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, April 9, 2002

0915

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

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

0920

0925

0930

The Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

0935

0940

0945

0950

The Chair

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Dyane Adam

0955

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

1000

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

1005

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1010

Mr. Claude Duplain

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Claude Duplain

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin (President of the provincial ACFO, Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario)

1020

1025

1030

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel (President, Cooperative radiophonique de Toronto)

1035

1040

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Georges Arès (Président, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada)

1045

1050

1055

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Robin Cantin (Communications Director, Fédération des communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Robin Cantin

Mr. Georges Arès

1100

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Robin Cantin

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

1105

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Christian Martel

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Georges Arès

1110

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

1115

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel

1120

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Christian Martel

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Georges Arès

1125

The Chair

Mr. Christian Martel

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Robin Cantin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 047

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))): The meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has now been called to order. We are meeting today to continue our study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

[English]

Today we're very pleased to welcome, from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the commissioner herself, Madame Dyane Adam,

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Finn, Director General, Policies and Communications, and Mr. Alain Clavet, Senior Policy Analyst;

[English]

and from the Senate, our colleague, l'honorable Jean-Robert Gauthier.

Madame Adam, the floor is yours. Bonjour.

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Honourable committee members, Mr. Chairman, today, in my role as Commissioner of Official Languages, I would like to tell you how important it is for me to participate in these hearings on the Broadcasting Act and its possible revision.

Radio and television play an essential cultural and social role. Do these powerful means of communication promote the creation of the country we want, and in particular one based on the fundamental Canadian value of linguistic duality? Your deliberations and the consultations you are currently undertaking on this issue are of great importance for our country. Therefore, I am indeed pleased to share with you some considerations about the importance of the Broadcasting Act for the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

As early as 1986, the Caplan-Sauvageau report underlined the importance of a broadcasting system that adequately reflects Canadian linguistic duality and cultural diversity. These objectives are also at the heart of the Broadcasting Act of 1991. It specifies that all elements of the broadcasting system—public, private and community—and all types of undertakings—radio, television and cable broadcasting—must help attain these objectives.

[English]

With the Internet revolutionizing international communications and with digital distribution making possible an unprecedented number of programming services of all kinds, it is now more than ever essential not only to affirm the principle of Canadian linguistic duality but also to use new means to give it effect. This is a daunting challenge. Our country must find innovative ways of affirming linguistic duality in a broadcasting system that is facing the challenges of globalization and the convergence of digital communication technologies. The influence of television and the Internet on young Canadians is impossible to ignore. A country springs from the dreams of communities, but with those dreams transmitted by television and the Internet, will they be truly Canadian? That's the question.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to say a few words about the role of the national public broadcaster. CBC/Radio-Canada plays a central role in offering quality Canadian content in both official languages on both radio and television.

It plays this role through its national networks, its specialty channels, its cultural radio networks, its pay audio services and its Internet radio services. However, budget cuts and a splintering of audiences as a result of exploding choice and increased competition have weakened our public television.

Now, more than ever, Canada needs a strong public network broadcasting high-quality content that reflects our cultural and linguistic identity. This is a societal choice that we must make with pride and conviction. Accepting this choice in favour of quality public television means that Canadians must stop questioning the public resources essential to a public broadcasting corporation.

CBC/Radio-Canada has played and must continue to play a central role in building our Canadian identity. That is why adequate and stable funding must be provided to this institution. A dynamic public television network is the means for sustaining and transmitting Canada's social framework based on linguistic duality.

¿ (0920)

[English]

With respect to minority official language community services, the recent CRTC report, Achieving a better balance, is a major milestone on the road to increasing the availability of French-language television throughout Canada. Supplying Canadian services, based on the digital capacity of cable companies, represents an important change.

More must be done, however, so the media better reflects the reality of the official language communities. Quebec anglophones outside Montreal have little access to regional news services and regional programs in their language. Not all francophones outside Quebec have access to RDI. Radio-Canada's cultural radio channel is not available in five Canadian provinces. Happily, Radio-Canada recently asked that this situation be corrected.

The debates of the House of Commons, so essential to the healthy exercise of Canadian democracy, are not always available to Canadians in the official language of their choice. This situation is set to improve with the recent CRTC decision.

Why did it take citizens' complaints to the commissioner, investigations, reports, and public discussion to increase access to the debates on CPAC in both official languages?

[Translation]

Today, we are constantly reacting to crisis situations. The Broadcasting Act should set out clear objectives that ensure that the minority official-language communities are truly taken into account in the Canadian broadcasting system.

Now, what role should the private sector play? The private sector, both from a programming and distribution perspective, also plays an important role in reflecting our linguistic identity. And it must continue to do so. I am pleased to note that Canadians today have access to English- and French-language national networks, such as Global, CBC and CTV, SRC and TVA.

I am also pleased by the recent CRTC decision, in response to the report, Achieving a Better Balance, requiring land-based and satellite distributors with the capacity to offer, in digital mode, all Canadian specialty and pay TV services, analogue and category 1 digital broadcasting in either official language. As digital broadcasting becomes more common, this will give an ever-increasing number of Canadians access to a very wide range of Canadian broadcasting in English and French on a multitude of subjects and reaching extremely wide audiences.

[English]

We must not, however, neglect the role played by community radio and television services and public educational television. On the contrary, we must strengthen it.

In this year of national and indeed transnational networks, it is more important than ever to strengthen the voices that meet the needs of local and regional communities.

How is it, for example, that a large francophone community in Toronto still has no French-language community radio station?

We must recognize the importance of this service and reserve a frequency for it. Community radio and television play an essential role in allowing a community to express itself. The CRTC should consider the issue of linguistic duality in its decisions on community radio and television stations.

[Translation]

One way to do this would be to promote free Canada-wide broadcasting of the provincial education television networks, such as Télé-Québec and TFO in French, and TVO, Access, SCN and Knowledge in English. The distributors should thus offer all the provincial educational television services in digital format. This major change would encourage the habit of listening to Canadian broadcasts in both official languages from a young age everywhere in Canada.

¿ (0925)

[English]

With regard to the Internet shift, we must also adapt to the present; that is, the new realities of Internet broadcasting. We have no time to waste, as the Internet already offers almost 2,000 radio stations, wide-band and high-speed networks are expanding, and experiments with video on demand on the Internet are multiplying.

We must quickly invest the resources required to ensure a strong presence of quality Canadian television programs and other broadcasting content on the Internet in both official languages. We may be happy in having a wider range of high-quality choices among the new means of distribution available to Canadians, but we must still ensure that these choices include a wide range of Canadian programs that have a high profile and are easy to access.

We must also ensure that the increased availability of Canadian content broadcasting on the Internet respects linguistic duality and helps to attain the objective of the Canadian broadcasting policy. Of course, this will require not only new financial resources but also an appropriate incentive framework in the new universe that is unfolding.

Canadian programs in English and French are condemned to either excellence or marginalization. We have a collective choice to make. Let us ensure that we have the means and the drive necessary to allow us to achieve excellence and to enforce Canadian social fabric in the context of the new media marketplace.

[Translation]

I would now like to turn to the role of the CRTC. The various examples already mentioned clearly indicate that the CRTC must take into account the impact of its decisions on the official language communities. Not only must the national television and radio networks be available to the linguistic majorities and minorities, but they must also reflect them and help contribute to Canada's social fabric, one based in particular on linguistic duality. We must think about the means needed to obtain this objective. To this end, the Commission has an obligation to achieve results. As was mentioned in the Supreme Court decision in the Beaulac case: “Language rights are not negative rights, or passive rights; they can only be enjoyed if the means are provided.”

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Official Languages Act is a quasi-constitutional act, and the CRTC should place greater emphasis on achieving the objectives of the act within the framework of its orientations and decision-making--always respecting the CRTC's independence as an administrative tribunal. To this end, the committee members may wish to examine the possibility of strengthening, if required, the relevant clauses of the Broadcasting Act.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act states, in section 41, that:

The Government of Canada is committed to

(a) enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and

(b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The CRTC should, moreover, be added to the list of the key federal agencies for the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act, which I have just quoted.

[Translation]

In conclusion, in the process that is beginning, the committee must reaffirm, clearly and strongly the need for the Government of Canada to reaffirm its intention to ensure the vitality of Canadian culture in both of our official languages; the need for all components of the broadcasting system to adequately reflect our society's linguistic duality; and the primacy of our linguistic and cultural identity over purely commercial considerations.

I therefore recommend that your committee propose mechanisms to make it possible to ensure adequate funding for the national public broadcaster and community broadcasters and to ensure the free Canada-wide distribution of the English- and French-language public educational channels.

I am also recommending that your committee propose the encouragement of alliances among the various public corporations and not-for-profit content-producing firms in order to create a critical mass of quality Canadian content in both official languages.

[English]

Also, I recommend increasing the distribution of quality Canadian broadcast content via the Internet, as well as the ability of Canadians to access this content, and finally, encouraging the export of public and private English- and French-language broadcast content in order to allow them to contribute actively to the preservation and promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity on a global scale.

Thank you for your attention. I would certainly be pleased to answer your questions if you have any.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Adam.

We will proceed to questions following Senator Gauthier's presentation.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning.

As you know, the situation of Canada's francophone communities is of great concern to me, and has been so for perhaps 40 years.

Broadcasting services must be accessible to these communities. This is to me, a decisive element in the development and growth of these communities.

I have had many opportunities in the course of my career to speak on this issue. But I have flung myself into it even more intensively over the past few years, following a decision—a most unfortunate decision, in my opinion—by the CRTC on the broadcast and distribution of TFO, Ontario's French-language television channel, in the province of Quebec.

For the record, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, which manages TVO and TFO, applied to the CRTC to require cable companies in Quebec to offer (simply to offer, not to impose) the TFO signal to their customers in Quebec. The idea was simple: if TFO were added to the grid, Quebecers could, by paying a few cents extra every month, have access to another French-language channel, and one that would give them an interesting window on to a reality about which they often know too little.

Obviously, this was an idea that could hurt no one, except perhaps the entyenth American channel that would have had to be eliminated to make room for TFO. The idea seemed so obvious that of the 1,500 and more people who took part in the CRTC's public consultation—99.3% were in favour and less than 1 %, 0.7%, was against. Out of the 12 who opposed TFO's application, 9 represented the Quebec broadcasting industry. Nevertheless, the CRTC rejected TFO's application. The only possible conclusion is that it favoured the industry's preference over the will of the people and Canada's national interest. And that is what made me react so vigorously.

Since then, I have spared no effort to try to have the CRTC's decision overturned, which is no easy task, and above all to show how illogical it was in the context of Canada's linguistic and cultural duality. I tried political avenues, I tried legal avenues, I tried the courts—all of that costs money. I think I can say that I tried everything, unfortunately without much success. The ruling was upheld.

The main result of my efforts was that the Canadian government requested the CRTC by order in council, to hold public hearings on the availability and the quality of French-language broadcasting services in the French linguistic minority communities in Canada. A target date was set of December 31, 2000. A major national consultation was accordingly carried out across Canada, enabling francophones and francophiles from virtually every part of the country to give their views on the issue. A well-documented report, containing a number of valuable recommendations, emerged from the consultation: Achieving a Better Balance: Report on French-Language Broadcasting Services in a Minority Environment (CRTC, February 2001). I would urge the committee to read it. If you would like, I will distribute copies of the report to you.

I myself prepared a report in the context of this consultation, a document entitled: Submission to the CRTC on Public Notice CRTC 2000-74 in August 2000. This report contains a good number of the arguments that I would like to review with you this morning. I hope they will be of interest to you.

¿ (0935)

This report took me three months to complete, and it is not always easy to cover the entire situation, the entire issue. I have reviewed these facts because they highlight the immediacy of our discussion and enable me to go straight to the point.

[English]

I think the first question that must be considered is the issue's importance. I don't need to tell you that broadcast media—radio, television, and now the Internet—occupy an increasingly important place in our cultural landscape, if indeed not overwhelm it entirely. Ensuring that these media are accessible to us, that they speak to us, and that they reflect who we are is vitally important for all Canadians, whether they speak French or English, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.

On this issue I would refer you to the many arguments in support of cultural sovereignty and to the more recent debate on cultural diversity that our Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps, is waging so vigorously on the international scene.

The importance of this issue is also reflected in many legislative, administrative, and financial instruments, such as the 1991 Broadcasting Act, the CRTC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, support for Canadian television production, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Television Fund, the Canadian content legislation and regulations, and so on.

In this regard, I want to mention the recent announcement made by Minister Copps. I found it in Le Droit on April 4 last on the public consultation concerning the re-evaluation of Canadian content in cinematographic production. Here again we have the occasion to put in our contribution. Those measures will add to the many federal initiatives of the past few years having to do with the Internet—for instance, Industry Canada's Canadian strategy.

Canada's special circumstances sometimes force us to fight on two fronts: for cultural sovereignty on the one hand, to contain the invasion of our airwaves by American signals and content; and for language rights on the other, to ensure that broadcasting services are accessible to all Canadians in both official languages. A number of provisions have been put in place to ensure respect for our linguistic duality.

The Broadcasting Act explicitly recognizes the importance. The CRTC enshrines it in its mandate. You will find that on the website, and I quote: “Our mandate is to ensure programming that reflects the linguistic duality”. The major federal institutions, such as the CBC, Radio-Canada, reflect it in their structures. But these measures are not enough to wipe out the imbalance or the asymmetry that exists between the broadcasting services available in French and in English. Even in Quebec, which I like to call Canada's biggest francophone minority, the discrepancy is blatant. While French-language signals have increased over the past few years, in particular with the proliferation of specialty channels, the number of channels available in French remains disproportionately smaller than the number of channels available in English.

I wish to draw your attention to the proposal I tabled in the annex to my submission on August 19, 2000. You will find I reproduced a page of Le Droit here in Ottawa made by Vidéotron at about the same time, August 2000.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

It says that this is “the best à la carte television choice in French!”

[English]

If you look at this closely, you have an example of what I mean by under-representation, or asymmetry. In Quebec right now, Vidéotron offers on its basic programming 20 programs, 20 stations or whatever.

[Translation]

Eight of the twenty channels provided are francophone. There is a choice of 55 channels in the second basic package, of which only 9 are in French: 40% are part of the basic package and 16% are part of the additional package.

[English]

A similar observation is inescapable if we look at the new technologies. The world of the Internet, as shown in a recent document from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages entitled French on the Internet, is primarily English-speaking. French content is relatively rare and generally consists of translated rather than original material.

I would recommend you read that report also.

[Translation]

What is true for Canada as a whole is all the more true for francophone minority communities. In Quebec, the concentration of the French-speaking population has, despite everything, made it possible over the years to establish a fairly significant inventory of services in French. Télé-Québec and ArtTv are good examples.

Outside Quebec, the situation is poles apart. In many regions, French-language television services are limited to one or two signals, that of Radio-Canada and, since it achieved national status, TVA. Some times RDI, TV5 and a few French-language specialty channels, such as MusiquePlus, Réseau des sports, Canal Famille, are also available, but may no be provided: it depends on the good will of the local cable company.

The only province where the situation is somewhat different is Ontario, which with TFO benefits from another French-language signal, and what is more, a regional one. Thanks to certain distribution agreements, a number of regions outside Ontario also have access to TFO, including New Brunswick and parts of Manitoba.

Furthermore, in Ontario, all of the cable systems give or provide TFO. The rest is provided by three antennas: one Hawkesbury, one in Sudbury and another one somewhere in the north.

A similar assessment holds true, generally speaking, for radio, despite the fairly recent development of a community radio network and, I might add, for the Internet. Not only are the available services limited, but often they come from outside and contain little content directly relevant to the local community.

The situation is thus extremely prejudicial to the growth and development of francophone minority communities whose very existence, as the census reminds us regularly, is threatened by assimilation.

As I said in my submission to the CRTC in August 2000: “A deficit for a language shows that many of those who can use the language are using another for day-to-day communication.” This is common place both at school and at work. Francophones are speaking English. And we wonder why they are being assimilated. It is easy to understand: there are no tools to encourage them.

¿ (0945)

[English]

So it is for all these reasons that I have for several years been demanding concrete and energetic action to support minority communities. Lip service is not enough.

Such action could take three directions.

First, the CRTC notes in its report that it's not so much that services are not available for francophone communities as they are not often accessible to them. It says:

Francophones and Francophiles living in minority communities continue to have limited access to the French-language broadcasting services available in Quebec, unless they subscribe to [DTH, direct-to-home satellite services].

The CRTC is basing its hope on the development of digital television to expand the choice offered to francophone communities. I do not reject this avenue, but I think it must be accompanied by a much more manifest political will to convince or oblige cable companies to offer their subscribers richer and more diversified French-language service packages.

The case of Télé des Arts, AR-TV, is virtually, at this time, inaccessible outside Quebec. And that speaks volumes for my argument.

[Translation]

It is not enough for francophone minority communities to have access to more French-language signals. The signals they receive must also speak to them, reflect to them an interesting image of themselves, which is indeed a key function of the media. That is one of the criticisms that representatives of francophone minority communities often make of Radio-Canada—that content put together in Montreal is of little relevance to them. The same criticism can certainly be addressed to TVA.

Yesterday I tried to find out some information about TVA production. I was unable to get an answer. I do not know whether or not your contacts are better than mine, but I called TVA and I was told that this was not currently available. However, TVA has had a licence for regional production for several years now. I still haven't seen any yet.

That is why I support the TFO initiative, seeing it as an original model for the production and distribution of content that comes from the communities themselves. The welcome given to TFO by francophones in New Brunswick shows that this is a route worth exploring. On the basis of this experience, I believe it would be possible to design a national network for Canada's francophone communities that would be based on close cooperation among TFO, Télé-Québec and perhaps certain provinces such as New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta.

Finally, we must also think about the future and start establishing a firm French presence on the Internet. I support the many recommendations made by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, hoping that here too these proposals will lead to action and not be confined to sterile discussion in endless committees.

In the broadcasting field, changes are happening every day. I am one of those who believe that it would be appropriate to include a sunset clause in the Broadcasting Act. A seven-year adjustment period would be defendable and would permit adjustment of the federal policy in this matter.

It would also be appropriate for this committee to clarify the concept of public interest. This is the argument we were given in the case of the TFO application. We were told that it was not in the public's interest to grant TFO's application. I think that we need to correct this inconsistency which has, to a great extent, cut off TFO, the only francophone network from outside Quebec, from its critical mass of francophones, its natural clientele.

Francophone communities—of which I am a member—need to talk to each other, see each other and understand each other. Globalization has an impact on them just as it does on the majority

I would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

I'd like to mention to members that the House has to suspend its work today at 11:30. We had projected to sit until 1 o'clock today. We have two choices at the very last minute, because we only found out about this yesterday. We can postpone some of our witnesses, which we didn't want to do at the last minute because it wouldn't have been fair. At the same time, we are faced with a constraint to finish at 11:30.

So what I would suggest to members,

[Translation]

And I would like to ask for their cooperation. I would suggest that they ask this group questions until 10:15, and then we could hear these three other groups that are to testify.

[English]

If we could just have 25 minutes for questions for this session, then we'll have a chance to hear the three other groups before 11:30.

Mr. Abbott.

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

There's just one word I'm not familiar with, Senator. In item 9 on page 4, it says “A major national consultation was accordingly carried out across Canada, enabling francophones—and francophiles—from virtually every part of the country...”. I'm not familiar with the term “francophiles”. Just for my own edification, I wonder if you could give me a definition of “francophiles” so that I understand precisely what you're saying there.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you are asking me the question, I will answer. It means somebody who likes. “Phile” means to like. It is someone who knows and admires things that are French. That's all.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, thank you very much. I should tell you that I have brought up the issue of the TFO in committee previously. I won't go there again except to say that I find myself in agreement with you. I believe we're in full agreement on that application.

Madam Adam, you spoke in your recommendations about an incentive framework, and I also heard you say, “purely commercial considerations” and “adequate funding for community broadcasters”. Have you brought, or could you bring, the committee some kind of idea of what the actual cost would be for what you're talking about? If we're talking about putting more of a cost burden on the commercial enterprises, clearly they are either going to have to raise their subscription rates to the cable or satellite viewers or the advertisers--or wherever they're going to get their dollars from--or we're looking at a direct out-of-pocket expense for the Canadian taxpayer. I read your ideas here; I have some concerns about them, but I'll leave that alone. I'm just wondering if you've actually applied a dollars-and-cents value to your recommendations.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, it's not up to the commissioner to do all the accounting. What is important is the principle being put forward. If we want a sound industry that is Canadian in identity, in content, we have to put forth some incentives. As you know, we already do that, whether it's Telefilm Canada that is funding productions both in French and in English--or we, the federal government, also do that with respect to the Internet. We are in fact supporting, whether it's the private sector or the community or public sector, digitizing or even producing content that is Canadian.

So the thrust of my intervention here is that as we define ourselves, our children are being educated and entertained by radio, television, and the Internet. This is shaping their psyches and what they are. We need to ensure we put appropriate mechanisms in place so that their minds are shaped with what we value, as Canadians, as part of our social identity and fabric. Otherwise, they will be shaped by other contents, other realities, and other value systems that may be great for their countries but not necessarily ours.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is neither the appropriate time nor place to enter into debate, so my next question is not in debate. I'm just wondering, in terms of the voluntary turning on of a television show, which all Canadians have, if you're in some parts of Quebec where English is seldom if ever heard, or in some parts of western or rural or Atlantic Canada where French is seldom if ever heard, and you have a cable provider or whatever who is instructed--at some cost to the cable provider, to the company, at some cost somewhere--to provide these French channels, are you presuming people in Quebec, people in francophone communities, and people in anglophone communities are going to voluntarily turn those programs on that they can't understand? I'm just trying to understand how this is going to happen, in your world, because I guess your world vision and my world vision have a different starting point.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, you seem to divide the world into two opposites; that is, people who live in certain parts of the country may be unilingual French and in other parts of the country they are unilingual English. The reality is otherwise. Canada is becoming more and more bilingual, and certainly more multilingual.

So what is important is that we offer all Canadians, wherever they live, the possibility to sustain the languages, to learn about what is happening in their own country, let's say in Quebec or in B.C., in the two official languages, and in the language in which they feel most comfortable. The question of channel is not just about language, it's about communication, information that is being transported by a type of culture. It has an imprint. So if you listen to a translation of whatever program...if it's American, I can tell you that you may get English, but you're not getting Canadian culture, you're getting American culture.

I'm saying that Canadians are becoming increasingly bilingual. I'm looking forward to the statistics from the next census; probably these numbers are increasing.

When you talk about choice, there's no choice if there's nothing that comes into your home that has Canadian content and is offered in both official languages.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): This is an important issue. Having travelled in Western Canada, in this case Saskatchewan, I too became concerned by the situation of francophones in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Gauthier said earlier that Radio-Canada was often criticized about the fact that there was very little content about francophone communities in the regions. There is a lot content about Montreal, but there is not much in the regions. We could be saying the same thing to Radio-Canada. We often make the same criticisms in Quebec. Sometimes we hear the news from Alberta, about what is going on in the daily lives of people there, and the people often tell us that they would prefer to have local programming.

I that that is one aspect of the act. We have little in the way of regional or local news. Those in charge of the networks often send us their programming. In Quebec, we have less news coming from Quebec or our regions, but we do get news that comes from outside Quebec. This is a complaint that we have heard in Quebec as well.

I can understand that, for francophone communities outside Quebec, it is important to have programs broadcast in French but, as well, production that comes from the region and that talks about them. This is what the francophone groups out West told us. The want to have programming that is produced by them, that reflects their lives and they want programs that people can relate to. I think that there shoulld be a drastic change of direction so that this type of programming and production is made possible, so that the artists and the technicians there can participate. That, in a nutshell, is the reality facing the francophone community in Saskatchewan.

I do not know whether or not Mr. Gauthier agrees with me, but there must be, and this doesn't apply only to francophones outside Quebec, programming that is much more regional and more in tune with reality experienced by the various communities.

À (1000)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We were able to do regional production seven or eight years ago. As a result of the cutbacks at Radio-Canada, regional production was slashed to half of what it was.

I must confess that I feel like a bit of an outsider with respect to Montreal when I watch Radio-Canada. And when I look at the CBC, I feel like an outsider with respect to Toronto. I rarely see what's happening with franco-Ontarians, unless I watch TFO which has a regional production team.

Put yourself in the shoes of the Acadian, who has no educational television, who relies on Radio-Canada. In many cases, this is recent. Coverage was not provided right from the start; it came about as a result of many arguments and a lot of pressure.

We, the minorities, have had a hard time. Nevertheless, there are one million of us, in answer to Mr. Abbott's earlier question. There are one million francophones, but there are perhaps a million and a half francophiles, people who speak French but who are not necessarily francophone by birth. We need national radio or television that will help us, that will enable our young people, in particular, to see each other, talk to each other, understand each other. If we don't do that, we will miss the boat.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Honourable colleagues of the joint committee, Ms. Adam and assistants, welcome to the committee.

Ms. Adam, in your third recommendation, you suggested that some alliances be formed. However, Mr. Gauthier proposes the same thing on page 10, and I know that when we hear from the FCFA, it will, I think, be proposing that we create a national Canadian francophonie network. This will undoubtedly take money and, as well, it will certainly take some will on the part of broadcasters and producers.

Are you expecting Mr. Dion to include that in his comprehensive plan, given that, as far as the francophone communities living throughout Canada are concerned, communications is probably what is most important?

À (1005)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, I am expecting Mr. Dion to consider this request, this requirement that is essential to the existence of francophones outside of Quebec. Quebecers will take care of themselves since they form the majority in their province, but if we want to encourage francophones outside Quebec to continue speaking French, we are going to have to give them the institutions that they need. Television, radio, communications are essential to the existence of these communities.

Ms. Dyane Adam: To add to what Senator Gauthier has said, I think that it is indeed important to provide minority official language communities—we are speaking primarily about the francophonie in this case—with television and radio that reflects who they are and talks about them. I think that you all mentioned that you were in agreement. And we need to have a real choice, and not be just limited to one channel, right?

We talk about alliances. Obviously, we would like to see a much broader exchange between the minority communities and the Quebec community, because we need to promote Canadian francophonie. There is a need to establish ties and bridges between the minority communities. And as the senator mentioned, Quebec, where the largest francophone community can be found, is still a minority in terms of the continent and the country.

So it is very important that we establish these links and networks and that we also develop, of course, some expertise.

An hon. member: On the government side.

Ms. Dyane Adam: That is right.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I add that...

The Chair: A brief comment, Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to add a small reminder. Aboriginal people have already got a national network, as do women. I'm not saying that francophones constitute a specialized network, but they are nevertheless one of the founding people of this country, and I think that we do need to pay attention to the existence of francophone communities throughout Canada.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I'm a little bit confused when you say that the CRTC turned down the TFO channel, saying that it was not in the public interest. Could you please elaborate a bit on that? I find that a little hard to believe. And when you talk about defining the public interest, how do you see that?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is an interesting question. Yesterday or the day before, I tried to ask the CRTC what they meant by “public interest”. I was told that they did not have a definition. I pointed out to them that they had used that point as their final argument in the TFO case. They said that it was not in the public interest to approve this TFO application, thereby obligating cable operators in Quebec to offer the TFO signal. It should be noted that we say “offer”; it is optional. I told them that I didn't understand, that I had put my own money into the case, that I had gone to the Federal Court, to the Supreme Court and that I hadn't been listened to, I hadn't been heard and that the court did not want to hear me because it was not in the public interest. So I told them that it was up to them to define public interest since the broadcaster, the chief, the big boss as we say, the CRTC, had used that as an argument. I asked them to define what they meant for me. I understand what is meant by “national interest”, but I do not understand what is meant by “public interest”. Do you understand?

À (1010)

Mr. Claude Duplain: So perhaps we should use the term “national interest” rather than “public interest” and define national interest in the area of language and respect for minority rights?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This discussion could last a long time, a lot longer than the time we have this morning, before we arrive at any conclusion. However, if the term “public interest” is used, or if the CRTC uses it to justify refusing an application by TFO to have its programs aired by cable distributors, they will need a clear and specific definition so that it is defensible. The courts don't want to go into this debate because politicians have not agreed on what they mean by “public interest”. So I am asking the question. My job is to ask questions, and attempt to obtain answers. I am putting one question to the chair and one question to the committee. What does “public interest” actually mean? Think about iy. It means quite a lot of things.

Mr. Claude Duplain: In the light of your studies and research, are the problems associated with broadcasting in minority languages caused by the regulations, or are they caused by broadcasters' pursuit of their own economic interests?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will give you my own point of view. I believe that the CRTC has been affected by commercial interests in its decisions, particularly with respect to TFO. It has listened to Quebec's major cable distributors, like Videotron and COGECO. Broadcasting TFO was not in their interest. TFO does not pay: it shows no sexism or violence, and everything on it is in French. It doesn't run ads, either. So it's not very profitable, but it is a French-language channel. In my view, the CRTC's decision will hit TFO very hard, and might even cause it to disappear. If we can't air our programs in the other provinces, if we simply have to stay within our borders and not bother anyone...

The critical mass of francophones in Canada is within Quebec. I need to feel comfortable. I need them to understand me. When I go to Quebec, Quebeckers say: “You speak French, Mr. Gauthier.” I answer that I do, that over 1 million francophones outside Quebec speak French. They don't even know we exist. There are francophones across Canada, but the critical mass of francophones are still in Quebec, and I would like access to that critical mass so that I can reach it, so that I can see these people and talk to them, as I see and talk to Mr. Sauvageau regularly.

The Chair: I would like to thank Ms. Adam, her colleagues and Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier for appearing before us today and sharing their comments. We were very happy to hear your views.

I will now to invite the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to come forward.

À (1013)

À (1016)

The Chair: We would like to welcome the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, represented by its President, Jean-Marc Aubin, as well as the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto, represented by President Christian Martel, as well as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, represented by its President, Georges Arès, its Director General, Richard Barrette, and its Communications Director, Robin Cantin. Mr. Aubin, would you care to begin?

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin (President of the provincial ACFO, Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and your colleagues on the committee for hearing us this morning. I know that this is a historic day, because of the international events announced this morning, and that many things are going on. I will therefore try to be brief.

In August 2000, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario prepared a comprehensive brief after conducting in-depth research. For reasons beyond our control, we have had to postpone the submission of that brief a number of times. We therefore had to revise it. This morning, my remarks will constitute a summary of the brief, against the backdrop of conditions that prevail today, some two years after the original brief was written.

The brief is on dissemination of the French language in Ontario, and is entitled Accessibility of French-Language Electronic Media in Ontario. It was submitted in 2000. Ever since a report on broadcasting services in minority language communities was published on February 12, 2001, the CRTC has failed to institute the corrective measures we consider essential to improving television and radio broadcasting services in French. This morning, I would submit to you that these issues still concern us greatly.

First of all, I will talk about the accessibility of French-language broadcasting services in Ontario. Digital services make it possible for Ontario cable distributors to increase the number of French-language channels for francophones and francophile subscribers. Pursuant to the regulations established by the CRTC in autumn 2001, cable distributors are obliged to offer varying levels of service, regardless of the actual number of francophones living in areas where digital systems are available.

Cable distributors across Canada using bands at or above 750 MHz are required to offer all technically available specialty channels in French. Francophone minorities in Ontario have access to French-language channels provided they have digital decoders. The ACFO is satisfied that the changes make it possible for francophones to access the channels of their choice. However, one concern with the decision is that French-language services cost more. Subscribers are also required to buy or rent a decoder. Adapting to the new technology is a significant challenge for all subscribers, but particularly for seniors.

Cable distributors using digital bandwidths below 750 MHz are obliged to provide one French-language specialty channel for every 10 English-language channels outside Quebec. Most cable distributors in small communities operate on restricted bandwidths. In response to this, the ACFO maintains that the CRTC is not taking into account the needs of small francophone communities. For example, we know that in small communities like Hearst, which is 84% francophone, cable subscribers receive only 10 French-language channels out of the 60 available channels. The ACFO therefore demands that a policy favourable to rural French-language communities be established by the CRTC to provide such communities with better access to French-language channels.

À (1020)

The regulations do not consider the importance of small minority language communities with a high percentage of francophones. By the way, many of these small communities are disappearing because of economic reasons. In addition, it is often because of economic reasons that these communities do not have access to the services which they're entitled to receive.

Implementation of a digital system requires the participation of subscribers. Indeed, the digital system offers a wider choice of channels to subscribers. So francophones or francophiles can select channels in French. But who will be responsible for promoting a digital system in French?

The ACFO provinciale believes that the federal government has a significant role to play in this area, given that section 41 stipulates that we can expect it to protect our communities and promote their development. This is a striking example of this context.

The federal government should create a permanent organization mandated to promote the digital system in both French and English. ACFO provinciale is prepared to support an agency that would inform Franco-Ontarians about this opportunity to obtain more specialty channels in French.

Many television viewers do not even know about the numerous choices available through the digital system. This promotion work must be done because the big players in the cable industry have for a long time offered only the mandatory channels in French and have done very little advertising about the channels available in French. In addition, the cable operators communicate with their subscribers almost exclusively in English.

This is what happens, as we saw recently, both at the provincial and federal levels, when devolution occurs. And the devolution that I'm alluding to here is the devolution of government commitments, commitments made by governments that constantly quote the legislation protecting the minority languages of this country and which make commitments to promote rights and entitlements, until they outsource these commitments to somebody else. Up until this point, everything was okay or seemed to be all right. But as soon as they pass this responsibility on to someone else, you see this type of situation, where communication is in one language only.

The French channels are always found on the top of the grid in the analog system. The RDI station, in Toronto. is on channel 73 whereas its anglophone counterpart, Newsworld, is on 26. The same thing applies to the TV5 channel, which is on 59. Foreign channels coming from the United States are, generally speaking, better positioned than the French-language Canadian channels.

This leads us to ask a question: according to the CRTC's perception of its obligations to minorities, must the money from the cable industry be used to profit the Americans before thought is given to protecting the linguistic minority, given what we allow these people to do? In other words, the clients we favour are totally ignorant of the reality of Canada's linguistic minorities.

À (1025)

While awaiting to heighten the subscribers' awareness of the importance of digital programming, francophones in Ontario must continue their efforts to convince cable providers to put French-language channels in a better position on the analog band.

The ACFO wants the CRTC to implement measures relating to the blocking of French channels in residential buildings to the detriment of internal circuits.

Hotels also use a channel normally reserved for French programs to broadcast something else. This makes us wonder whether it is still important to protect the francophone minority. When it is a question of money, buildings, hotels or cable providers, as in this case, we are perfectly entitled to wonder whether it is still important to respect that linguistic minority.

These examples are not exactly consistent with what we would like to believe when it comes to defending our country, namely that we are well treated as a minority in Canada. This type of thing really leads one to wonder. Our doubts are legitimate.

As for French community radio in Ontario, local CBC programming is poor, as we said this morning. It is even skeletal in French Ontario. Moreover, the periodic strikes at the CBC do not help matters and show to what extent programming focuses on major centres.

As for university radio, it is still non-existent or nearly non-existent. Some stations produce shows here and there in the province, but you could not say that those radio shows play an important role in francophone Ontario.

Community radio meets special regional needs. Its role, in fact, is essential. There are four francophone community stations in Ontario. They are in Hearst, Kapuskasing, Penetanguishene and Cornwall and are controlled by the Mouvement des intervenants et intervenantes en communication radio de l'Ontario, an organization called MICRO.

However, there is no community radio in Toronto. For years, the Toronto ACFO and the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto have been trying to get a radio station for Toronto's francophone community. The figure we quoted in our brief is no longer correct. We will hear the actual number later on, which is approximately 140,000 to 150,000, and the figure provided by the Official Languages Commissioner is even higher than that because of demographic changes in that region.

The provincial wing of the ACFO asked the CRTC to review its most recent ruling to not award a radio frequency to the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto. We will see what happens.

The CRTC's ruling in 2000, which the Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier referred to this morning, to refuse mandatory broadcasting of TFO in Quebec on an optional analog band is a surprising ruling; the provincial wing of the ACFO still cannot comprehend the CRTC's reasoning.

It is difficult to understand why the CRTC maintains its position. The ACFO has given the same examples as Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier with regard to the study carried out and the percentages of people who supported it. Despite all that, we failed.

À (1030)

The Chair: May I ask you how much longer your presentation will last? We have to give your colleagues a chance.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: Yes, sir. We think the CRTC should intervene to solve the problem of difficult access to francophone channels, the blocking of francophone channels in residential buildings and the English-only Internet sites from cable providers.

The analog system is still widely used by Ontario francophones, especially in rural areas that face technological constraints.

I will stop there for the time being, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I'm sorry to have to speed things up, but unfortunately, we are subject to these constraints today.

Mr. Martel.

Mr. Christian Martel (President, Cooperative radiophonique de Toronto): I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to make this last-chance speech for the francophone community of Toronto. For over 13 years, and with more than 400 people, I have been volunteering my time in Toronto to establish francophone community radio that talks about us and is run by members of the community.

In my brief, I explain briefly that in 1988, when we found out there was only one remaining FM frequency in Toronto, the Toronto francophone community organized for the first time and took an interest in broadcasting.

In May 1989, almost 13 years ago, we submitted a brief to the CRTC. That is far from the only brief we have submitted. The message in our 1989 brief was the following: the CRTC has to keep the last FM frequency for francophones in Toronto. Since 1991, we have had five temporary broadcasts. That enabled over 400 people to participate in shows and to talk about their needs and concerns. We have now made representations to the CRTC 22 times, whether through briefs, letters or opposition to other applications, in our 13 years of existence.

Our brief mentions the fact that several books discuss the phenomenon of assimilation in Ontario, and particularly in Canada's largest city. This assimilation has unfortunate consequences that will be irreversible and irreparable if the Government of Canada does not help us raise the profile and quality of our beautiful language and its musical expression through mass media.

The assimilation rate, calculated by language transfer and as recorded by Statistics Canada in 1996, was 63% for the Toronto area and 41% for all of Ontario.

The francophone population decreases every year, and the disappearance of the French language haunts us every day. The francophone community of the biggest city in Canada is unseen and unheard because of the lack of means or platforms. In the brief we submitted to the committee, we discuss the notion of fairness: fairness in terms of means and fairness in terms of access to public airwaves.

When you compare the official language minority community of the city of Montreal to the other official language community in the city of Toronto, you can see that Montreal has 10 radio stations in the second official language, whereas in Toronto, we only have one, the French CBC. One can only ask whether the CRTC is doing its job of representing the public interest properly. We discussed that earlier with the Hon. Senator Gauthier.

Several members of our community admit they went years not knowing there were 1,185 designated French-language service providers in Toronto and a wide variety of activities in French in Toronto. The francophone community is a host community to the approximately 1,200 newcomers to Toronto who do not speak English. But how many of them assimilate into the anglophone community?

How have the available English-language broadcasting services in Toronto conveyed the opinions of francophone women, children and seniors, as well as the multiracial and multicultural dimensions of Toronto francophones? What can the Broadcasting Act do to help us change the situation?

Over 92.9% of the 700 Torontonians responding to our market surveys felt that French-language community radio met a serious and urgent need of the community.

There is a glaring dichotomy here. A francophone who lives and works in Toronto is far better informed about what is going on in Quebec or in the Outaouais region than about what is going on in his or her own community. A recent study on the content of English-language print media showed that the anglophone media never talk about the francophone minority living outside Quebec. However, the same media report on the positions and opinions of leaders of the minority anglophone community all across Canada. There is thus a glaring lack of fairness.

À (1035)

We referred to the CRTC report on francophone communities; only one of its recommendations deals with community radio. I will quote it to you because it is very important for you:

In the current context, the CRTC should continue to ensure that all new 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, in major urban areas, where demand far outweighs the availability of frequencies. However, the federal government, as suggested by the CBC and ARCC, and as permitted under section 26 of the Broadcasting Act, may decide to reserve frequencies for specific purposes. Thus, the government may issue directions to the Commission: respecting the maximum number of channels or frequencies for the use of which licences may be issued within a geographical area designated in the order; and respecting the reservation of channels or frequencies for the use of the Corporation or for any special purpose designated in the order.

So, ladies and gentlemen, you alone have the power to reserve frequencies for special use.

Our brief makes precisely that recommendation, to reserve frequencies for minority francophone communities, especially in the big cities of Canada, in keeping with the spirit of the Charter of Rights, which contemplates assistance in reaching the level of development of the majority.

The principle of fairness also applies when it comes to funding, and that is another recommendation we make. The Parliament of Canada should create a community programming fund or just take a percentage, albeit a minimal one, from the Canadian cable production fund to increase programming that reflects minority communities.

The deregulation trend of the CRTC and several G-8 countries is disturbing. According to Jean-Claude Leclerc, journalism professor at the Université de Montréal, “community media [...] are for the most part in danger of dying out.» Communities need to be given the means to develop their ways of expressing themselves and to fight globalization by promoting local programming, which only community media can do.

I have a specific example for you to illustrate this. On October 3, 2001, during a presentation to the CRTC, we suggested a change to the regulation regarding current licence holders in order to provide for the addition of frequencies in Toronto on the third “adjacent”, which is a technical term, provided the transmitters were co-located. That would free up space for new services for under-serviced groups like ours.

After a study by Industry Canada that lasted about one year, only one frequency will be up for grabs during the next CRTC call for applications, in the Toronto area, despite a study by the Toronto firm of Imagineering Limited that was commissioned by the CRTC and that suggested there could be 10 new frequencies in Toronto.

As we suggested in our conclusion, only by clarifying the Broadcasting Act will the CRTC be induced to better interpret the obligations of the federal government and to thereby assist official language minorities outside Quebec.

Thank you for your attention.

À (1040)

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Isn't Mr. Arès here?

The Chair: Oh, yes! Please forgive me, Mr. Arès. Fortunately there are people who will set me straight. So, you have the floor, Mr. Arès. Go ahead.

Mr. Georges Arès (Président, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting us today to talk about broadcasting in French. This is an important issue for francophone and Acadian communities, explaining why the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada has intervened many times to talk about this issue during the 27 years that it has been in existence.

I do not want to delve into the details about the francophone electronic media outside Quebec, which you have already heard about. The CRTC report on broadcasting services in French in a minority situation, Achieving a Better Balance, gives what is, in our view, an accurate picture of our media. However, this report says nothing about one essential aspect: the role the CRTC must play in developing and promoting francophone and Acadian communities.

You have already examined, on several occasions, the growth of specialty television channels and the impact that they will have on the future. At present, our communities are getting acquainted with this new television universe, with the arrival of 10 or so specialty French-language channels, namely those channels whose on-air début was not postponed. This is something to be pleased about, but we must not view this as a solution to all of the problems facing our communities in the broadcasting sector.

The national networks have objectives which are different from those of the specialty channels and they are especially important. Yes, the specialty channels are useful. For instance, the channels for children and young people enable us to provide a more francophone environment for our children. However, they cannot replace a national French-language television network. Such a network is both a mirror reflecting a community, access to other francophone communities outside Quebec, a vehicle enabling minority francophone communities to become better known to francophones in Quebec and to francophiles throughout Canada, a way of integrating francophone newcomers and francophiles in Canada and a way to promote the vitality of Canadian francophonie to other countries.

A specialty channel can only fulfil one or two of these roles. This also holds true for our local media such as community television and private radio stations. These are significant instruments for community development, however they are limited in terms of content. Now that Radio-Canada television and Radio-Canada Radio One can be heard and seen by nearly every francophone in the country, we have a national channel. We criticize it a great deal, often rightly so. Radio-Montreal, as we sometimes call it in our communities and in certain regions in Quebec, must continue to change in order to better reflect the reality of francophones from the entire country.

Nevertheless, Radio-Canada is an important link between our communities. Would any network other than Radio-Canada be in a position to reflect the French-Canadian reality? Going back to one of the topics that you often examined, could the private sector replace public television and radio? At present, there are some interesting initiatives, such as the TVA network, but the executives of this channel are the first to acknowledge that serving communities that are often very scattered poses a particular challenge to a private business where profitability is essential. Nevertheless, the fact remains that TVA does not have the same vocation nor the same responsibilities as a public network.

Because Radio-Canada is publicly funded, it is able to reach francophone markets that private business views as being marginal. Furthermore, Radio-Canada can send a reporter or a videographer to cover the area. Its mandate, even if it has to be reminded of this from time to time, is to serve all of Canada in French: a mission that has been made possible by the support of Canadian taxpayers.

As for the possibility of setting up a national television channel which would be focusing specifically on francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, that is an interesting project which needs to be seriously analyzed in order to identify the advantages of such a network. Moreover, at the request of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will be doing a study on the subject.

À (1045)

To complete this point, before I turn to the CRTC, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, given the importance of a national public network, I would ask you to confirm Radio-Canada's national mandate and to recommend that it be given increased and stable public funding to enable it to fulfil its mission to reflect all francophone communities in the country in an adequate fashion. The will to act often comes with the means to act.

Over the past 10 years, some of the decisions made by the CRTC have led to a debate on its commitment to francophone minority communities. As the other interveners this morning told you, our communities have recently been turned down many times by the CRTC. For example, there was a decision not to allow TFO to broadcast its signal to Quebec, there was the CRTC decision not to grant a licence for a francophone community radio project in Toronto and there were the problems experienced by Radio-Canada's cultural channel in obtaining a licence in Vancouver. These decisions were made despite the provisions for promoting official language minorities that are contained in Part VII of the Official Languages Act and section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

With the new technologies giving us access to hundreds of television and radio channels, it is more imperative than ever that the CRTC consider the special needs of francophone and Acadian communities. In our opinion, it is clear that the CRTC must show greater commitment to our communities. The CRTC must acknowledge that it has responsibilities towards our communities.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act acknowledges the commitment of both the federal government and its departments and institutions to promote the development of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada, to support their development, and to promote full recognition of the use of French and English in Canadian society. The act also clearly recognizes the existence of the two communities and their rights.

Some people in the CRTC are claiming that the organization is not an institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act, or that the scope of this legislation is restricted to the delivery of services in both official languages. Obviously, we do not agree with this interpretation. Why would we demand less of the organization that regulates the entire broadcasting and telecommunications system in the country than we do for other departments and agencies of the federal government, given that the electronic media has a significant impact on the schools and homes of our communities?

For the future of our communities and the preservation of the very nature of the country, we feel that it is essential that the community amend the Broadcasting Act so that there will be no doubts as to the CRTC's mandate regarding the development and promotion of minority official language communities, in compliance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act. We feel that such clarification is needed because the CRTC is continuing to interpret the rights of the million francophones outside Quebec in the most restrictive fashion possible, thereby limiting the development of our communities.

Making the CRTC subject to Part VII does not mean that the organization will lose its political independence, independence that it requires in order to do its work. Nor does it mean that linguistic duality will become the sole criterion used in its decision-making, no more so than it is for all of the departments and organizations that are currently subject to the obligations of the Official Languages Act. What it means is that the members of the board and its personnel will have to sit down with representatives from official language minorities in order to establish how the organization can contribute to the development and promotion of francophone communities outside of Quebec. This is one way that this federal government agency will be able to demonstrate leadership in the area of broadcasting.

This type of consultation, which goes much farther than the current types of CRTC consultations, is indeed a type of partnership which is already in existence with several federal departments. The cooperation given by the Department of Canadian Heritage in the area of arts and culture, by Health Canada, by Human Resources Development and now by Citizenship and Immigration are yielding very encouraging results.

À (1050)

I am confident that such a measure would lead to changes for the future of our communities in the broadcasting sector. This would, of course, put some minimal obligations on the decisions made by the CRTC which would strengthen the provisions already contained in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

In reading some of the decisions made by the Commission, particularly the decisions on the issuance of FM licences to Toronto, it becomes clear that linguistic duality is a criterion that does not appear to be very important and is often set aside in favour of commercial considerations or the law of the mighty. Full enforcement of the Official Languages Act is a good way to strengthen it.

To conclude, I would like to underscore the difficulties experienced by community radios in expanding their network. Wonderful work has been done over the past few years in this area, but as other witnesses have explained to you, certain groups that will soon be in a position to apply for a community radio licence may very well be told by the CRTC and Industry Canada that no frequency is available in their area. It is imperative, in my view, that the Department of Canadian Heritage come to an agreement with the CRTC and Industry Canada so as to reserve certain frequencies for French community radio in the big cities of the country. It should be noted that I am not talking about radio stations with a weak signal, but those stations that can be picked up over a broad urban territory. An arrangement whereby new community radio stations would be entitled to broadcast very weak signals would not be adequate. Given the nature of our communities, which are rarely grouped together in specific neighbourhoods, the example of Toronto is, in my opinion, particularly appropriate. More than 50,000 francophones live in Toronto, but they are scattered over the entire territory of this mega-city.

In a perfect world, cable operators and satellite services would vigorously promote the French-language channels in their territory. Obviously, the reality in which we live is very different. Broadcasters rarely promote these channels to the community. The lack of interest of the cable operators in the area of analogue cable is quite appalling already. People buy 15 channels in a package and then discover, by chance, that French-language channels have been included. As for digital and satellite cable, such promotion is noticeably absent. The channels are often purchased on a piecemeal basis or found within a sea of 50, 100 or even 200 channels. The channels may indeed be available, but if francophones don't know they exist, there will no pick-up.

We are already familiar with this phenomenon in the area of government services. In some regional offices of federal departments that provided services in French, there were very few requests made by francophones until departments became proactive about informing citizens that such a service existed. Cable operators in the universe of digital television will have to, as well, adopt this principle of actively offering the service. However, it would appear that the industry needs to have a push.

The FCFA is asking you to recommend that a standing organization be given the mandate to promote French-language channels to francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. An existing organization could be given additional resources to do this work. For example, Telefilm Canada, since it administers programs that are funded by both the federal government and the Canadian cable industry, could be given such a mandate. This organization could work in cooperation with groups representing francophone and Acadian communities, as well as with representatives of producers and the broadcasting industry, in order to establish and implement efficient promotion strategies.

I hope that you will give these recommendations your full attention. Thank you.

À (1055)

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

Since we have a little bit more than half an hour remaining, we have enough time to ask questions.

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

I think that you have painted a very explicit picture of the reality facing francophones outside Quebec in the various provinces. Moreover, when we travelled to the Canadian west, several representatives from the francophone communities appeared before us for the purpose of expressing their frustration and telling us about the lack of political will in supporting them over the years. I think that the Broadcasting Act, which is currently under review, will be a good barometer to see just how the government will be able to make adjustments and stronger commitments. Yes, we do have to meet with the people from the CRTC; we have questions for them.

You were saying that the frequencies had to be broader in order to reach... This is one of the realities that will have to be taken into account. I do not know whether or not this is available, but I would like to see some type of a table explaining how many community radio stations will have to be set up in the various provinces, in, for example, Toronto, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, so that we can then determine how everything should be organized in terms of frequencies in order to reach all francophone communities. I think it was in Saskatoon where we were told that perhaps more watts were needed in order to reach the communities. The current five-watt signal is not adequate for reaching the scattered francophone population. If we had a table showing what the exact situation was—you mentioned broader frequencies—that would allow you to really explain your requirements and we would, in turn, when the CRTC appears, be in a better position to defend your positions and situation.

Mr. Georges Arès: I will ask Mr. Cantin to answer the question.

Mr. Robin Cantin (Communications Director, Fédération des communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada): The Alliance des radios communautaires development plan that you received two weeks ago will at least begin to answer your question. I will contact them to ensure that a copy is sent to the committee clerk.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: There is radio, but there is television as well. We should perhaps sit down with you and look at the situation. It would be good if we had a table that was more specific about how we could reach all of the francophone populations. We have been told that when the digital mode is available, we will have a much higher penetration rate.

Mr. Robin Cantin: When we talk about equity for a number or a percentage and we look at the number of anglophone channels that you can have access to in Quebec, you can't compare the situation with the number of French channels that you can have access to in the rest of Canada. I can give you figures. If francophones represent 26 to 30% of Canadian society, why does the Broadcasting Act, in defining public interest... I think that the day Toronto has access to 30% of the French channels, we will have attained equity between the two systems.

Mr. Georges Arès: I can add to that, Ms. Gagnon. This is all about the will to really do something in broadcasting for francophone and Acadian communities. It all has to start with the CRTC stating that they want to do something, that they want to sit down with these communities to assess their radio and television requirements and how these requirements could be met in future. That is how it starts. We will continue having problems with the CRTC until it develops a positive and proactive attitude with respect to the needs of our communities. That is sadly lacking and this is what is needed at the grassroots level. If they are able to develop this attitude and demonstrate it by sitting down with our community representatives, then I think we will achieve a great deal of progress. Otherwise, I think that we will continue having problems with the CRTC. This has got to stop.

Á (1100)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Earlier you mentioned that there is a community radio station in Toronto. But it is my impression that even if the answer were yes, that would not solve the problem. That is why I would like to have a picture of the reality of francophones outside Quebec. Could there be a plan over the next few years that would point out that five are needed here, three there, two in another province?

I don't think the problem will be solved if we proceed haphazardly.

Mr. Robin Cantin: A community radio station can be a tool to promote other community activities and to develop an economic infrastructure using modern broadcasting and communications tools.

There are 76,000 people in Toronto if you include the suburbs. Those are 1996 census figures. Apparently, you need to add 10% to obtain the next census figures. The Canadian government invests enormous amounts of money to teach French in English schools; these are immersion classes. There are 50,000 young people in the Greater Toronto area taking French classes in immersion schools but they cannot practice or train their ears because they don't have the tools. Community radio is a tool that can allow communities to promote their activities.

There is a crying need in Toronto. Very often, over the weekend, there are three French activities on the same evening because there is no communication between the groups involved and there is no efficient way of promoting those activities.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill, do you have a question?

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming before us today.

I was a bit late coming here today. My caucus, the New Democratic caucus, was meeting with journalists from Radio-Canada, who are in a locked-out position in both Montreal and Moncton. It's a very distressing situation.

At the programming level and at the community level, it points out what you've said over and over. There isn't enough programming to begin with. When there are labour strikes or cutbacks, it makes the situation all the worse for people in Quebec, Moncton, New Brunswick, or basically in any francophone community across the country.

We have heard really strongly that the CRTC has an important role to play in the vitality of francophone programming. We've heard it across the country, beginning in Vancouver. We're hearing strongly from you that we have to confirm Radio-Canada needs more money and resources to do the job of reflecting francophone and Acadian communities to one another and to the rest of Canada.

I'd like to know if you have any comments on one idea we've heard over and over, but not enough from people in the francophone community. I'd like to know your comments on the idea of a public service green space that would include CBC, APTN, Vision TV, public broadcasters, and possibly other community broadcasters.

What would it mean? Would it be a possible benefit, in terms of strengthening programming for your communities?

Earlier, I did hear the idea of community channels for apartment buildings. We need to somehow get the community channels overriding apartment building channels. I'm thinking about a green space that would maybe include it as well.

How does this work for you, in terms of an idea?

Á (1105)

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: The tendency has been that when you put in place special formulae like you're talking about now, that space is not big enough. If you can define that space, I perhaps could answer it in a better way, but it's not an unlimited space.

When we talk of community radio, in my mind it's only a question of political will. A local community radio station is not an expensive thing. It's not even a question of money; it's a question of political will.

I'll make a comparison. When you try to get services in French in Ontario, you usually have a choice of 1 or 2 on your telephone dial, and you get referred three or four times. Then you're on hold for about ten minutes, and somebody comes on the line and addresses you in either French or English to see if you've been served yet. That's not service. To compare, when I want to reserve a hotel room in Toronto, the Delta and the Courtyard Marriott give me an option to be served in French, and I get it in five seconds. It's very good because the will is there to do that.

In my mind, it's only a question of political will to resolve this question of community radios, not only in Toronto but right across Canada. It might be a cultural hang-up for a lot of people, but we know that with technology we can do an awful lot of things, and we can do them cheaply too. It's not usually a very expensive thing. If that space is very clearly defined, one can answer yes or no, but if it's not defined...

Mr. Christian Martel: I don't understand exactly what your green space means. But for programming per se, community programming, in my view it's not enough to represent what the Charter of Rights and all the decisions of the courts are saying about development of the minority language community. You have to have the means and you have to administer your own budget and make your own decisions. The governance of this programming has to be meaningful for the community, not coming a little bit from CBC and a little bit from a private sector producer.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I' m a little overwhelmed by what I've heard. When one finally succeeds in obtaining answers and one is told that it is not in the public interest and public interest cannot even be defined, there's a long way to go. It is not enough to start with regulations. One has to start with a definition.

I think that the least we can do is regulate. I don't know if my question is relevant, but I would like to have your comments. We need to define a minimum because we need to protect minorities. Often, when one begins to develop regulations, these regulations become expensive. In Canada, we have a large territory and we are dispersed throughout that territory.

I believe—and I would like you to tell me what you think—that it is unbelievable that communities are being forbidden to take responsibility for themselves. Take the community television in Toronto for example. I don't know if my example is the right one, but I think it is unbelievable that they have not been able to do this. These are not regulations making people do something; this is a community that wants to take responsibility for itself.

We are going to have to think about regulations, but when we do this, it is important to be open to ideas that will allow... That might encourage progress in many areas. Do you not agree?

Mr. Georges Arès: Mr. Duplain, I endorse the definition of public interest included in your comments. I'm also surprised that the CRTC would use that term regarding the possibility of establishing an FM station in Toronto, that is that it would not have been in the public interest. I think it is unacceptable to think that way, especially when one considers the definitions contained in the Broadcasting Act.

You'll say that one has to define what the minimum would be. However, we want much more than the minimum. We need to define what, to begin with, would constitute progression towards the equality of the two languages, in particular in the area of broadcasting. That is what the CRTC must do. And what your committee must do is propose amendments to the act that will ensure this progression towards equality in the area of broadcasting.

We don't just want to be an afterthought. We want to feel that we are citizens in our own right in the area of broadcasting and we want to have the services that we need. Look at this: French is an afterthought. We are not truly present. The same applies to broadcasting. We want to be present and we do not want to be an afterthought, as is the case now. Any excuse is being given to refuse licences where they are needed. I absolutely agree with you that it is frustrating, that it is infuriating. This needs to change. But what we need from the outset is the political will to impose these changes.

Ms. Adam, in her first report, mentioned the blatant lack of leadership on linguistic duality. I think your committee needs to show leadership to make changes to the Broadcasting Act so that it can meet our needs. This needs to be recognized and things have to change. The CRTC must change and must meet representatives of our communities to develop an action plan that will meet our needs, and to begin to understand our needs.

It is frustrating and infuriating. When I became the president of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, in 1986, one of the first things I did was go to Regina to present a brief on broadcasting for our communities. Things haven't changed much since then. Why do we need to constantly do battle, over decades, to obtain the services we need? We need political leadership. We need leadership from the CRTC. That's what we need for change to happen.

Thank you.

Á (1110)

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: Mr. Duplain, regarding an acceptable minimum and the costs that would entail, the example that comes to mind Hydro-Ontario and Hydro-Quebec. If the governments had not done something, there would be many farmers still waiting for electricity. If serving the French-language communities in Canada or the English-language community in Quebec were just as important for the development of Canada as electricity was, the problem would be solved. We wouldn't be worrying about what the minimum was, we would be saying this was a state responsibility that everyone had a right to. It wouldn't be a question of cost. The only place I can think of where there are no costs, is my hunting camp.

Mr. Christian Martel: I would like to add something. According to the reports, Ms. Bertrand, ex-chair of the CRTC, when asked before one of the House committees why the CRTC was not being more sensitive to the communities' requests for services, said that in a competitive world, the best one wins. It should be pointed out that the best one is often the one who has the most money. Take, for example, our most recent application to CRTC in 1999; it was the black music group that had the most means. For 10 years, like ourselves, this group had been applying to the CRTC. They obtained what they were asking for because they had more means than we did and they presented a better case than we did. Do they reflect Canadian society better than we do? I doubt it.

The Chair: Before we go on to the final round of questions, I'd just like to point out that Senator Gauthier has passed me a note here. I think that it is important that I read the couple of lines that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier has written:

In my brief today to the Standing House Committee on Canadian Heritage, I mentioned three branches of TVO/TFO. These branches are located in Sudbury, Hawkesbury and Pembroke.

The decision to turn down TFO's request ended up being a vote of three in “FAVOUR”, and two “AGAINST”. I thought that any vote that is not unanimous could be appealed. Unfortunately, it appears not.

Secondly, in the context of our discussions here today, I would like to raise a relatively important issue which has an impact on the whole subject we're discussing. I think that all the members of the committee, especially out west, were struck by the whole issue of the lack of community television for francophone communities. If you take a quick look at Senator Gauthier's brief, we can see that approximately 20 of the 48 channels designed for francophone communities are American. That is one aspect of the issue. American influence on Canadian television is huge. This is an issue which impacts us greatly. There is also the whole question of people illegally receiving American channels.

A report which was unveiled yesterday and which I have not yet had the time to look at, shows that approximately $500 million are lost due to people pirating DIRECTV, etc. Currently, people are able to access all sorts of channels through satellites. This is another problem which is also having a negative impact on minority groups.

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Martel. If I understood correctly, you are a volunteer.

Mr. Christian Martel: Yes.

The Chair: You said that your organization has appeared 22 times before the CRTC, didn't you?

Á (1115)

Mr. Christian Martel: Let's just say that we didn't directly appear before the CRTC. When we first applied, between 1989 and 1990, we were told that there was only one FM frequency left in Toronto. In 1991, a radio network called CKO Radio Network, which owned stations in major Canadian cities, went bankrupt. The CRTC...

The Chair: Let's not get into specifics here. We just want to know how much the work that you did in terms of your CRTC appearances cost you. I mean, how much did it cost you to prepare your briefs and to appear before the CRTC, etc.? How much did it cost your volunteer-based organization to prepare for your appearance before the CRTC? That's what I want to know.

Mr. Christian Martel: We conducted two market studies, with a price tag of $56,000 each. Consequently, this initiative set us back twice $56,000. The research that we undertook for our briefs was done on an entirely voluntary basis. We have never done the math, but I would be pleased to attempt to come up with a figure for you.

The Chair: We would be very interested to know that, because this is an issue that has been raised by several other organizations. In the west, people have spent small fortunes on putting their case before the CRTC. I think that this is a crucial issue here. How are volunteer-based organizations to find the financial resources they need to put forward their case, especially when you consider that they have to face much more powerful commercial interests?

Mr. Christian Martel: Yes, indeed, it is a major problem.

The Chair: If you could give us a couple of figures on that issue, we would be mighty interested in reading them.

Mr. Christian Martel: I will make every effort to provide you with the information you need.

The Chair: Without getting into too much detail here , you did mention the sum of $112,000.

Mr. Christian Martel: Yes indeed, we spent $112,000 on market surveys alone. Our organization has five committees currently working on drafting various parts of our brief to the CRTC. This is because the CRTC has just put out a new tender in Toronto. Each of the committees is made up of five or six people who give at least five hours of their own time on a volunteer basis. If we were to pay them $20 an hour, we would soon rack up a bill of $50,000 just for the preparation of our brief.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martel. I'm sure that we will be keeping in touch with you through the clerk. If any of the other presenters here today would like to provide us with additional information, please do so through the clerk. That would help us greatly.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How much money did Heritage Canada give you to assist you in presenting your brief to the CRTC? What size of a subsidy did you get from the federal government?

Mr. Christian Martel: The community radio program, which was established in 1991, paid for all the market studies and half of the fixed assets. The program officially disappeared in 1995 and was merged with the OLSP, the Official Languages Support Program. We received about $50,000 towards our next round of market studies.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's all that was paid out of the total cost you had to pay to appear.

A little earlier, you mentioned an example which comes up a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the situation angers me somewhat. You said that in the Greater Toronto Area, about 50,000 young people are enrolled in immersion classes. The message we are sending out to the provinces seems to be a positive one. However, we also hear that half of francophone students who have a right to education in French do not go to French schools. So, aren't we just addressing one side of the issue, which satisfies the Canadian government which is putting out this kind of message. There are immersion schools and that's all very well and good, but aren't we forgetting the main thing? It's good that anglophones are learning French, don't get me wrong—but despite that fact, according to statistics, the rate of bilingualism in Canada is not increasing—but in the meantime, half of those students who have a right to education in French are at risk of losing their language. I find that we are insisting too much on one side of the issue and not on the other. I just wanted to make this point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have two questions. The Joint Committee on Official Languages has just concluded a study on Air Canada. We received a commitment from the airline and its unions that the Official Languages Act should override collective agreements in terms of interpretation. With regard to the CRTC, do you think we should ask that the Official Languages Act should have precedence over other regulations and instruments? That's my first question.

Second, Mr. Arès, I generally agree with what you say, but not on a specific point. You said that a permanent organization such as Téléfilm Canada should be in the promotion business. I can't agree with you. Why not ask the Canadian government to do it?

The Quebec government puts out advertising messages every 20 minutes, from 6:00 p.m. to midnight, on any kind of subject: weights and measures, the tommy cod, you name it, they will find any excuse to put out a message. You are asking Téléfilm Canada to assume that role. You should instead be asking the Canadian government to earmark 5% of the budget it wastes in Quebec to promote your issues. That way, you'll be completely covered. No need to worry anymore, you won't have any promotion problems.

To recap, should the Official Languages Act have precedence within the CRTC? And as for advertising, ask for a foot and you'll get an inch.

Mr. Georges Arès: Mr. Sauvageau, I would like to begin by responding to your question regarding the 50,000 students learning French in Toronto.

As you said, it is important for anglophones to learn French. However, 50% of the students in our communities who have a right to French education are not enrolled in a French school. I agree with you that the federal government should help French education institutions to recruit as many of those eligible students as possible. We certainly must work on that, but as you said, we cannot ignore the other issue. There has to be a balance.

I agree that the Official Languages Act should have precedence within the CRTC, but I think there also has to be the will to apply the Act effectively. It's one thing to say that the Official Languages Act should have precedence and that it should be respected, but if the political will is lacking, people will find all kinds of excuses not to meet the needs of our communities. So, the starting point is political will. Whether or not there is legislation forcing someone to do something, I feel that if there had been political will with regard to the current legislation and the definition contained in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, we would have received help a long time ago. Everything starts with political will. It would be a good thing if everyone was clear on the fact that the Official Languages Act was a priority, but that has to be combined with the will to take action.

On the matter of a permanent organization, we suggested Téléfilm because that organization receives funding not only from the federal government, but also from cable companies. Therefore, we feel it has the responsibility to ask cable companies to provide resources with a view to promoting French stations. That's why we came up with Téléfilm, but it has to be a permanent organization with the necessary resources and will to get the job done. It could be another organization, but we suggested Téléfilm because it also receives resources from cable companies.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Please reply briefly, Mr. Martel, because we have to adjourn at 11:30.

Mr. Christian Martel: With regard to the 50,000 immersion students, let me give you a very concrete example. One of my friends is a francophone and his wife is an anglophone. It's the problem of exogamy. There is an immersion school right behind where they live. Their children could take the bus for an hour every morning and evening to get to the French school or they can go to the immersion school which is right behind their house. Their daughter will do much better in the French immersion school and be the star of her class, whereas if she went to the other school...

It's also a question of equity of means. Because we don't have the communication means to promote French schools in Toronto, we are not on a level playing field with English schools regarding the promotion of French schooling in Toronto.

The Chair: I think we should stop here.

Mr. Martel, when you send us the figures, could you indicate your expenses and what you received from the federal government, just so that it is clear?

Very briefly, Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I think that the CRTC cannot conduct any external research. Therefore, it hears testimony to draw up its interventions. It's common knowledge that local TV stations don't have as many means at their disposal as the major broadcasters when they appear before the CRTC. Do you think there is a problem with the CRTC's hearing process? As you said earlier, the advantage lies with those who have more money. Shouldn't the CRTC make available funding for local television stations? How could we help those groups who have fewer resources when making their presentations?

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: I don't know, but I know that many departments, over the years, in fulfilling their obligations under section 7, have received an increase in their budgets. Today, they have more money at their disposal than previously. HRDC is just one example. This department is often used as an example by the Official Languages Commissioner as being an organization which is continually improving the way it meets its official languages obligations. They started out with a budget of about $2 million and it now stands at $21 million, I believe. Other departments, which in the course of time implemented services or met their obligations, have earmarked more funds in this area to achieve their goal. I don't see why the CRTC could not do the same.

Mr. Robin Cantin: We would surely appreciate help from the CRTC or from Heritage Canada, for instance, with respect to official languages in order to efficiently plead our case before the CRTC. It's a long and complex procedure. We have to develop the necessary expertise within our communities to make effective representations before the CRTC. It's a problem all our associations are grappling with.

The Chair: We will be studying Bill S-7, which was introduced in the Senate by Ms. Finestone and which aims to provide financial support to groups appearing before the CRTC. That is the thrust of the bill. I'm not very familiar with it. It remains to be seen whether it covers groups presenting briefs, but the many parties which cannot afford to appear will receive financial support from a fund paid into by broadcasters.

Thank you very much for appearing today. Your presentation was very useful.

The meeting is adjourned.