is an important point—feeds media concentration. The funds established to contribute to Canadian programming are being used at the moment to market and promote music and to speed up the creation of stars to increase record sales. Most of the funds are controlled by the major media. The funds are used mainly to promote artists and they give the music industry the assistance it wants. None of these contributions goes directly to radio programming or content diversification, as we suggest for children's radio, for example. Moreover, we know that vast sectors of the population, such as the younger age groups, are neglected by the commercial radio stations.

Á (1150)

Ms. Lise Huot: This very high degree of concentration and standardization requires contributions made outside the control of private broadcasters, and which are designed to promote the diversity of non-commercial and local radio contents.

We asked that the Broadcasting Act require private broadcasting undertakings to contribute, through tangible advantages, to financial support for non-commercial local and community radio programming for children and teenagers.

We are calling on the committee to require that when new media are purchased, tangible advantages be dedicated to the establishment of a radio fund for children and teenagers.

The following are the main areas such funding would support:

Local production: support for the production of high-quality programs stressing diversity and groups neglected by the major networks.

Infrastructure: promote the establishment of communication and production media in small or marginalized communities.

Human resources development: training and exchange programs for people who work in communications for children and teenagers.

Research and evaluation: analysis of the impact of communications on children, research on ways of improving it.

To summarize, we suggest that the CRTC provide young people non-commercial programming with which they can identify and that is based on their needs and interests.

We also suggest the establishment of a radio fund to allow private broadcasters to contribute financially to non-commercial local and community radio productions for children and adolescents.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express our views before this parliamentary committee. We are quite prepared to answer any questions you may have.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much for your brief and your recommendations. I would also like to congratulate you on your documentation. It is really very well done. I believe Mr. Delorme designed it.

Mr. Delorme, would you like...? Very briefly.

Mr. Michel Delorme: The important point is really this contribution by the private sectors to radio programming. We would like to talk about that. I hope there will be questions on this, because we have raised the issue many times with the CRTC and Heritage Canada, and we have always been turned down. We would like it very much if the committee were to send a message to the minister and to the president of the CRTC about these contributions and the tangible advantages of Canadian programming. I think children can make a contribution to Canadian programming. When we realize that Canada has no station for children under age 18, there is a problem. This is despite the fact that the act states clearly that Canadian programming must meet the needs of men, women and children. Nothing is being done for children. So we would very much like to talk about this with you.

The Chair: You expressed your opinion very clearly, Mr. Delorme. I am sure the committee members listened to you very carefully. I am sure there will be some questions on this matter.

[English]

Mr. Pachul, we are ready to listen to you.

Mr. Jan Pachul (President, Star Ray TV): Thank you very much.

Good day. I'm Jan Pachul from Toronto. I'm honoured to be able to share my thoughts with you on broadcast regulation.

You may have read about me. I'm the guy who's been fighting the CRTC for years over a low-power community television station in Toronto called Star Ray TV.

The conclusion I have come to after years of involvement with the CRTC is that the CRTC must be disbanded. We cannot call ourselves a democracy when we have an unaccountable body like the CRTC micro-managing broadcasting and access to the airwaves. Freedom of speech should include equal access to broadcasting frequencies for everyone, not just for rich corporate insiders.

A broadcasting system where five corporations own a majority of broadcasting properties nationwide is the result of the CRTC's biased policies in favour of a handful of industry elites.

The CRTC has faithfully followed the theory of regulatory capture. In brief, this theory describes various phases a regulatory body goes through until the body is captured by the industries it's supposed to regulate. In the CRTC's case, this regulatory capture is evidenced by the CRTC's overwhelming bias against new entrants in broadcasting.

In my case, the majority of commissioners fabricated reasons to turn down my application when industry heavyweights objected. Yes, they came up with reasons right out of thin air. I have extensive documentation that the same thing has happened to other new broadcasters trying to get access to the public's airways. To this day, I have not been able to hold the CRTC accountable for their misrepresentations and misdeeds.

Currently, the CRTC has issued a mandatory order commanding me to cease and desist carrying on a broadcast undertaking at Toronto or anywhere else in Canada. The CRTC commissioners are either incompetent or corrupt, or both. Only one commissioner has any kind of broadcasting experience. The majority are lawyers or consultants, yet these people are making value judgments on what stations and programming Canadians will watch.

What qualifications does a lawyer have in broadcast management, sales, or television programming? Lawyers and consultants are the professions that are in the best position to profit from the insider information and connections obtained as CRTC commissioners and employees. Most large broadcasters have staff lawyers to manage regulatory affairs with the CRTC. Many of these lawyers are former CRTC employees.

Why isn't an artist a CRTC commissioner? A couch potato watching 40 hours of TV a week would be preferable and more qualified as a CRTC commissioner than a lawyer. What accountability does the CRTC have? How do you remove a commissioner who is corrupt or incompetent?

A CRTC decision to issue, amend, or renew a licence is not subject to judicial review, although the applicant can appeal to the Governor in Council. There are no appeals if you are denied a licence. The CRTC's decision is final. You could be denied a licence forever.

In my case, the CRTC won't even accept an application from me while they are studying low-power broadcasting, a study that has been going on for almost two years. The public needs direct accountability from whatever body is regulating broadcasting. The Broadcasting Act needs a clear procedure to remove commissioners who are not serving the public interest.

Commissioners could be elected by region. At least they could be voted out if they don't serve the public. Why is the CRTC dictating programming formats and protecting existing formats from competition? A station should be able to broadcast any material it likes if it meets minimum Canadian content requirements and is not breaking any laws. Broadcasting should be as competitive as any other industry.

With a guaranteed licence to print money, station owners now have no incentive to excel. Excellence flows from competition. The broadcasting industry needs some new players. So what if some dinosaurs go bankrupt? The most gifted and creative should be rewarded, not the most hostile and aggressive.

Â (1200)

Canada does have the talent to compete with the U.S. in broadcasting, if the talented are given a chance. We hear about the great Canadian brain drain. It's true. Gifted, talented Canadians are forced out of this country to earn a living and achieve recognition, while the mediocre remain. Personally, I now have an attractive opportunity to manage an existing low-power station in the U.S. and leave all my CRTC troubles behind. Every day I see talented, creative Canadians frustrated by the fact that they have no outlet for their art or their airwaves.

How would I reverse the damage caused by the CRTC? I'd start with a moratorium on licences for the top ten owners of broadcast properties in Canada. No new licences for existing players, although they could buy and sell their existing properties, with no corporation controlling more than 10% of the licenses.

Give preference to local ownership of stations. Out-of-town owners should only be considered if there are no local applicants.

Encourage cooperation by new entrants into broadcasting in a given geographic area. The spectrum space that one analog channel now occupies can support four digital channels.

Enforce one station per owner per market, with no exceptions. Anyone who owns a station in a market should be disqualified from applying for any more licences in that market. A recent CRTC call for applications for television licences in southern Ontario had mostly applicants that had existing stations in those markets. These applicants should be automatically disqualified from tendering an application.

Simplify licence applications. A great barrier to new entrants is the licence application process itself. Corporations now routinely spend $100,000 to $1 million on the application alone, with no guarantee of ever receiving a licence. The money wasted on the CRTC application process is enough to put a low-power community station on the air. A low-power television application in the U.S. is only two pages long. The programming content should be the public's and the station's business, not the CRTC's.

Most new applicants can't raise money unless they have a licence in hand, for broadcasting applications do not require any financial information or projections. The only requirement should be that the applicant gets the station on the air within a year.

Do not accept any interventions from existing broadcasters whining about the financial effects of new stations. If they can't compete, they should go bankrupt like any other business in a free society. New broadcasters should be able to challenge licences during renewals with competing applications. No automatic renewals should be allowed.

The job of the regulator should be reduced to spectrum management and enforcing technical standards, something Industry Canada's spectrum management is already doing. Another task for the regulator would be the area of competition law, something Industry Canada also is doing through the Competition Tribunal.

This corrupt, wasteful, useless, bureaucratic exercise called the CRTC must stop. Freedom of speech blooms when the public gains control of the airwaves. It's time to recognize the CRTC as a failure. Unemploy all those lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants. Get the CRTC out of the way. Let the broadcast system reflect the great diversity of Canada. Allow Canadians the tools to become competitive with the United States in broadcasting. Have Americans watch Canadian-produced programming. Reward creativity and talent. Give somebody new a chance to be a broadcaster.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pachul.

You referred to a very important institution, and certainly some of the remarks you made about the bureaucracy of licensing, and so forth, we've heard before in other forums and presentations before us.

But I thought I should mention that in a couple of instances you referred to the CRTC commissioners as incompetent or corrupt, and the CRTC itself as corrupt. I just want to mention that in the political sphere in Parliament we have a rule that we can't ascribe motives to people, so we should be pretty careful about making sure we don't endorse that in any way. We have to be extremely careful not to impugn motives to people who are there in good faith.

I just wanted to mention that, but thank you very much for your remarks, which certainly carry your point of view very clearly.

We'll now go on to Mr. Davies.

Mr. Roger Davies (Individual Presentation): Thank you. It's really great to have the opportunity to speak to you. We may not have the credentials of the previous speakers, but we do speak from the heart, the heart of the Rockies--Kimberley itself--where we have a CATV station.

I'm glad to say this station is the grassroots, and the grass has never been greener, as far as I'm concerned, in community broadcasting. We're able to produce about 10 hours of local broadcasting per week with six volunteers. We're proud to do that.

We have a thriving community broadcast station, but I have wondered over the past year whether we would survive. It's not because we don't have the enthusiasm and programming; it's because I don't know if we have the support of the parent cable system. We've been saying, “Well, if you drop below 2,000 subscribers, we won't be able to produce our local broadcasting”. This is the sort of pressure we're under, and I find that totally unacceptable.

I want to preserve my community through the eyes of community TV, and this particular cable station can look back to the very start of community television. I have newspaper articles here stating that CATV Kimberley made its initial broadcast on Thursday, August 23, 1956. The station itself was the first one in Canada, and I believe in North America, to broadcast via this particular medium. So we have a little bit of history in that respect.

We have been first in community TV bingo, and we have produced programs with the United Nations. So we have sort of experimented. I think the important thing for the committee to remember is that these were produced by people who had ideas. They were free. They were able to see something they wanted to tell the world about, or participate, as in the case of the United Nations, and act on it. That was some 45 years ago.

What has happened to change things? I think it's a case of economic scale and corporate distance. Today our community television is owned and operated by people outside our community, and this has had an effect. We are struggling to bring the community into the homes of the cable subscribers with a small group of dedicated and versatile volunteers who have worked tirelessly for 43 years to provide the expertise and vision that's made our community channel.

How does the community channel succeed in Kimberley? It's not because of the vast infusion of money. In fact, we have none. We have no budget. We rely on equipment that is provided for us by the licence-holder. This is the workhorse of our community channel, and we're able to produce those six hours per week.

The other thing we have are two $100 AIWA VCRs. These VCRs can be rewired to play instead of record. So this is the sort of equipment we use, and it's fine. It's been working for 15 months. It's successful due to the innovation and enthusiasm of the people in our system. So the low-tech approach has been successful.

Our community channel retains and encourages new subscribers. I hear every day of people saying, “Oh, my wife made me give up the satellite because she wanted the community channel”. So we are serving an important part of Canadian culture.

We need to know where our funding will be coming from. We don't have salaries, but we need equipment in order to continue. We would like to continue to have access to equipment from parent companies, whenever there's a demonstrated community interest. We would like to have the ability to produce, in an unfettered fashion, a full spectrum of programs that are community-driven--that is key--in form and content.

Â (1210)

I would just like to expand on that. We do produce a full spectrum of programming, from documentaries through to local interest programming, that is quite involved. We have a neighbouring system to the south of us that is not able to do that. For example, if Mr. Abbott were to send, from Ottawa, a program about what is going on in Ottawa, I could put it on our cable system, but in his home town of Cranbrook he is limited to a full minute's byte. I find that sort of control over community broadcasting to be totally unacceptable, really to have volunteer programs that are community-driven in form and content.

What we are asking the committee to do is to recognize basically that we need to have secure funding so we have the basic equipment. We have the volunteers; we have the enthusiasm. We don't need to be paid for our services, and I feel that, in essence, this is the basic grassroots of community programming.

I will now turn it over to Ken.

Mr. Ken Collins: We're very fortunate in Kimberley in that we are a small community that is very community-minded. It has a strong social network, and we reflect and are driven by that. We get phone calls at home to cover this or cover that. We don't have to worry about competing channels because people surf the channels and when they find something of interest that we produce, they will stick to that, or not stick to it. We'll get the feedback on whether they like it or not. It is a self-policing thing.

Roger and I have slightly different views on a couple of minor things. One of them is the whole question of funding in that we have a facilitator employed by the cable licence-holder who makes $30,000 a year. I am termed a volunteer by the cable company. I term myself an independent broadcaster. I buy my own tapes. We actually have three VCRs. One of them was supplied by myself and paid for by myself, but I cannot legally write those off under the Income Tax Act as my expenses, simply because they don't have a charitable status. What I'm doing is funding the cable company, in my view, and it is able to make a profit and sell advertising. I would like to see a mechanism, and I think there should be one, where sponsorship can be provided to the independent broadcaster.

The nature of money is that it always tries to concentrate and it will move upward. If you can drive it downward to the grassroots, I think that's a good thing.

One of the problems with regulations, of course, is every time you make a rule you make a loophole.

In the interests of time here, I guess the only other thing we really feel strongly about is that access is important. We have the view that community broadcasting should be a right, not a privilege, and holding a cable licence should be a privilege, not a right.

The question was asked, “From your standpoint, what exactly is the cultural fabric of Canada, and is it possible to draft content requirements that will in fact safeguard it, enrich and strengthen it?” My answer is that at the grassroots level, we, the independent producers of community television, are closest to the cultural fabric of Canada, and the best way to safeguard it is to legislate community control and equal and adequate community access with respect to the broadcasting of community television. The best way to enrich and strengthen it is to establish an independent mentoring program, accessible to all communities in Canada.

One of the other things has to do with access. We're running out of channels, believe it or not. We have a community access channel that we utilize for our programming, and there was another channel that's actually a buffer channel. It has now been put into service to carry the Hansard from Victoria, because that's a public interest thing.

One of the things that came to my mind was that if we do our job well and if we really respond to the community, and if we do get a dialogue going within the community that is a true reflection in the community of broadcasting, it will grow to the point at which that will be limited and suppressed simply by lack of room.

Thank you.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Davies and Mr. Collins, for your very refreshing presentation. It's been like a breath of fresh air that you manage to use low-tech technology to get on with the real problem, and also to survive and create green pastures, as you pointed out. We are grateful for your thoughts and your recommendations.

I'll turn the meeting over to Mr. Abbott.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to you all, especially to my two constituents who just presented. I will freely and happily admit that it is their perspective on this that has, to a great extent, coloured my own particular perspective in realizing that, as I stated in an earlier intervention, it is the very starting point--the capillaries of information that start at this public level--that work their way up through to all of the legislative processes and the legislators.

Respecting the “community-driven”, in form and content, relative to the format we're talking about, let me just take 30 seconds to describe it in my constituency, which is very mountainous. We have Shaw, who have the cable network that goes from Radium, in the centre of the Rocky Mountain trench, all the way down through Invermere and through Fort Steele into Cranbrook, and then on down to Creston. They have at least 60%, probably 70% of the cable subscribers.

You then have two cable providers in the Elk Valley, which would cover a population of approximately 12,000 people. You have another independent cable provider in Revelstoke, which is an isolated community of 8,500 people at least an hour and a half drive from any other centre. You have another isolated one in Golden, and then you have Kimberley.

What basically has happened is that the volunteers in Kimberley have driven this vision the two presenters have so eloquently described today. I would like to ask them, in their judgment, what would be required to create a vehicle that people in Golden, people in Revelstoke, who are dealing with smaller cable providers...? What would be required? Would it be regulations? What do you think would be required to open up the opportunity for people who may have the same vision as yourselves to be able to bring that to those communities?

We'll deal with Shaw in just a second.

Â (1220)

Mr. Roger Davies: If I may just start on that one, Mr. Abbott, Kimberley is driven by community television. As I say, we produce up to ten hours per week. Fernie, 60 miles down the road, under the same cable system and under the same program director, has difficulty producing much of anything at all. We've tried there, but it just splutters and stops.

What is starting to form there is that people are beginning to see what Kimberley has known for 40 years: they're starting to film Griz Days. They've started to film and use the format for city council and what have you. People are driving it, and it does take time. In the community itself, we are beginning to see independent people coming, getting equipment, and starting to reflect their communities in the cable system.

I think the important thing is a secure provision of basic equipment and access to that equipment. I wonder how many people here today believe that each one of our volunteers has a key to the head end--not to the actual techniques, but to the head end. We can go in anytime we want. We produce; we manage the video production. Our paid coordinator, or mentor, as I like to call him, is there to see and to make sure the equipment is available to all volunteers. After that, we take over.

There's the sense of community, the sense of accessibility, without any threats such as “if we don't have so many subscribers, we're going to close our studio down”. I think that eventually will come. We have to develop that community confidence, I would say, more than anything, that sense of “Hey, we can produce these things”. I'm starting to see that in Fernie now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jim Abbott): But the problem, as I see it, is when you come to Shaw. They have supposedly continued to do community programming. As you pointed out in your presentation, they do it in their own studio and they do it in ways they consider to be the most attractive to their viewers. As a consequence, the longest interview that the mayor, myself, an MLA, or anyone else in public life in Cranbrook would get would be three minutes. That would be a very long interview as opposed to the kind of programming you're doing.

So taking a look at Revelstoke and Golden, who don't do any community programming whatsoever, taking a look at Shaw, who have chosen to do their own particular kind of programming, I'm asking you for your opinion for the committee to consider. In your opinion, should there be some kind of legislation that would mandate that if you are going to be a cable provider, you must make available x number of hours or minutes or whatever per week?

Â (1225)

Mr. Ken Collins: I believe there has to be a legislated mandate to that effect.

About the x part, I'm not sure, because what happens is you get into the numbers thing. I think you need more of a process than a mechanical number, because everybody is so different.

One example to punctuate what you had shared is that one of the groups that has come to me for broadcasting in Kimberley is the East Kootenay Lutheran Parish. Kimberley has quite a strong Christian root to it. The churches first started there in 1923, and there are more churches than bars. So they're representative of the community. They are centred in Cranbrook, but they deal in Kimberley, Elkford, Fernie, and Radium. They came to me. They have a Tuesday night Bible study that's live on air. At the same time, I cannot take their product to Cranbrook and have it aired, simply because Cranbrook will only give them four minutes, if any at all. It's a subjective decision on their part whether they do.

Mr. Roger Davies: Can I just add one thing?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Roger Davies: Mr. Abbott, what happened in Cranbrook was that with a change in program director, a new format was imposed. Volunteers were fired. That thing became autocratic, totally controlled by the company and its employees. I think that is totally unacceptable as a format. Volunteers as such cannot access that channel, and that is circumventing cablevision, as I see it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. My first question is to Mr. Pachul. And then we'll have some questions for the people from the Radio Enfant-Ado project.

You spoke at length about the CRTC. A number of people have made some comments to us about the management of the CRTC. You say that the CRTC must be replaced, but do you have any suggestions for improving it? I am thinking about the members of the board of directors, for example. Rather than being a little closed club, they could seek to better represent society in all its diversity.

This morning, for example, there were some witnesses from community radio and television. I think that if some people from the community sector were involved, some of the CRTC's decisions might be improved and it might have a better understanding of issues in society other than private, commercial considerations. Could you talk about this a little, please?

[English]

Mr. Jan Pachul: I think a big problem with the CRTC is that it's very legalistic. For instance, I was referring to all the lawyers who are CRTC commissioners. These people do not represent television viewers and they also don't represent community groups. Commissioners should represent a broad spectrum of society and not just this one legalistic phase. For instance, why isn't an artist a CRTC commissioner? A lot of the decisions the CRTC is making right now concern creative judgments and art. If the commissioners were elected, as a prime example, they would better reflect the society.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. We will consider your suggestion, but I think we will have to give some thought to the direction the CRTC should take and look more closely at its decision-making process. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency.

I would like to congratulate you for your project Radio Enfant-Ado. Last Sunday, I believe you were awarded a prize from Impératif français for the quality of your programs.

There are three ways to broadcast children's programs: you can either try to get your own radio air time, you can contribute to existing programs or create an independent radio station.

I wondered just how realistic the third option is regarding... I know you would need money, but we heard from local radio and television stations this morning, whose representatives said that you need to reach a certain amount of people if you are going to broadcast locally. How many people would you want to reach locally? How many listeners would you need for a viable children's radio station, for instance? How would you flesh out this idea which, at first glance, seems quite promising?

I think you are working on a fantastic project. I sometimes listen to the children's radio program on Radio-Canada. It is such a novel thing that it sometimes makes me forget the problems I have to deal with as a member of Parliament. Involving children who are full of good ideas is an excellent thing, but I would like to know whether you think it is realistic. Do you have any idea as to how this could be brought about?

Â (1230)

Mr. Michel Delorme: Yes, we have ideas which we presented to the CRTC. Actually, I could also respond to your previous question with regard to the recommendations, but as for the specific issue you have raised...

First, the basic idea is to make room for young people and for children, beginning with four- or five-year-olds to 18-year-olds. There's nothing for them on the radio. No station targets these listeners. We have to do everything we can to make room for them.

In areas where it is not financially possible to set up an independent radio station, we can work with existing stations. For that reason, I work with Radio Basse-Ville in your riding. CKIA is a major partner which collaborates with six or seven schools in your area. We work with them; they are a partner. In regions where there is no radio station, such as Sainte-Marguerite in the Beauce region, we could set up a low-power radio station whose signals would be picked up in a certain radius.

Right here, in our community of Ottawa-Hull, there is no community radio station and no existing stations are willing to free up air time. That is why we asked the CRTC for the creation of a full-time station targeted at children and youth. We're not dealing with just anyone; parents are involved, and we received unanimous support from the community. When I say unanimous, I'm referring to the fact that every mayor and every school board on both sides of the river were on board. Municipal councillors from both sides of the river came to plead the case before the CRTC and they received full support from their respective communities. However, the CRTC decided to grant a frequency, the best frequency, to a group from St. John's, Newfoundland, which did not have the support of their community; they could only produce the copies of six letters of support. We did not get what we asked for.

We were operating on the assumption that our community had a good case. We obviously worked very hard on our proposal. We presented the CRTC with financing proposals for that type of radio which were realistic. They were realistic because they were backed up by sponsors and partners. The departments of health and education could provide educational advertising. There are all kinds of educational messages which could be targeted at children and paid for. Drugstores could broadcast information on how to take medication. There could also be lots of anti-tobacco advertisement. As you can see, there are many ways of paying for radio programs for children and youth.

We also presented the CRTC with the idea of bringing on board the private sector. But opening the door to the idea of involving the private sector has always caused the CRTC to quickly slam it shut, because it is in league with the industry and argues that the money goes into producing movies and records. For instance, ExpressVu contributes $20 million to the film fund. They told us they could earmark part of that money for us, but that they would need approval from the CRTC to do so. We have never gotten it.

So, if we could just receive part of the contribution companies must pay into a program fund for that sector, we could support a radio station for kids. This is what we proposed: non-commercial radio for children. We do not want to create a station to sell consumer products and encourage young people to buy. We want a station which fosters community development and which is aimed at children and young people. There are ways of achieving this with help from financial contributions on the part of the private sector and the Department of Heritage.

So, it's all there. There is not only one possible source of funding, there is a whole range of sources. There is sponsorship, advertising, the sponsorship of major movies by companies such as, for instance, Bombardier, as well as high-profile sponsorships and public interest messages. The private sector could contribute, as well as the government, including the departments of education and heritage, which would find a reason to contribute to this kind of programming, which targets a group deprived of this type of service in Canada; not a single one of the 500 radio stations has this type of programming.

The law says so: we must meet the needs of children. What do you make of this situation? What does the CRTC tell you when you...? We have appealed the decision. We have produced an appeal providing articulate reasons. But the CRTC did not respond. That's the way it works: it just does not respond. So, you make a bunch of proposals and receive no answer and then it's the same thing all over again.

We went to Astral. Astral was involved in a transaction, a purchase worth $250 million. They had to contribute 10% of that amount to Canadian programming. They had to set aside $25 million. They proposed the amount of $13 million. Six million dollars of that amount is managed by the Astral Fund. So, the company is the one who decides how the money will be spent.

Â (1235)

We argued that our project was a contribution to Canadian programming, that it was a better way to distribute the funding compared to the way it's been done until now. I will spare you the details, but it is totally scandalous that Astral believes that the current breakdown in funding represents a contribution to Canadian programming. In the meantime, we have proposed a project which is a clear contribution. It is essential that young people have access to this type of communication medium. Just ask around in your area. Go talk to the people who operate Radio Basse-Ville and they will confirm this.

The Chair: Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have no questions. In fact, I'm tempted to give you the rest of my time so I can hear what you have to say, because the more you talk, the more we learn.

Mr. Michel Delorme: I am not done yet and you haven't heard the end of it, because we have recommendations with respect to the CRTC.

It's quite clear we have been through a traumatizing experience.

The Chair: We got the point. Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Mr. Davies, your problem is the same as the one facing Quebec's community television stations. You said a little earlier that you are at the mercy of a cable company which is not as involved as it should be in local development through community TV. In fact, you are grappling with the same problem Quebec is with respect to its community television stations.

Is this what you are saying or is your problem a different one?

[English]

Mr. Roger Davies: It's more specific. Our provider takes a total hands-off approach. I could produce anything at any time, providing it meets the CRTC regulations.

Here's the perceived threat I see. It has been suggested that the availability of community programming within Kimberley is solely dependent on subscriber volume. We are at the point of being dependent on the cable provider to use the 5% to give us proper equipment. And we have gone down. In one of my briefs I said we had reached the point where we asked ourselves what point there would be in continuing because we didn't have a VCR with which to put the stuff on the air.

This was not the current provider but a previous company. It gutted our system technologically. So it didn't matter what I did to produce the programs--my energies have to go into that--we didn't have the vehicle with which to deliver those programs. This is what we see and what I'm talking about here. Certainly, our provider has never indicated that I can't do anything I want. Cranbrook is a different story, but Kimberley, no.

Â (1240)

Mr. Ken Collins: But even in Kimberley we're under the hand of a benevolent dictator. We're fortunate that the facilitator hired by the company is community-minded. But the dialogue between him and the company often turns into a fight where he advocates for things for the community that, left to its own devices, the company wouldn't supply just because it doesn't have to. Unless it's mandated, the company is not going to do it. It will make decisions based on the bottom line, according to what the accountant says.

Mr. Roger Davies: We're looking for that security.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Mr. Delorme, there is something I did not quite understand a few moments ago. I would like you to elaborate on the licence granted to Newfoundland. Maybe it's because I'm not very familiar with this type of situation, but I don't understand the link between what you--

Mr. Michel Delorme: Another group was granted the licence we were after, the licence which until a few years ago was considered educational, that is, until Industry Canada changed its terms without consulting anyone.

Thirteen parties wanted this licence. But it was a company from St. John's, Newfoundland, which wanted to move into the Ottawa market that got it. You can find out for yourself that this company received six or seven letters in support of its project; the letters were all written the same way and came from other businesses which wanted to sell music. So the company received the licence for 27 kilowatts to play English dance music.

The second licence was granted to native groups. The third went to multiethnic and francophone groups. What was said? That it would be a classical music station. But what happens on Jean-Pierre Coallier's classical music program is that there is no talk; there is as little commentary as possible to get people to fall asleep. The target listening audience is between 40 and 60 years old.

Further, the Radio-Nord group was told to find a frequency. It was granted a licence, but it had to find a frequency, which Radio-Nord is still looking for. As a consequence, Radio-Nord is not on the air yet. None of its four radio stations is on the air yet, and in the meantime, we have been forced to prepare a whole new licence application, including technical estimates and everything else that needs to be done, and to reply to letters, some of which contain up to 27 questions. After all that, we finally received a temporary licence.

So, we go on air today but only for 106 days. We have to cease broadcasting on July 1. Of the four stations which got a licence, the first one received its licence a year ago. And yet, we are the first to go on air, despite the fact that we had to apply twice.

The Chair: How much did it cost you to prepare your application?

Mr. Michel Delorme: Radio-Nord says that it usually costs it $200,000 to prepare an application. It did not cost us $200,000, but around $50,000.

Where do we get that money? Part of it comes from using volunteers and winging it. But the technician and the market studies cost us around $20,000 to $25,000, which we have to pay. That was the case for the two licence applications presented to the CRTC to meet a requirement which, as I said before, is clearly set out in the legislation. The act states that programming must “serve the needs...of Canadian men, women and children.” It is a shame.

The Chair: Your passion for these issues comes across very clearly, Mr. Delorme.

[English]

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here today.

It's been said around the table that we take very seriously the importance of the community aspect of the broadcasting system. I have to repeat that from my corner of this room. It's been said that Canadian content, Canadian culture, starts...Northrop Frye says culture is local. It happens in our lives, in our streets, and this is what we believe in. I hear this loud and clear from all of you.

I want your comments on a point made in a submission before yours. It expressed the belief that the CRTC has made several errors. We do hear this all over the place. A recommendation in the 1986 Caplan-Sauvageau task force was that licences be awarded to communities wanting to establish community TV services. Instead, the CRTC awarded the channels to the cable carriers--mistake number one.

Then mistake number two was in 1998 when the CRTC withdrew the obligation for the cable stations to maintain those community channels. This has in fact led, in that group's mind, to a real slide in quality, an inability to sustain community stations, and in fact the whole structure is in jeopardy at this time. Am I hearing the same thing from you? Would that be a fair analysis?

Â (1245)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Delorme: The act lays out certain things very clearly. We have analyzed the Broadcasting Act because we appealed the decision, and when you do that, you have to base your arguments on the act.

We found that the CRTC would conveniently highlight certain aspects of the act and completely neglect others. For example, there is no community service here. The act clearly states that such service is important, that having a community service is a priority, but there is still no community service. The CRTC feels that the economy is most important, that good use of the frequency was what counted, and that it was not convinced that a community channel was the best use of the frequency. So the CRTC is playing with the terms of the legislation in finally coming to its decision. It is not accountable to anyone for its decisions, that is, it does not provide responses or explanations. So it overlooks a lot of things. All the CRTC people come from the commercial sector and go back to the commercial sector afterward. It is a short-term commitment for them. It is clear that they do not feel that they are doing anything wrong, but that the commercial paradigm takes precedence over the others. What is important to them is the good use of a frequency, which is a public good.

We only need to look at the issue of public goods. Frequencies are public goods. So the community that will be served is an important consideration. But the CRTC never took it into account in this case. That is shameful. The group that obtained the licence did not have any support. Yet we were overwhelmed. We submitted petitions with 400 names to the CRTC. That was nothing. What did it count for? It was the group that said that... Moreover, we told the CRTC that we wanted access to the contributions from the private sector. We were refused.

I will give you an example of what the CRTC has allowed. NewCap gives a $2.5-million dollar donation over five years to commercial aboriginal radio to promote Canadian talent. What we asked for, we did not get. At the same hearing, however, the CRTC did give it to the aboriginal group, which is a commercial radio station that will re-transmit 15% local content from Toronto using the second frequency. That group was given $2.5 million and $500,000 to get its station up and running. The CRTC accepted that while we were there. There were no journalists in the room and no one to witness that contradiction... They accepted that without batting an eye. It is incredible.

The act has been gutted. The government did mention that the private sector had to contribute to Canadian programming. The CRTC took that and said that it was going to set up one fund for films and one for ADISQ. That's it, that's all!

Nothing is working anymore. Right in the middle of the hearing, Ms. Wylie asked me how many times I had asked the same question, submitted the same application and had the same thing turned down.

The Chair: I will give Mr. Pachul and Mr. Davis an opportunity to comment.

[English]

Do you want to add something?

Mr. Jan Pachul: Yes, I'd like to comment.

I share Mr. Delorme's frustration with the CRTC; there does not seem to be any accountability to the public.

Â (1250)

The Chair: On that question, it unites a lot of people.

Mr. Jan Pachul: Yes, it does.

Mr. Delorme was speaking about spending $50,000-plus on applications. Well, this is the type of thing you have to do to get anywhere, period, with the CRTC. I don't know if it was true in Mr. Delorme's case, but you always have these big broadcasters attacking the small fry saying, “Well, you're going to affect our business; you're going to take our eyeballs”, and all this, and there is no accountability.

For one thing, the cable company has no accountability for their community channel. Lately in Toronto all they've been doing is using the community channel as a PR channel for their various cable services. You can't go in there to get a show done; it's all professional--professionally run, professional people running everything--and there is no access to the community.

Another big problem, of course, is the fact that the cable company doesn't really care about access. I've talked to several people out in Vancouver, and Shaw Cable considers public access a dirty word. I've heard that quote. What you basically have in broadcasting in this country is a bunch of unsavoury people who decided to hijack the process--through their lawyers, their lobbyists, and their special interest groups.

The Chair: Let's keep the language clean, Mr. Pachul.

Mr. Jan Pachul: Yes. Well, you have to recognize that I do have a very high level of frustration from about five years of dealing with the CRTC.

The Chair: Yes, I understand. If we didn't know, we would have found out.

We'll conclude with Mr. Davies or Mr. Collins.

Mr. Ken Collins: May I have clarification of the question, please?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I asked whether you agreed with the claim that there were two significant errors made by the CRTC, one of them being to give the licensing to cable companies instead of to the communities, and, number two, to relieve them of their responsibilities in 1998 to actually finance community stations.

Mr. Ken Collins: Absolutely. The experience in Kimberly has been both with the cable and with the industrial mine that kept the town going. When management lives in the community--we're surrounded by mountains--and when they can't leave, things are good for the community, but as they get further and further away from the community, things get worse and they do less.

If they have an accountant running it, there is profit but not big profit. There's no way to maximize your profits through community television. At the same time, it's the thing that gives the community stability. It's the reflection of the community. It's the same thing as giving the community reflective thought.

I think you're all quite cognizant of that, so I didn't belabour the point, but I had it written down. The thing that gives our community stability is the good dialogue within the community and its ability to see itself. The reason we can do that right now is because it has an established history of it. For the instant communities, or ones that have been paved over or whose demographics have changed so they don't have that stability, you can't simply mechanically pop what we have in place and have it work. I think you'll need to establish an independent mentorship program where you can have people go in and consult and help people set these things up and make them work for the community. I don't think it'll happen on its own, and if it's left simply to profit, it will degenerate to its lowest level.

Mr. Roger Davies: Perhaps I can add an example of that. In Kimberly we went from locally owned to owners that had no interest in the cable company other than the profit margin.

Cable television got so bad that the community itself instituted an escrow account and we paid our money into this escrow account until the cable company finally got its act together. It was wonderful. We got all kinds of attention. In fact, even the CRTC met in Cranbrook instead of Vancouver to hear this.

So the moral of the story is, if you're going to tangle with Kimberly, you'd better watch out!

The Chair: I think that's a good way to finish this session.

We've been here four hours since this morning. We've been four hours together, you and ourselves, and I think that points to the importance of the subject we've discussed.

I'd like to thank you all very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Delorme, I would like to say to you and your colleagues that your message has certainly been pointed, clear and very passionate. We have paid close attention.

Â (1255)

Mr. Michel Delorme: I would invite you to listen to the children's radio service. This afternoon, we will be testing. Tomorrow we are starting our 100-day period. For the first time here in the capital, you will be hearing live from people in Quebec City's lower town, Cheticamp and many other places across Canada.

It is just a shadow of the project we submitted to the CRTC. Listen to children's radio on 96.5. You will see that it is something that is needed.

The Chair:96.5. We've got the message.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.