;

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 16, 2002

0900

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Curzi (President, Union des artistes)

0905

Mr. Marc Ouellette (President, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec)

Mr. Richard Paradis (President, Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters)

0910

Ms. Annie Piérard

0915

Mr. Jean-Pierre Lefebvre (President, Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec)

Mr. Jacques K. Primeau (President, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo)

0920

Ms. Claire Samson (President, Director General, Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ))

The Chair

0925

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jacques Primeau

Mr. Richard Paradis

0930

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Paradis

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jacques Primeau

0935

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Curzi

The Chair

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne (Director General, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec)

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

0940

Ms. Claire Samson

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Curzi

0945

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Pierre Curzi

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto--Danforth, Lib.)

0950

Mr. Jacques Primeau

0955

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Ms. Anne-Marie Des Roches (Public Affairs Director, Union des artistes)

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Richard Paradis

1000

The Chair

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne

Mr. Marc Ouellette

The Chair

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

Mr. Pierre Curzi

1005

The Chair

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne

1010

The Chair

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne

Mr. Richard Paradis

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Primeau

1015

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Richard Paradis

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Pierre Curzi

1020

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Primeau

1025

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Paradis

1030

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Primeau

1035

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Curzi

The Chair

1040

Mr. Jacques Primeau

The Chair

1045

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault (President, Impératif français)

1055

1100

1105

1110

1115

Mr. Mills

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

1120

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1125

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1130

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

1135

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

The Chair

1140

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

1145

Le président

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

1150

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 050

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): We don't have quorum, but we're going to start the hearings anyway. We don't need quorum.

[Translation]

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is meeting today to continue its study on the state of the Canadian Broadcasting system.

[English]

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, unfortunately I am not going to be able to stay for the duration. So just as a point of information, on Bill S-7, if we are going to be having further hearings, my colleague and I unfortunately are both going to be travelling with committee or doing other work next week, as well as the following week. We will not be available to consider Bill-7 either next week or the following week. If something happens this week, that's fine, but if it's workable, it would be better if Bill S-7 came back three weeks from now.

The Chair: What we have tried to arrange, Mr. Abbott, is for the officials to be heard on Wednesday--

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's tomorrow.

The Chair: Yes, tomorrow, and perhaps also the president and CEO of the CRTC, Mr. Dalfen. If that can't be arranged, then we'll have to postpone it.

I've received a notice of motion from Madame Gagnon that clause-by-clause study be postponed to enable other witnesses--in particular, Radio-Canada and CBC and Heritage Canada officials--to answer questions before the committee. So we'll have to deal with the motion. Meanwhile, my understanding with the clerk and others was that we would try to get a first meeting with the officials to get their views on Bill S-7, and Mr. Dalfen of the CRTC had also said that he would be available. So if they're available for tomorrow, we'll try to meet with them. Otherwise, I appreciate your point of view, and we'll also deal with this motion when we have quorum.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome the Union des artistes, represented by Mr. Pierre Curzi, President, and Ms. Anne-Marie Des Roches, Public Affairs Director; the Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec, represented by Mr. Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, President, and Ms. Lise Lachapelle, Director General; the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, represented by Mr. Marc Ouellette, President, and Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne, Director General; the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, represented by Ms. Annie Piérard, President, and Mr. Yves Légaré, Director General; the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, represented by Mr. Jacques Primeau, President, Ms. Solange Drouin, Ms. Annie Provencher and Ms. Martine Corriveau; the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ), represented by Ms. Claire Samson, President-Director General and Ms. Céline Pelletier, Communications Director; and the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, represented by Mr. Richard Paradis, President.

We thought it would be a good idea to bring everyone together for two hours for a type of panel discussion in order to receive an overall view of your different positions and to see whether there is any common ground.

Mr. Pierre Curzi (President, Union des artistes): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee.

Sir, you literally destroyed the beginning of my presentation by introducing everyone and I thank you for it. This means I can skip the first page of my brief. That's great. Thank you very much.

The seven professional associations you named, Mr. Chairman, represent almost everyone in the business of imagining, creating, developing, interpreting, producing and distributing Canadian productions which feed our French-language broadcasting system, and much more.

Indeed, whereas some associations, such as the Union des artistes and the ADISQ, work along linguistic lines across the country, others, such as the APFTQ, the film and television producers, work in Quebec, but nevertheless represent French as well as English producers.

Finally, others, such as the ACDEF, which is represented by Mr. Paradis, bring together the biggest pan Canadian distributors, irrespective of where they are based or the language in which they are filmed. In practical terms, our members are involved at every level and, more often than not, are the source of the huge amount of Canadian content presented on the radio, on television and in the new media.

We are therefore more than just interested and very directly concerned by the review process you have initiated. The positions we have developed reflect a deep and enthusiastic consensus which has brought together all our members in support of a common and positive vision of the future of the Canadian broadcasting system.

In a report published in June 1999 by your committee, entitled “A Sense of Place, a Sense of Being”, it was written, and I quote:

Indeed, without their commitment to their talent and their craft, our cultural industries would be under the control of a foreign voice and outlook.

That's an acute observation which we fully share. We are therefore convinced that you will be receptive to the Canadian voice and outlook which the artists and entrepreneurs who are here today have unanimously developed.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Marc Ouellette (President, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec): Under the current review process, it will be very important to distinguish between principles, objectives and outcomes, as well as between means and methods. In that regard, and after an in-depth review, we are convinced that the objectives listed under subsection 3(1) of the act, which basically defines Canada's broadcasting policy, are still current and relevant.

Further, the body of the definitions, as well as the general thrust of the act, have enabled it to adapt to technological change, to the development of new media and to the convergence between broadcasting and telecommunications. We therefore are of the view that the goal of the committee should not be to change the objectives contained in the Broadcasting Act, but to propose means which are better suited to the current reality and to technological change, means which would help reach those goals with more flexibility and efficiency.

In our view, those two notions are essential and not at all incompatible. We are convinced that with courage and imagination, as well as with the co-operation of the various stakeholders within the system to establish self-regulation or co-regulation practices, it will be possible to streamline and modernize the current regulatory framework while making it more efficient.

Mr. Richard Paradis (President, Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters): The principle of ownership and effective control of the system by Canadians is the cornerstone on which the entire institution is built. Without the principle of Canadian ownership of the broadcasting system, it would be impossible to preserve the integrity of the system and the fundamental mission conferred by Parliament, which is, and I quote from the Broadcasting Act:

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

If we dropped Canadian ownership requirements, it would compromise the existence of a Canadian television rights market which is distinct and independent. It would mean introducing a Trojan horse into the system, because foreign-owned companies, even if they were subject to the requirement of holding a licence, would inevitably challenge the integrity of the Canadian system, undermine its structure and even challenge Canada's cultural policy.

The example of Vivendi Universal is particularly telling in that regard. As soon as it bought one of the three major studios, the company denounced the policy of cultural diversity, espoused by both the French and Canadian governments, and called for the elimination of cultural exemptions.

The principle of Canadian ownership is therefore an essential one on which there can be no compromise. It would be inadmissible, as some people have proposed, to create a distinction between the message and the medium, between the distribution and communication infrastructures on the one hand and the program and production infrastructures on the other, in order to allow foreign companies to buy the former, while retaining Canadian ownership of the latter. That type of idea is based on a vision which is both outdated and naive? Outdated because the levels of convergence, cross-ownership, multimedia and vertical integration are already such that the distinction between medium and message is just not possible anymore. These two types of infrastructures are already inextricably linked in terms of ownership. Furthermore, it would be completely naive to believe that the structural separation of communication and distribution businesses and the production and program side would help Canadians effectively control the latter even if the former fell under foreign control. Structural separation is simply a legal, administrative and accounting measure which has never prevented shareholders from controlling the parent company and to gain effective control over all the affiliates, whether they are structurally separated or not.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the weak credibility of the argument whereby Canadian companies desperately need an injection of foreign capital to ensure their growth. This would not occur without Canadian ownership restrictions being dropped. In the last few years, a significant number of major transactions have occurred in the Canadian communication, broadcasting and media sectors in general. Nevertheless, every Canadian company involved in these transactions has easily managed to raise capital, which amounted to billions of dollars. Further, the majority of these companies raised this money entirely in Canada without needing to look for foreign investment, which is authorized to a maximum of 33.33% for parent companies and 20% for licence holders.

¿ (0910)

Ms. Annie Piérard (President, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma): The general principle of diversity underlies the Broadcasting Act and Regulations. The diversity of editorial views help make our democracy more dynamic by ensuring that Canadian have access to programs which present a variety of divergent opinions and points of view. The legislation also supports the diversity of places where programs are created by fostering a system which calls upon the talents of independent Canadian producers.

We can also mention the diversity of access points to the system for artists, creators, producers and distributors, which is supported by the fact that there are many different owners of broadcasting companies.

There is diversity in the private and public sectors, which is one of the distinctive characteristics of the Canadian broadcasting system and which must remain so.

Lastly, we have global cultural diversity, a diversity which we must increasingly protect and promote in the era of globalization. All these types of diversity are important, in our view, the committee should ensure that they are supported in a meaningful and efficient way through government policy and legislation.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Lefebvre (President, Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec) : Canadian content is the raison d'être, the ultimate goal of our system. Legislation, policy, regulations, governor in council orders, monitoring activity and CRTC regulations all have the same objective: to ensure that all Canadian citizens have access to homegrown programming which reflects their reality, their values and their view of the world.

We must never lose sight of this objective. Under the current review process it is important that everything be done to conserve and strengthen the measures which support the creation, funding, presentation and promotion of top-quality Canadian programming which meets the many needs of all Canadians.

These measures include the requirement on the part of distributors to contribute to the funding of Canadian programming; Canadian content rules for radio and television; the requirement to contribute to the development of new Canadian talent on radio; the requirement of pay per view and specialty television services to contribute a percentage of their revenues to the creation of Canadian programming; the requirement of conventional broadcasters to give priority to Canadian programs; the priority which distributors must give to Canadian television services.

The Canadian government must also continue to support its creators, artists and cultural sectors through direct or tax-based financial support measures to Radio-Canada, the Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Music Fund and other such undertakings.

We live in a universe in which the number of program services, as well as broadcasting formats, are ever increasing. The technology is changing so quickly that the growth we have witnessed in the last 10 years seems to have happened at a turtle's pace.

In this expanding universe, we must be resolutely proactive and determined to find our place. Extraordinary efforts must be made and we must work together to ensure that Canadian content remains available everywhere: on radio, conventional television, the Internet and on pay TV, as well as pay audio services and video on demand.

Mr. Jacques K. Primeau (President, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo): We said a little earlier that the regulations could be both streamlined and rendered more efficient. How? In our view, by strengthening and adapting to the emerging technological and competitive environment those aspects of the regulations which help meet the essential objectives of the act, by also more systematically turning to self- and co-regulation, and by regulating the contractual relationships with respect to the administrative, commercial, technical and social provisions contained in the current body of regulations.

We also give priority to strengthening and modernizing the provisions which support the creation, financing, protection of rights, as well as the presentation and promotion of quality Canadian content on every kind of existing and future format which fall under broadcasting, in terms of the act. In that regard, one of the most useful things the committee could do would be to concentrate on finding ways of regulating Internet broadcasting.

The committee has a unique opportunity to clearly recognize that the decision not to regulate the Internet, which was taken by the CRTC in 1999, must be reviewed at all costs in light of new technological developments.

Today, at a time when 15% of Canadians listen to the radio on the Internet, when the Hollywood majors are reorganizing themselves so as to offer à la carte movie viewing on the Net, when the music majors have taken control of Napster, when Web TV companies are attempting to pirate and redistribute Canadian television signals, it is just not possible to pretend that broadcasting on the Internet does not undermine the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. Now, try to imagine what it will be like in 3, 5 or 10 years.

Further, the flimsy argument whereby it is impossible to regulate or control the Internet in any way is bogus. We now know that access to the Internet is basically controlled by a handful of major Canadian companies which are well-known and are used to operating in a regulated environment.

We know that entertainment multinationals are trying to control these practices because they are incompatible with their own economic interests, and that they are attempting to position their products on the Internet.

We also know that, collectively, countries have fairly significant means to control and limit activities perceived as being criminal or socially reprehensible on the Net, such as porn. The Canadian government not only can, but must, regulate broadcasting activities on the Internet. At stake is the sound financial health of the companies in the system, the protection and fair treatment of rights holders, such as providing Canadians with the same access to varied, quality and interesting Canadian cultural content.

Every broadcasting undertaking, irrespective of its format, must be treated equitably and held to the same requirements, be it in terms of a financial contribution to the creation of programming or minimal requirements with regard to the presentation of Canadian programming.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Claire Samson (President, Director General, Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ)): In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall the fact that the Canadian broadcasting system is a unique success; it is the envy of many other countries. If we compare the place held by Canadian programs on radio and on television with that of other Canadian cultural products in unregulated sectors, such as movie theatres, for instance, video clubs or music stores, it is easier to see the positive effects of the regulation which exists in the field of broadcasting.

Of course, regulation isn't everything. We also need creators, talented artists, innovative producers and the financial means to meet the high expectations of the public, but when all these conditions are brought together, success is guaranteed. In a general way, proof of this is that during the regular season, 27 or 29 of 30 most watched French-language programs on television are Canadian programs created and produced at home. We therefore must build on a precious foundation which cannot be lost or compromised.

However, globalization, convergence and technological development have forced us to review ever increasingly the nature, scope and effectiveness of policy and regulations and financial support measures which would allow us to maintain our level of success and even export it to other countries or to other types of media. This is the task you have given yourselves; you are about to write an important chapter which may spell the difference between maintaining our momentum and adapting to the new environment, or falling behind.

We hope that you will dedicate all your attention and all the time you need to this task and that you will commit yourselves to the proposition that the changes you will propose will have a positive and constructive impact on the creators, artists and entrepreneurs who work so hard to promote and develop Canada's cultural expression.

We would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Mr. Curzi, before asking any questions, I should tell you and your colleagues that we see many groups here, during the meetings we hold two or even three times a week. It's a long process. I should tell you that I find it quite remarkable that seven associations and groups involving creators, producers and distributors certainly the most influential French-language gathering, with considerable influence across Canada can come up with a consensus for their presentation today. That is remarkable. It will carry a great deal of weight with us, because you touched on the fundamental issues we are examining, including foreign ownership, cultural diversity, Canadian content which underlies the entire issue and whether the Internet should be regulated. These issues are all extremely important to us, and are at the core of this study.

So I would like to thank you very much for your presentation, which will help us a great deal.

We will now move to questions. Mr. Abbott.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Again, thank you very much for a very concise presentation that leaves us ample time to expand on it with our questions.

I was interested in the assertion about the Internet. I happened to have dinner last evening with a gentleman who is involved in many world relief organizations. He has worked in North Korea, Afghanistan, and Palestine. With the exception of North Korea, which is of course a totally closed society, the people in Palestine, the people in Afghanistan, indeed all of the people he's seen in his work around the world, even those in the most bombed-out mud huts, seem to have access to the Internet.

Your assertion about controlling the Internet is curious. Perhaps I misunderstood it, which is why I'd like you to expand on it if you would. It is my belief that access to the Internet is virtually universal. Probably Khadafi's regime and others like it would find ways of shutting it down; as I say, the DPRK has certainly been able to. But I'm curious about why you would have made this assertion, if I understood it correctly, because it doesn't ring true to my understanding of Internet access.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Primeau: Obviously, we cannot shut off Internet access for all Canadians. The Internet is by definition a gateway to the world. We don't want to close that gateway to the world, we just want to ensure that the gateway to the world does not deny us our place in the world. Will we have our place in the world?

Of course, to regulate the Internet, we will have to come up with measures that are different from those attempted in the past. We will have to be creative to ensure that Internet regulations meet two requirements: firstly, those who distribute Internet services must be on the same footing as those who distribute cable television, satellite or other means.

The point is this. At the CRTC, we decided we could not influence Internet content. That is where we consider the process of reflection should go further. Obviously, people will have access to what is going on in the world. But the question is this: will present and future Internet service providers have obligations towards Canadians? Those obligations could take the form of contributing to the creation or development of Canadian talent, as in other sectors. That's all we are saying.

Controlling the Internet cannot be compared to taking Khadafi-like measures to shut it down. I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly... But all I can say is that we are not in the habit of defending closed societies that prevent access to world culture far from it. But the issue is this: what will our place on the world canvas be? We will have to ensure that we have the means to develop expertise, to assist with the creation and development of our expertise in this area.

[English]

Mr. Richard Paradis: I think there are two things related to the Internet that we'd like to raise with you. One is the fact that there's a structural change happening on the Internet where the people who own access to Internet portals are actually selling positioning on the websites. Depending on where you're situated in terms of your corporate economic force in the system, you're going to be able to buy your place at the top when someone is calling for a subject matter and obviously always turn up as the first one on the list.

The other thing is, if you've ever noticed, there are more and more studies being done on the habits of people's use of the Internet. The recent studies have shown 65% of Canadians who use the Internet stopped, when doing a search, on the first page. You can be looking for something and will get access to ten pages of information, but 65% of the people stop at the first page, and 25% go to the second page, and then they never go on anywhere else. If you're not on the first page, you're not going to turn up in the person's vision.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Yes.

Mr. Richard Paradis: The fact that companies are now slowly moving into marketing access is going to cause big problems, not only for Canadians, but for others.

When we're talking about cultural diversity, what's going to be there? Is it only going to be the products produced by AOL that are going to show up when you're asking a question on the Internet?

We're starting to see the beginning of the problems.

Mr. Jim Abbott: While we may have every sympathy in the world for what you're specifying here, is it not a matter of choice?

A person goes on the Internet. I admit I'm barely learning about it myself. I'm a long distance away from being an expert. It seems to me I might choose to go on any search engine. By making the choice of going on any search engine, I become subjected to the kind of selection we've heard about.

Perhaps it would be most useful for me and the rest of the committee if we accept all of the premises you have put out. Can it be done, in any event? In other words, I may choose to go on Yahoo. I may choose to go on any other search engine and completely bypass the direction you're proposing. I guess I'm asking for some practical ideas. Indeed, are there any practical ideas to be able to do the things you're proposing to this committee?

The Chair: Are you asking if it's possible at all?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. I'm saying to the witnesses, if it's not possible at all, then we will have had a very nice intellectual conversation. If it is possible, I would like you to propose to the committee what you would visualize as actually being workable and possible so the committee might be able to explore it.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Primeau: I don't know. Allow me to give you a concrete example. A radio station in Quebec promoted its Internet site by saying that it provided the kind of radio audiences could listen to if we didn't have the CRTC. That means you can listen to their station on FM, and on the Internet. But when you listen to their station on the Internet, there's obviously no control over content or anything.

I believe this illustrates the kind of situation that in the future could make all our regulations useless. We must accept at the outset that there are new ways of thinking and new solutions we need to find, and that we cannot control everything. We cannot prevent everything—in other words, even if the regulations oblige most people to have a cable subscription or a satellite dish to get US channels, someone can always find a way around it. When we were young, there was always some uncle who managed to find a dish that could capture a US channel and make it possible for us to watch hockey “illegally”.

There is always a way to circumvent the system, but the time has come to find ways of preventing it as far as possible. As soon as we decided we were going to do nothing, we stopped even examining the issue. But the time has come to discuss it, though we have no miracle solutions to offer at present.

Here's an example in music: we are seeing the start of a phenomenon that's being announced on TV and at the cinema. It is the phenomenon of copying music illegally using computer systems. It is estimated that 2 billion songs are downloaded illegally or legally each month—we do not know exactly how many, it depends on the country. But 2 billion songs are downloaded in the world every month, and no one has ever paid any royalties. We can say that we have not found ways of solving the problem, or we can say that we must find new solutions to deal with the problem.

That is the point we're at in the music industry. However, in the area of broadcasting regulations, we will have to come up with original measures and take into account what's going on internationally. We are not alone.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Mr. Curzi and Ms. Bertrand.

Mr. Pierre Curzi: I just wanted to add that, in my view, there are measures we can take to control Internet service providers. We can envisage measures to counter certain practices, for example. Another aspect of the solution would be to develop the Canadian source of supply. For example, when it comes to music, how can we ensure that the musical content of what we produce is genuinely accessible so that Canadians have access to what we produce? If we don't ensure access, we will no longer be able to produce anything, we will no longer be a part of the international supply.

There are two aspects to the issue: one is instituting means of control to prevent certain things, in the same way as we prevent violence and pornography, and prevent the destruction of a copyright system. The other aspect involves promoting the establishment of niches widely accessible to all Canadians.

The Chair: Before letting Madame Venne have the floor, I noted that a couple of your associates, including Ms. Des Roches, perhaps had comments. There is a free microphone here. If you have any comments, please feel free to speak up. We want the discussion to be as open as possible.

Ms. Bertrand Venne.

[English]

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne (Director General, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec): To answer Mr. Abbott, in Montreal on March 1 we had a very big colloquium on new media. It was called “Ownership of Media: Should We Authorize Foreign Ownership?”. It was very interesting, because the keynote speaker was Mr. Casey Anderson, vice-president, international public policy, AOL-Time Warner, from Washington, D.C. He came to the keynote address after we were discussing the Canadian policies and the CRTC.

I told him I represent authors and composers of the French song in Canada and creators of original musical work for all audio-visual productions. I asked him, “In a very small market like the French Canadian market, would you, as my Canadian companies would do, invest in production if you were to analyse this as being detrimental to your company or not even something you would consider since you would consider it such a small market?” He didn't answer the question. This was at l'ÉHEC at the University of Montreal, and all the university professors said, “He didn't answer you. Because he didn't answer you, he actually answered: he wouldn't invest.”

Why are we so adamant about the ownership of our companies in Canada? Because we have a given. It's been demonstrated that it was very worth while.

[Translation]

You must understand that what we are asking you to do as legislators, public figures, and politicians, is to ensure that we will be able to evolve along with the technology.

[English]

It's not a question of access; it's a question of the content being present. What about Canadian content? How are we as a people going to exist on the Internet? That's what the question is.

[Translation]

We are asking you to allow us, with the existing legislation—the Broadcasting Act, the Copyright Act and now the Status of the Artist Act, at the federal level—to negotiate the contracts for the use of our work. The Copyright Board can continue to determine what tariffs will apply for the use of our work, but the CRTC must continue to apply the content rules. When broadcasters complain about the copyright legislation, of course there must be a minimal use of Canadian content in order for our creators to make a living.

There is one final glimmer of hope for Mr. Abbott. Well before the business world, authors' societies have put their collective heads together. There are international mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of copyrights for music writers and composers, and there is also an international confederation of authors' societies. There was an agreement signed last year in Santiago dealing with the Internet, so that authors' societies worldwide might organize how they would administer their respective copyrights.

What I am trying to say is that there are people taking care of this. We are simply asking to be allowed to do it.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

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

We know that the new technologies allow for numerous types of radio broadcasting activities. That is why we must have a framework.

You say in your brief:

We cannot allow the establishment of programming or distribution businesses that would be unable to contribute to the production of Canadian content.

You also say that the aims of the act must be respected and that there must be room for Canadian content production. You say, among other things, that the approaches should be in keeping with the very different situations as they exist for English and French broadcasting. However, in your brief, you in no way allude to what is happening more specifically in Quebec. Our community is mainly francophone. You make no mention of that. You say a great deal about Canadian programming, about the Canadian identity and Canadian culture. But when we travelled out west, francophones outside Quebec explained their reality. It would be very difficult for me, this morning, to say what the reality is in Quebec. For example, does Telefilm Canada, with its criteria... You don't even mention that. Your brief this morning completely ignores that aspect.

A movie critic said that, with respect to the seventh art, Quebec was a distinct society because its range was more diverse and because it had a tradition. I would have liked to hear about the people of Quebec, something more specific as it relates to their reality. Should, for example, the points given to Telefilm Canada be changed, based on the Television Fund?

We must talk about specifics. Out west, they told us that they liked what was produced in Quebec, but they also wanted to produce their own material, something that would reflect their own values and concerns. Quebec should also tell us its concerns with respect to the broad policies and programs.

Thank you.

¿ (0940)

Ms. Claire Samson: Of course, we all agree that no system is perfect. There is always room for improvement. We must admit that Quebec has always benefited from a somewhat special situation. Quebec has managed, over the years, to create a star system that is unique in all of Canada. That is a fact.

We see the effects of decisions made by the CRTC. For example, the impact that would result from a CRTC decision to eliminate dramatic programming from the list of priority programming would probably be greater in English Canada than in Quebec. In Quebec, broadcasters would not automatically reduce the level of original Canadian or Quebec drama because this type of programming attracts the largest audience share. This is a Quebec, and not a Canadian, reality. In English Canada, broadcasters would probably react to such an announcement by the CRTC by reducing the number of Canadian dramatic programs and replacing them with some other type of programming that would possibly be less expensive when compared to the cost of acquiring an American drama program. It is much cheaper for the English-language market to buy an American program than it is to produce one of their own. The impact of CRTC decisions and policies will be different for the French-language market and the English-language market. That applies to funding policies and programs, to Telefilm Canada and to the Canadian Television Fund...

Heritage Canada is at this time undertaking a broad study on Canadian content. There again, we will have an opportunity to discuss ideas with decision-makers on eligibility criteria, percentages and points that must always reflect the specific nature of Canada's markets, whether they be francophone or anglophone. We cannot deny the fact that there are obvious differences between the two industries, for both broadcasting as well as production.

The Chair: Mr. Curzi.

Mr. Pierre Curzi: I just wanted to add to what Claire has said by giving you a few examples.

During the rating period, when surveys are done, our broadcasters use that as an opportunity to launch the most expensive dramatic programs, the ones in which the most amount of money was invested.

When, for example, we examine Canada's film policy, as dictated by Ms. Copps, with an objective of 5% audience share, which, in itself, is a laudable aim, we see that the English language industry last year, had a share of 0.2% for film while in Quebec it was a very successful year. I believe the audience share was eight point something. Everyone is aware—and it is constantly stated—that we must try to adjust to the different realities. You can go a long way with that. You can even go as far as to radically adapt certain programs to what is actually happening. That is what should be done.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We're often told that language serves as a buttress to protect us. This is why our subsidies are lower, at least in terms of Téléfilm Canada and specific programs or films made in Quebec. Quebec is more aggressive because it has decided to stay in the film industry and to stay on the track that it has chosen.

Often, if you listen to criticism from various quarters, the film industry is more or less adapted to the reality in this country. On the English side, there is a move to adopt the American approach so as to be able to compete with American programs. We have been told that in light of the fact that we benefit from the language buttress, it costs us less to produce our programs. Consequently, less of our production budget comes from subsidies.

This premise is also based on the fact that there are fewer francophones in Canada than anglophones.

Do you agree with that or do you believe that we should perhaps look into other markets and attempt to break into markets other than the American market even if these openings are just as difficult to find? There are other factors that come into play in Quebec, as there are anywhere else.

Mr. Pierre Curzi: I don't want to get into a political debate here. One thing is certain, however; the language issue has been very useful for us and specific language-related initiatives have driven the development of French-language television in Quebec for example, in a very different way from the situation that occurred in English Canada. The same also goes for the cinema.

We now take for granted the fact that no matter where you live in Canada, no matter whether you are French or English-speaking, the important issue is how our culture and the individuality of this culture can fight off the phenomenon of globalization that is taking place in the rest of the world. It is a given that no matter who you are, you need very well-entrenched structures, not only as a protective barrier, but also as the basis of a balance between Canadian culture and—which is certainly the case politically and which we could discuss ad infinitum, even if it wouldn't be that meaningful—and dominant cultures. The cultures that I am referring to have such huge resources available to them that if we fail to take action and if we fail to implement a strong set of Canadian-made cultural policies, then we are perhaps in danger of no longer being able to ensure that our own culture could exist side by side with major dominant cultures.

This is what is at stake here. This is also an issue in terms of the Broadcasting Act. Foreign ownership, quotas and reinvestment schemes are essential if we are to ensure the survival of Canadian, francophone or even anglophone culture.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have one other brief question.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, we'll come back to you later perhaps.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That's very kind of you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto--Danforth, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate the time you have taken this morning and also the vision that you have put forward of the broadcasting system in Canada. I share that vision.

[English]

In fact, Mr. Chairman, after listening to these witnesses over the last many months, if there was ever a theme or a feeling that our report should take, I think it was exemplified by the presentation that we heard today. Those are my views, because I have said repeatedly on this committee that I am very concerned about the way our sovereignty is evaporating in front of our very eyes. The courage of the broadcast community here in Quebec should be set up as an example for the rest of us to rally behind.

Mr. Primeau, you talked about creativity in our regulations of the Internet world. Have you given that a lot of thought? I know you talked about the service providers being perhaps the instrument or the mechanism, but have you thrown the ball around the room and said, well, if we gave this kind of recommendation to service providers that might help us protect our creators? Have you given some thought to that, which has a little more flesh on the bones?

¿ (0950)

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Primeau: Among other things, we held a seminar in which all the stakeholders were present. Mr. Curzi was there in fact himself, as was Ms. Venne and several people from the music world. We talked mostly about the impact of the Internet on changing music consumers' habits.

We looked, if you like, at consumer trends among young people in particular, but we also looked at the population as a whole. We found that 88% of Internet subscribers download songs and these people are gradually beginning to think of music as a free commodity. Why would they go out and buy an album if...?

In more tangible terms, downloading music has—and I'm giving you just one of many available statistics here—increased the sales of blank CDs by 143% last year. We all know that CD burners are continually coming down in price. You only have to look at TV advertisements. When you buy a computer you get a burner included. All you have to do to download music is to press a button. Consequently, we are witnessing a change in consumer behaviour.

Given this issue, we invited experts from the United Kingdom, France and the United States who told us that the entire western world, including the major names in the United States, is attempting to come up with solutions to this problem. In Quebec, the situation is a bit different from that in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, 90% of local music production is by independent companies. Consequently, part of the solution might be to work with smaller companies and companies which do not have a distribution network which is as large as those of the major recording companies, such as Sony. Tthis approach might enable us to come up with solutions which would be adapted to our particular market.

At this point in our discussions, we have developed several possible solutions to the problem. I don't think that there is a magic cure, however. Nevertheless, one thing is certain, we must take action now to increase awareness among Canadians, Quebeckers, the French, and the Americans, to name but a few. We must increase awareness among the public as to the phenomenon that is taking place. If music is free and if no one pays for music, this means that in the future there will no longer be any artists or new production. This type of situation would mean that performing artists would no longer be able to make a living. That's the first point I want to make.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I understand.

Mr. Jacques Primeau: Secondly, what are people listening to on the Internet? Currently, in Quebec, for every five songs that are downloaded from the net, approximately one is produced in Quebec. Canadians as a whole only download one made-in-Quebec song out of every ten. If we continue to allow people to access... I want to reiterate what I said earlier. There is a positive side to people being able to access music production from throughout the world. Canadians, just like people in other countries in the world, now have greater choice. Will they choose a made-in-Canada product? That's the issue we have to look at. The same situation arises for television because people are going to have increasing access to Internet-based television.

I think that our approach should be in twofold. Firstly, we have to ensure that the billions of dollars flowing... I'm talking about the fact that people are, at least for the time being, obliged to pay for Internet services. People pay for various services. Into whose pocket does the money go? Who pays? I think that everybody should contribute to developing Canadian talent. That's the first step.

Secondly, we should not simply punish but rather encourage initiatives by Canadian companies to promote Canadian talent on the Internet. I think that we should develop regulations to this effect. When I said that I would like to see the Internet regulated, I'm not just thinking about punitive regulations but also about positive regulations.

¿ (0955)

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Primeau--

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

I think that Ms. Des Roches wanted to add something.

Ms. Anne-Marie Des Roches (Public Affairs Director, Union des artistes): I think the issue raised by Mr. Mills could also apply to potential regulation with regard to service providers. The issue hasn't really been delved into yet. But we mention self-regulation and related matters on pages 42, 43 and 44.

Our starting point for discussions on service providers—these could be held, for instance, within the framework of discussions on the Copyright Board, which has jurisdiction over issues such as the payment of Internet fees—is that increasingly, when we deal with the Internet, we are faced with shared responsibilities. In that regard, things will be different from traditional CRTC regulations. However, the CRTC has already, given that there is the Canadian code of advertising standards and other types of advertising standards for the industry and which have been accepted by the CRTC... It may be possible, in certain cases, to develop certain types of regulation to encourage that type of behaviour. We could also develop incentives through financial programs.

In terms of regulation, I think that before rejecting outright any form of incentive regulation and especially, means of making people responsible—it's a question of responsibility—, we really must examine the area of co-regulation, regulation through contracts and the possibility of reaching a consensus, instead of always pointing the finger at someone else and not accepting responsibility ourselves.

I think we must, as a society, take ourselves in hand and make every stakeholder responsible in terms of regulating the Internet.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I have a short question.

I'm supporting your direction; I just haven't heard yet about the creative regulation. In other words, I just don't know how you would design a rule or regulation that could actually achieve the desired result. I would love you to take a run at that, if you could. It would close the gap.

I don't want them to think I'm sloughing this off. I have daughters. I go in and see them and say, “Do you realize you're stealing when you download these artists?” You can catch some of them, but you can't catch them.... It's a big issue. You've obviously given this more thought than I have. I'm wondering about the creative regulations--again I'm using your words.

We'd love to have a report that could lead the way in creative regulations on the Internet. Then we could preserve not only the integrity of Canadian artists, but also their right to be properly paid. If you could come up with those words, probably no one on this committee would reject that.

The Chair: I saw many hands there.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis, followed by Ms. Bertrand Venne, I believe and Mr. Ouellette. Since several people wish to speak, could you please give brief answers?

[English]

Mr. Richard Paradis: I think there are a couple of things that you've raised.

There are two avenues that could be considered by the committee. In the same way that the minister asked Canadians to put forward their views on what Canadian content should be, and what the definition of Canadian content should be in this new environment, we're all going to participate in the exercise. I think the government or minister could actually ask questions of the Canadian public. Do you think we should be regulating the Internet? What are your ideas on it? You could get some creativity and probably some good ideas.

The other thing is the fact that I think most of the industry recognizes the commission, at this time, and when it put off regulating the Internet, initially said it wasn't going to regulate it for the time being. We think it may be time, once again, for the commission to reopen it, have public hearings, and discuss what could be done in terms of regulating. We'd probably have some creative ideas.

We shouldn't forget there are international organizations, like the International Telecommunications Union. There are entities internationally that decide on communications standards and the allocation of frequencies. The world isn't run on telecommunications. It's not a free-for-all for everybody. Canada gets certain allocations for how many satellites we can put up, what we can do with our frequencies, and what bands we can use. Everyone lives by the rules. There's no interference with the FM stations in Montreal that reach into the U.S., and the U.S. stations that reach into Canada.

We don't have to let our arms fall back and say we can't do it and we can't do it internationally. We are realizing that a few groups internationally, the mega-groups of ownership, are now controlling access to the Internet for the world, whether they're in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Someone is still getting organized to decide what's going to be offered to the public.

Governments have to, at some point, take hold of this. It's growing. It's a sector that's very important economically for culture and people. The governments can't say it's too big and we can't handle it.

For years we stopped the American services from coming into Canada over satellites. They're up there, but Canadians aren't going to get them.

We don't have solutions today. We're saying if the government sets in place a mechanism to look at it, we'll come up with some ideas.

À (1000)

The Chair: Madam Bertrand Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne: I simply wanted to give you a few examples where government, regulation and legislation could serve as models. I'm thinking of cable companies, which for many years claimed they were simply carriers, like those who provide access to the Internet. But in time, given the fact that people were claiming copyrights, it was shown that they were copyright users and the cable companies and specialized stations were made to pay.

We should take that situation as an example for the Internet and perhaps build certain bridges. This is what we're trying to tell you: give us the opportunity to adapt to technological change. I agree with what Richard said. Create committees which would bring together our representatives and those of the private sector to find new ways of doing things, because there are solutions. We are asking you to keep it up and to carry on with your excellent initiative with regard to the Broadcasting Act.

Mr. Marc Ouellette: Fine. Madame Venne has effectively summarized what Mr. Paradis and I wanted to say.

The Chair: There is another interesting issue. In our travels, we witnessed the merger between the Internet and radio in Vancouver and at Radio-Canada, in Bande à part, and also the merger of the Internet with television, with Vancouver's Z program. That's another dimension: one side is regulated and the other is not.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): Thank you all for coming. I sit and listen to you and I find there's nothing I can disagree with you on. I liked your vision. I also see that the issue with respect to the Internet is a very complex issue.

I want to address the question about the international organizations. What is the proper forum we should be dealing with on this issue? We have different international forums and organizations. Where should we be headed? In what forum should we be discussing these things?

I want to go back to the question of cultural diversity that was raised. As you know, the minister has been promoting the new international instrument on cultural diversity. What forum should it be? Should it be UNESCO? Should it be at the World Trade Organization? There's a first draft that has already been done. I know the minister hopes to take it to the next meeting. Can you address the question of cultural diversity?

Also, opening it up to the international forum, what international forum should we use to discuss the Internet service providers? Are they not international service providers? They don't control Canada. They're global in perspective. Where do we address this internationally? Where is it beginning?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Curzi: Well, I can't answer both questions, but I can address the first one on cultural diversity.

The seven associations which are here are part of the 32 francophone and anglophone associations of creators and producers which are part of what is called the Coalition for Cultural Diversity. This Coalition for Cultural Diversity represents Canada's professional associations in this field. I am the co-chair, the other one being Jack Stoddart, the publisher.

The Coalition for Cultural Diversity has received the support of the Canadian government, of Ms. Copps and also of the Quebec government to defend the principle whereby any state or country has the right to maintain, support, create and improve its cultural policies. In other words, the main position of the Coalition for Cultural Diversity is that a country should have the right to legislate this sector, irrespective of the situation the country is in. That is our basic objective.

We established two principles to meet that goal. The first is cultural exemption. Culture should be excluded from any trade agreement, be it bilateral or regional, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or international, such as GATT, GATS or the World Trade Organization. That's the first part. Let's begin by completely excluding cultural services, goods and products from any international trade treaty or agreement. Culture should be exempt from trade liberalization, because the laws which apply to it go completely against the cultural structure of a country such as Canada and of most other countries in the world, on the one hand; but on the other, we must manage cultural exchanges between countries.

How to achieve this? This is another aspect of the work of the coalition. We should develop an international convention or an international organization which would manage cultural trade between countries. What we do not know is what form this international convention should take. What should it cover? How can we ensure that the principles contained therein will not go against the principles of organizations such as the World Trade Organization? In other words, we will have to make sure that there will be no retaliation. How can we make sure that this organization will have precedence over other trade agreements? The other question we must ask ourselves is: who will oversee it? Will it be the United Nations? Will it be a treaty similar to the Kyoto treaty on the environment? Should any other international organization oversee this convention? There is no consensus, no agreement. Even Ms. Copps, who agrees with the principles we have put forward, has not taken a clear position on who should oversee this international organization.

The aim of this coalition, as far as we are concerned, is to inform you, the people who will make the decisions and handle the negotiations surrounding this cultural exemption or the issues which will be covered by this cultural convention. Our goal is also to create everywhere, in every other country, coalitions of cultural diversity who will play the same role in their home countries.

It's true that every country is in a different situation, but if we want cultural diversity, each individual culture will have to survive. The goal is not to eliminate dominant cultures, but rather, on the contrary, to foster cultural exchanges so that our citizens have access to their own and other cultures. We are basically fighting cultural homogenization, irrespective of the culture involved.

À (1005)

All we are saying is that there has to be a certain balance in the market so that every citizen in every country has access to a diversity of cultures.

The Chair: Who is going to answer Ms. Bulte's second question?

Ms. Bertrand Venne.

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne: The Canadian legislator can take action on three fronts: corporate funding, regulations and laws. You can begin with the funding given to Canadian multimedia companies. You could encourage the use of Canadian content by giving money to this industry. You could also ensure that the contracts with artists are adequate. I believe that you are entitled to verify how things are done in these sectors as well.

Secondly, the Copyright Act must not contain any exceptions that prohibit a creator from potentially earning a livelihood on the Internet. We must understand that the Copyright Act does have an influence on the Internet. We have to determine how we are going to do this and what rates are to be charged. We do have a Copyright Act and, essentially, it is a matter of determining who is responsible for it.

But for you legislators it would already be a start to think that you are taking action on the Internet when you reassure the people who are here that they will be able to earn income from their intellectual property and therefore the Copyright Act will be amended so as to enable us to preserve our legal bases and earn our living on the Internet.

These are important aspects that will let you think that you are taking care of the Internet. I can assure you that the copyright collectives, all of us sitting here around the table, will find the means to achieve better equity on the Internet. So you already have some avenues that will enable you to start taking action.

À (1010)

The Chair: I believe that Ms. Bulte also wanted to know the names of the international organizations.

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne: There is WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. And there is the ICSAC, the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.

[English]

Mr. Richard Paradis: She's talking a lot about the rights representative groups at an international level. I think they're obviously going to look after their interests in making sure that their rights are being recognized. I think from a government point of view, first of all, it's that we ask the regulators, particularly our CRTC, to start reopening its own file of what it should be doing with the Internet.

There are numerous ways that regulators meet on an annual basis. There's something called the International Institute of Communications, where all the heads, the FCC in the U.S., the regulatory agency in France, and the British organization, meet on an annual basis. They have these themes they develop on the new economy, the new communications environment. Regulators could start talking there about what they could do in terms of their own mandates in dealing with the Internet.

We're going to have to deal with it, because the future is all oriented toward the Internet. So we're either going to start looking at it now and try to get hold of it, or else we may eventually lose complete control over it. I think from an international point of view there are thousands of people who are in Geneva on a yearly basis looking at telecommunications issues and deciding on the allocation of frequencies and the rates. That is an organization under the UN. Why isn't the Canadian government making representations there to ask, why don't we start looking seriously at this Internet thing?

Remember that even though we know you can set up an Internet site anywhere in the world, let's look at the people who own the infrastructures right now and who are getting access to millions and millions of Canadians and foreigners through the Internet. They almost all have their head offices in the U.S. or in Britain. They're in an area where there's an economic strength. So there's a possibility, at one point, of regulating them there, even though their operations may be elsewhere.

[Translation]

The Chair: You know, as practitioners in the arts field, you are very articulate and it's wonderful to listen to you. Unfortunately, to some extent we play against the clock here. I have Ms. Lill, Mr. Duplain, Ms. Hinton and Ms. Gagnon who would like to... We have to speed things up a bit.

Mr. Curzi, please be brief. I think that Ms. Bulte would like to ask another question.

Mr. Jacques Primeau: I will try to be brief, as if we were on the radio: “In 15 seconds, Mr. Primeau, your opinion on the Internet”. I would say that the main message is that the CRTC has to re-examine the regulations that apply to the Internet and I think that we are counting on you to convey to them the message that we need to consult broadly on this issue.

Canada is often perceived as being a world leader when it comes to regulating the Internet. Quebec too, for certain issues, but Canada in particular. The CRTC is respected throughout the world. So I think that Canada has a responsibility in terms of cultural diversity and in terms of finding original solutions to deal with the Internet.

I took more than 15 seconds, but I made good time, in any case.

À (1015)

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't disagree with you, but it seems to me that the message I'm hearing today is that we can't do it alone; it has to be done with an international collaboration. And I don't think that's really been in the forefront within the department or within the government that it has to be resolved on an internationally collaborative level and we'd better find the formula and start talking about it wherever we are.

That's my last comment.

The Chair: Very good message.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

I apologize for not being here for your presentation. I look forward to reading it. I was on the plane trying to get through the fog.

I'd like Monsieur Paradis to continue to talk about the idea that there are mega-groups that are controlling access to the Internet and deciding on what is going to be offered to the public, because we don't hear that. What we hear is that there is endless choice for us all and that we can get whatever we want when we go to the Internet or to our televisions now. I personally don't believe it. I think there are all sorts of selections going on that have nothing to do with Canadian content and nurturing creators in this country. It would help us to understand what kinds of methods exist and what kinds of decisions are made that limit our choices about the Canadian content that we get to see.

Mr. Richard Paradis: To be brief, as the chair said, if we take two examples here in Canada, one is Québécor Média,

[Translation]

which owns the biggest television station in Quebec and many periodicals, magazines and newspapers.

If you go to the Quebecor site, which also owns Archambault Musique, and if you use the Quebecor portal, it is highly likely that you will be shown Quebecor products first when you do your query. Similarly, if you use Bell Canada's Sympatico, in English Canada, when you request certain types of services or products, depending on the key words used, you will be shown products sold by this company first. Companies are in a situation where they control the response that you will be given when you make a request for something.

For the past 6 to 12 months, we have noticed that these companies are telling content providers that, if they are prepared to pay, their product will appear first when a query is made.

So you can see the whole system that they're setting up to market access to the Internet. The consumer who uses a system in order to do research simply thinks that the system will do the work for him and that he will obtain the ideal information, the best answer. But behind all of that, the companies are taking steps to develop the structure of the software so that it will generate revenue for them. And that is where the danger lies. But since we are still in the early stage of this type of operation and since we see the dangers that this represents, the governments will have to study this issue and deal with it.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: You have brought us to the point where we now need to know where to go, but I guess what you're saying is this is the time when we need consultation. We need the CRTC to open up this issue and get more comments and presentations from groups that know these issues.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Curzi: We are learning certain things. I did not know that some companies were in the process of doing that.

I say that we have to consider five aspects. First of all, we have to be able to identify what is being put on the Net, so we need to find some way of identifying the cultural products that are accessible on the Net. I know that we are working on this in Canada.

Secondly, we have to be able to deal with what we refer to as Internet service providers. I do not know how this can be done but apparently there is a way to intervene.

Thirdly, we need to have resources in order to create significant portals so that people know and are able to identify who we are.

Fourthly, we have to make people aware of the fact that, in order to have access to Canadian culture, we have to pay a price to keep it alive.

The fifth point deals to what we refer to as private copy, namely, purchasing blank disks for engraving purposes. This whole question needs to be looked at, and, as well, we should make it mandatory that those who benefit or profit from Internet services should have to reinvest a portion of these profits.

These are the five areas where we could take action right now.

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Duplain. Smile, Mr. Duplain, the floor is yours.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): It is not because I have nothing more to say. It is because Mr. Curzi has just said what I wanted to say. I find it strange that we talk about regulations, but it is not the regulations that prompt me to be a consumer of Quebec or Canadian culture. It is because I like what you do. In my opinion, we should be talking about what we need to do to ensure good production so that people will be interested in listening to French, Quebec and Canadian culture. For example, you talked about burning discs, which is covered by regulation.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I was in business. When I wanted to resolve a problem, I went right to the source. I tackled the expenditures and the areas where we were losing money. Just last week, I visited a friend in his office, an office where many public servants work. I saw a little sign stuck on the sorter: CDs burned for $5. This was being announced in the office. We have regulations on that and this was being done in the open. When I raised the issue with my friend, he told me that it cost $5, that everybody did it and that they were very open about doing it. It seems to me that we have to start right at the root of the problem. The money that we derive from this could be used to promote culture, as you were suggesting.

Have you already asked Canadians what they wanted? I wonder what they want. I do not believe that Canadians want to be consumers of American culture. In my opinion, they want Canadian culture. We may be a bit luckier in Quebec because the language difference may protect us from American culture. Not everybody in Quebec speaks English. People do not always understand what is going on in the United States, but thanks to translation, we do have access to it.

I am asking myself many questions about the difference between the regulations that we want to establish and the means available to us. If we do more education and we provide more means, perhaps regulations will not be as important as we think.

The Chair: Mr. Primeau.

Mr. Jacques Primeau: Often, these things go hand in hand. For instance, the content regulations on French songs in Quebec had a significant impact: demand for such products was dramatically low in the early 80s and jumped to 30 percentage points as soon as the content requirements were increased.

We saw the same phenomenon in France recently, when it was decided to increase French song content. France followed Quebec and Canada's example, and that increased market share in France considerably. This is the best performance we've had in the west: consumption of local productions has exceeded 50 per cent. We can clearly identify two results. By increasing content, the majors, including France, have doubled or tripled, I believe, investment in the production of talent and have subsequently created products that the consumer prefers.

Often regulations encourage or increase investment in the production of local talent and, when this happens, people like the production. You cannot like what you do not know. If you do not take steps to ensure that there is an adequate body of talent reflecting today's reality, namely, a public that is increasingly more fragmented and specialized, if you do not produce everywhere, you do not know what you are missing. The people will find what they like elsewhere.

So I think that regulations and investment in quality production are often closely linked.

À (1025)

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We also want to listen to American music and watch American films. I think that there is some good American production. I would be sad if I were not able to see Woody Allen and Robert Altman. Let's not wage a war against the Americans. I think that we are more upset by the violence and low-budget programs that are invading our screens, particularly in English Canada. But there is some good American production and wonderful American talent. We have great talent in Quebec and in Canada, but at the same time... I think that we understand each other on this matter.

I would like to talk about the two types of ownership. As far as foreign ownership is concerned, you were very clear on that issue and it is not clear that we have won the battle. We know that Industry Canada would really like to raise the ceiling because, according to the department, the telecommunications firms could advance and would develop the telecommunications industry. Ms. Copps said that the content had to first of all be there... Well, safeguarding content, whether it be Quebec or Canadian, is no easy task. I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter again.

As regards cross-ownership, there is the danger of excluding artists and works that are not part of the group. I understand that that may happen. We now have to deal with cross-ownership. We have groups. Have you already been subject to that? Could you give us some examples of cross-ownership that has been harmful for the industry or for the artists? I would like to hear what you have to say on these two aspects.

I have one final question and I would have liked it if Mr. Abbott could have been here to listen to it. I'm going to ask this question right now because the chair will not give me the floor again. This afternoon, we will have to deal with an Alliance motion regarding the transfer from cassettes to CDs. The content can then be transferred to a hard disk for broadcasting purposes. We already know what the initial cost will be. When we use the cassette for broadcasting purposes, we have to pay copyright. The Alliance Party of Canada is proposing that the transfer right be cancelled when this transfer is not being done for broadcasting purposes. In this case, there would be two charges: the transfer right and the broadcasting right when the content is transferred on to the hard disk using new technology. So I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.

I have asked three questions and I will not be asking any others. Thank you.

Mr. Richard Paradis: I will answer your first two questions and let my colleagues answer those two first questions and the third. I myself will not respond to the third question.

Regarding ownership and the percentage increase for telecommunications or broadcasting, for a long time regulations distinguished between telecommunications and broadcasting. Telecommunications were supposedly responsible for distributing voice or data, but had no control over the content they were distributing. Therefore, they were regulated in a certain way. In the case of broadcasting, it was always acknowledged that people were consuming content, and there was a desire to deal with that.

The problem is that with changes in ownership, telecommunications businesses now also own broadcasting businesses. When we're discussing ownership... Telecommunications businesses are always the first to increase the percentage, and then broadcasting slowly adjusts to that. People figure that telecommunications did it, that it's not so bad, and that it can be done in broadcasting as well, and as long as 49% is not exceeded, then it is okay.

The telecommunications people are starting to say again that telecommunications should be treated differently from broadcasting because this is another dimension, but we are now in a new environment where they are a player in the area of content. So we need to be very careful.

For example, we could consider opening up the question of ownership, but on condition that the telecommunications businesses get rid of all the businesses they own that deal with content. If they return to what they were before, that is to say conduits, then this may be a possibility.

This brings me to your second question on cross-media ownership. All these businesses are involved with cross-media ownership. I like listening to Mr. Monty, from whom we'll probably be hearing more and more over the next few days, given what has been happening with BCE. Mr. Monty is one of the first to say that he cannot tell us where cross-media ownership will lead. We'll probably see how big a concern this is for him over the next few days, because he has bought many things that are not giving him as quick a return as he would have had before: everyone had a phone and everyone paid their monthly rate.

We also know that Quebecor, another example of cross-media ownership, has had some rather major problems; every week they're seeing that they have paid too much for certain interests that they have purchased in the area of content.

Therefore, in terms of cross-media ownership, what is worrying is that big businesses in other sectors have purchased content businesses. Are they willing to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure that content continues to be developed, or are they going to have a return-on-their-investment mentality and give less consideration to the importance of content?

I will give you an example. You mentioned that everybody likes to see American films. Did you know that fewer films are being made today in the United States than 10 years ago? That is because studios are now controlled by mega groups and these groups are now making decisions about films based on their profitability. Films are no longer being made like they were in the days of studios, when a man with a cigar would say he was going to make 12 films a year: two because he would make millions of dollars on them and the rest because he liked them. Hollywood doesn't do that any more. Hollywood asks how much they're going to make. If it's not enough, it's not done.

À (1030)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Primeau.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Primeau: I would like to speak particularly to the last question, and more precisely on the issue in question this afternoon. I will then give Ms. Venne the floor to speak specifically about copyright.

I must say that what the CAB is saying in general about broadcasting... We haven't spoken much about radio this morning, but I will speak about that briefly. Regarding these mega groups, I will give you some examples from Quebec because those are the ones I know best, but I think that the situation is more or less the same in the rest of Canada. There have been many transactions. I will give you some numbers. In three years, from October 1998 to November 27, 2001 there were 37 transactions in Canada that involved $861 million in investmenst. Therefore, there has been considerable movement.

In terms of the results, again I will give you some examples from Quebec. I remember hearing dire statements on the radio, notably when there was talk of increasing the quota of French songs to 65 per cent. Some Quebec station or network owners were saying that they would go bankrupt. The result: a year or two ago the owners of the two biggest groups in Quebec or Montreal—CKOI, the most listened to station in Canada, and CKMF Radiomutuel, a station in Montreal, shared $80 million between them in one case and $40 million in another. Things aren't that bad.

Recently, Astral, that bought Radiomutuel for a few hundred million dollars, revealed that they were very confident and were expecting a positive answer on the purchase of Telemedia. We know that this is a transaction worth $250 million which is currently up in the air because the Competition Bureau has expressed certain reservations. But not even a month ago Astral told its shareholders that it had no debt and that they were expecting an answer soon because if they did not invest those $250 million in Telemedia, they would invest them elsewhere.

So radio isn't doing too badly. These are rather extraordinary performances. Currently, there are $814 million waiting to be invested until decisions are made by the CRTC, the Competition Bureau, etc.

Some are saying that it is horrifying to have to pay one more tax, a supplementary tax. I will leave it to the experts to comment on the reasons why a contribution is in fact made when something is copied. I think it is up to the Copyright Board to determine the figures. I do not know what they should be. I think we have institutions to do that.

I would like to explain one thing. In radio, I agree that the announcers have to be paid, but the majority of the content is made up of music. A requirement of 5 or 6% of total revenue is not strangling anybody. That is what we need to remember.

À (1035)

Ms. Francine Bertrand Venne: I have never been so happy about the Liberal Party being in the majority. I hope the Bloc Québécois will vote with the Liberal Party to reject this motion.

I was saying earlier to Ms. Bulte that there were overlapping systems here. That is the fundamental issue. If you want Canadian culture to survive, there must be no exceptions in the rights given to the creators of cultural content.

A licence obtained by a collective authorizes a radio or television company any amount of reproduction required to do the work. There is no mention of restricting that to technology, to a specific technology. It is a matter of recognizing that when the legislator is asked to not include any exceptions in the act and to apply the principle of immutable copyright, it provides much more technological scope than there would be under an act with all sorts of exceptions. The future of Internet creators would be threatened by those types of measures.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters told us it needed amendments to the Copyright Act in order to survive. Let me give you an example. At the Copyright Boars, the rate for radio reproduction was 1.96% of the radio station's gross revenue. When the broadcasters submit a rate to the board to get a rate on their intellectual property for media monitors—they are the people who offer press clipping services—they ask for 25% of the value of those companies' revenues. I just wanted to tell you that

[English]

what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Translation]

In this world of technological development, Canada's creators need to earn their living as much as businessmen do. That is why we want broadcasters to remain in the hands of Canadians, despite their pressure to amend the Copyright Act.

Mr. Abbott's motion is directly related to what I was telling Ms. Bulte. It is part of a legislative scheme to ensure a high degree of Canadian content. Creators must be guaranteed a decent income. A motion like that one would take away much of the reproduction rights given to Canadian writers and composers, thereby hindering the normal development of new technologies. That is why we are asking you from the bottom of our heart to block this motion.

I hope you will not be sick and will all be here for the vote.

The Chair: Ms. Bertrand Venne, we do not play politics here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In a way, we are not playing politics, especially with this morning's witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Pardon?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I want to point out there's no vote tonight. The motion is being discussed, but there's no vote. It's only debate.

[Translation]

The Chair: If no other members wish to ask you questions, I will ask two myself.

Your presentation was very clear on the question of foreign property. You do not believe in separating infrastructure from content, a concept that was presented to us by other parties. Would you like the percentage to be kept at 33 1/3% and 20%, or would you accept having the 33 1/3% changed to 49 per cent? That is a question we must deal with anyway. So it would be good for us to hear your views on that.

Mr. Pierre Curzi: I will answer. There seems to be a consensus among us to maintain the status quo.

The Chair: That is clear.

Secondly, there is one question that was raised almost everywhere in Canada. It was the same one in Vancouver, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, regarding local and community television and radio. The issue came up time and time again. All of the communities where we heard from representatives, including the ones in Quebec, expressed their fears. They are afraid that because of all of the large mergers and control by the large corporations that community and local movements are losing more and more autonomy and that we're losing something very precious. People are asking us to go back to local and community services at all costs. Do you have any specific views on that?

À (1040)

Mr. Jacques Primeau: For 15 years, I was involved in a community radio station in Montreal that is called CIBL. So I am very familiar with community radio. I know less about community TV. I can tell you that the situation is a bit different in Quebec. There are about 15 community radio stations in different regions. I think we need to examine that reality. In some geographic areas, community radio stations in particular are fulfilling a need, since the large networks do not think it is “profitable” enough to provide local coverage in the area. So they are fulfilling a need. I'm thinking about the Gaspé Peninsula or the Magdalen Islands, for example. There are areas where community radio stations play an essential role as a first service, as the CRTC calls it.

In urban areas, like Montreal, it will become increasingly necessary to complement public radio and television services offered, because we are clearly looking for a bigger common denominator. Highly local news in certain geographic areas and in certain urban realities is not covered by private media nor is it covered by public media. I think we have to encourage the development of these alternatives that are absolutely necessary both for television and radio. We must keep that aspect in mind.

However, I want to reaffirm something that we did not perhaps have time to address today and that we wanted to cover in our brief: the importance of maintaining a very healthy and strong public television and radio service. If public television and radio are strong and healthy, we will be in a position to give them more difficult duties to carry out.

Public radio has responsibilities in terms of regional news. It must be given the means it needs and, after that, we can allow ourselves to be more demanding. It's the same thing for TV. I do not think that Radio-Canada or CBC should become elite television stations. I think they serve everyone and that public television must be motivated to go the extra mile.

I think that public radio must also strive to reach all listeners, but I do not think that its mandate should stop there. I think that it has specific obligations, especially in terms of local news, and that it must be given the means it needs.

I will give you an example. Recently, France saw fit to create a network specifically for young people whom they were not successful in reaching with conventional public radio. It would be a bit like taking Bande à partthat is currently on French CBC radio, and giving it its own FM frequency. Why? Because public radio and private radio were not broadcasting enough variety in terms of musical content. There were a lot of local and national programs, but they were excluded from the public and private networks. This new network, which is called Moove, was an instant success that got an immediate reaction out of private radio. I do not think that we should rule anything out with respect to developing the role of the public radio and television broadcaster.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I would like to thank all of you for coming today. I think that this meeting has been one of the most enriching and most important for us, especially given the consensus reached by your group. It is truly something rather significant and even remarkable. Thank you very much for having been with us. I think that we will keep in touch with you in the months to come. Thank you very much.

Before we move on to the next group, Impératif français, I would like to tell committee members that tomorrow we will have a presentation by departmental officials on Bill S-7. I think that you put in a notice of motion to also invite CBC. We can discuss it once the time...

À (1045)

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Listen, let's get that group in front of us--Pierre Berton and Margaret Atwood. They've done a lot of thinking on the concentration of media ownership. They were just formed in the last month. It would show a tremendous flexibility on our part if we accommodated them.

The Chair: We'll suspend for five minutes.

À (1046)

À (1051)

[Translation]

The Chair: We are going to continue with the Impératif français movement represented by Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault, the president; Mr. Léo La Brie, adviser; Ms. Andrée Caya, executive assistant; Mr. Claude Lafrenière, member of the board.

Mr. Perreault, please proceed.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault (President, Impératif français): Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we were pleased to accept your invitation and to share with you today our comments and remarks on the state of broadcasting in Canada.

We prepared a brief for our oral presentation. If people want a copy, we have it here and we would be pleased to distribute it.

For several years, Quebec, the only jurisdiction with a francophone majority in Canada, has been calling for full responsibility for the management of electronic media transmitted by hertzian waves over land and cable broadcasting within its borders.

Today, we are going to talk about decisions, regulations and the conscience of the regulator of the airwaves.

First of all, the decisions. In 1996, the CRTC enabled private television broadcasters to retransmit their signals in Ottawa. This was announced in CRTC decisions 96-542 and 96-546. According to section 17(6) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, cable distributors must broadcast their signals transmitted locally on each side of the Ontario-Quebec border. This decision forced the cable distributor on the Quebec side to offer its stations as part of its basic service, thus broadening the variety of television services in English on the Quebec side.

At the same time, here in Ottawa, Rogers Cablesystems had no qualms about moving Télé-Québec to channel 70—it is now channel 69—claiming that it would be receiving these new re-broadcasting stations. Subscribers with tuners limited to 50 or 60 channels were therefore deprived of Télé-Québec.

In 1996 again, in decision 1996-120 brought down in September 1996, the CRTC issued 23 broadcasting licences to specialized chains of which only four were in French-language.

In 1997, decision 1997-85 gave the go ahead to a new private English-language television station in Quebec City, CKMI-UHF-20, affiliated with Global, and this was despite the high U.S. content on Global and despite the low percentage of anglophones in the Quebec City-Lévis region, which is about 2.3%. Even if half of the stations of the Vidéotron programming schedule in Quebec City were already in English, the CRTC nevertheless decided that this pseudo-minority needed another service in its language, if we go by the following text:

Approval of the new TVA-CW television service will result in enhanced regional programming providing additional service to the anglophone community in Quebec.

With these decisions, today, in Quebec, there are as many private English television services, CFCF and Global, as there are private television services in French, TVA and TQS. Where was the need?

They called it enhanced regional programming, whereas the proportion of this component in local programming was only 6%. The CRTC quickly agreed to Global's request. Global also wanted re-broadcasting stations in Sherbrooke and Montreal. Of course, the CRTC agreed to this request.

In July 1997, in its public notice 1997-96, the federal regulator approved the distribution of 18 new foreign services by satellite and cable in Canada, without adding a single foreign channel in French. This decision thus contributed to eliminating MusiquePlus, Réseau des sports and TV5 from the English markets.

The CRTC decisions that I have just mentioned accentuated the imbalance between cable service offered in French and in English.

À (1055)

Moreover, in 1997, Impératif français denounced the anglicizing and americanizing of the airwaves on both sides of the Ottawa river. Here is why: Vidéotron had just added nine new stations to its programming schedule, including five in English, but at the same time, on the Ontario side, Rogers Cablesystems was planning to add twelve new stations, none of which were in French, even taking advantage of the opportunity to eliminate SuperÉcran from its programming schedule.

What was frustrating with all of that is that the CRTC was once again siding with Rogers. Moreover, in December 1997, Le Droit columnist, Mr. Maltais, seized the opportunity to denounce the situation in an editorial entitled Une autre taloche - Les bons offices du CRTC envers Rogers sont inqualifiables. I will read some excerpts from Mr. Maltais' editorial:

Francophones in the Ottawa region have just received another slap in the face from Rogers Cablesystems. Rogers has decided, in the optional services that it offers, not to broadcast the four new licences granted to French channels: TVA's Nouvelles continues, the Canal Vie, MusiMax and the francophone Télétoon. Moreover, Rogers is no longer broadcasting SuperÉcran.

The airwaves are an eminently public good. Organizations that obtain permission to use them, whether they be public or private, benefit from a privilege that enables them to make a profit.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has allowed Rogers, which serves people in Ottawa, to provide optional services in the predominant language in the market. Instead of helping francophones receive the services they deserve in their own language, the body regulating the airwaves in Canada is contributing directly to their assimilation, in the country's capital. That is illogical, unacceptable and appalling.

And it is under the byline of Murray Maltais, from Le Droit.

Despite protests, the CRTC continued to trivialize French. For example, in 1999, the CRTC granted a licence to the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network broadcast a mere 12% of its content in French, and almost half of the programming in French is broadcast during the night, while most people are sleeping.

Moreover, I want to comment in passing on aboriginal broadcasting. The CRTC granted a licence to an English station for aboriginals on the FM band in its decision 2001-627 in Ottawa. This station will broadcast on both sides of the river, both for aboriginals in Quebec and in Ontario. The message to aboriginals in Quebec and Canada is that the English language unites them.

At the same time, the CRTC approved four other FM stations for the Ottawa and Outaouais region, one of which was French. It was a classical music station, decision 2001-626, but the frequency it had requested, 97.9 FM, was taken away from it and given to another station. So the CRTC played musical chairs, leaving another new French-language station in the lurch. How can you operate a radio station without a frequency? The result: it's an empty shell or, if you prefer, zero French station, one multilingual station, with English as the base or transition language, and two more stations in English.

Now let's move on to regulations. In the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations which dictate the rules for putting together television stations on cable, there are two observations that I would like to share with you.

First of all, the definitions of the francophone and anglophone markets. To manage a limited analog space, access to specialized pay TV stations and pay per view service in French and English is subject to certain rules that define the francophone and anglophone airwaves for cable distribution purposes. So, the linguistic identity of a market is fundamental.

The regulations of the federal regulator are clearly discriminatory and asymmetrical, because they define as francophone, and listen closely, markets where, and I quote: “...if more than 50% of the total population [...] within the licenced area of the licence has French as his mother tongue.”

But: “a licensee that is not operating in a francophone market is considered to be operating in an anglophone market.” You will find that in section 18(4)(b).

Á (1100)

This definition hides a dangerous fault because it means that all non-francophones, no exceptions allowed, are mixed in with the anglophone population. As an illustration, I'd tell you that if the mother tongue French-speaking population in a given area was 48% and the anglophones only made by 26% of the population and allophones the other 26, then the region would automatically be considered as anglophone. This is not a mistake in the translation. Read the English version also. It says the same thing. It confirms Canada's cultural fundamentalism and leads us to a better understanding of the real isolationist and assimilating intent of Canadian federalism through the regulations of the CRTC.

The 2001 census figures could lead to the conclusion that the Island of Montreal will cease being considered as francophone to be considered anglophone based on that definition. Despite that, the proportion of francophones will still be far higher than the percentage of citizens whose mother tongue is English and that trend will even continue to grow. So the subscribers could be deprived of certain French stations on the analog building block. In passing, it's a good thing that Rogers didn't manage to buy Vidéotron last year when you see how they're dealing with the French stations in the federal capital.

There's another problem with deregulation. The regulation requires class 1 cable distributors to broadcast on channels specialized in the language of the majority of the markets served. In the anglophone zones, distributors can give priority to American channels, which are foreign channels, at the expense of the French Canadian channels because the regulations state, in 18(5)(a):

...the licensee must, insofar as channels are available, distribute:

(a) if carrying on the undertaking in an anglophone market:

(i) any specialized service in the English language that the licensee has the permission to provide throughout part or all of the service zone of the business excluding a specialized service of a religious character with a unique or limited point of view,

Now, the CRTC authorizes some American stations to be distributed in Canada which means that Ottawa francophones, for example, are told that the French-language domestic stations must give up their place for the American stations because they're broadcasting the language of the market which is defined as being an anglophone market.

Thus, Rogers can broadcast CNN, CNN Headlines News and CNBC News which are authorized for distribution in Canada but can't find the room necessary for Le Canal Nouvelles on the analog service provided in Canada's capital.

That's how broadcasting priorities are established for analog service where the number of channels is restricted. This was corrected last year for digital blocks, but only a minority of people have access to digital for the time being. We'll get back to digital later on.

The political conscience of the federal regulator. The CRTC said it was satisfied it had done its best for francophones by making TVA mandatory on the big systems everywhere in Canada. However, there are still a lot of problems accessing French television services especially outside Quebec.

That's why, in the year 2000, the federal Cabinet, under francophone pressure, asked the CRTC to launch a review of French-language broadcasting services offered to minorities, which the CRTC did unwillingly. On 12 February 2001, the CRTC published a timid report with the title Achieving a Better Balance after 8 public notices, 11 regional consultations and 2 days of public hearings. Its recommendations changed nothing in the short-term. They are based on a technology that is not yet widely spread, digital, and even on the Internet to increase access to French television programming.

But this better balance is utopic. In Quebec, the francophone majority has access to fewer television services in its language than the so-called anglophone minority. For example, the Quebec City Lévis area anglophone minority has access to 70 English channels, 28 of them analog, although it represents only 2.3% of the local population. Those are the figures for 1996; we don't have the figures for 2001 yet.

In contrast, the Edmonton francophones whose proportion is slightly higher, 3.4%, only have access to 12 TV stations in their language and only 4 of them are analog. There are eight in the new digital service recently announced by Shaw.

Á (1105)

There are only five stations in the analog service part and four of them beyond channel 70 and are hard to access in many cases.

Another interesting comparison is the one made by Impératif français last fall between an Ontario francophone town, Hearst, and a majority anglophone town in Quebec, Campbell's Bay. The anglophone population of Hearst which is 16.9% has 50 channels available out of 60. On the other hand, the francophone population, 35% in Campbell's Bay in Quebec, only has access to 7 channels out of 35.

I was saying earlier that the CRTC had turned to digital as a solution to the distribution problem for French television stations, especially in a minority environment, but there are problems: the costs are high and you need a decoder for each receiver. The subscriber not only has to pay extra, but also has to figure out all the wiring.

The cherry on the cake is the CRTC's suggestion saying that Internet is the alternative for francophones who want to have access to a greater television choice. I know very few people who watch TV as a family on the Internet.

Conclusion. Basically, the CRTC is at the mercy of the industry's major lobbies. Actually, just look at the contributions made by some cable distributors to the election funds of some members of Parliament. But mainly this is a federal government regulator who doesn't care about the French fact. We have to fight constantly in order to obtain justice but most often we only wind up with crumbs.

Another damning situation: cable distribution services in some villages in Quebec's Great North, near Ungava Bay, were broadcasting no French-language stations in 2001. Just check Matthews Media Directory and you'll see. However, last September's new regulations should force the distributors to broadcast Société Radio-Canada. That's what we call crumbs. What remains to be seen is whether the federal regulator will be vigilant enough to ensure its new regulations are being enforced.

From the preceding, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the CRTC has decided its mission, amongst others, is to indistinctly ensure anglophone supremacy over the airwaves for all of Canada. So it's not surprising to see Quebec demanding exclusive jurisdiction over the electronic media on its territory. That's because, for a long time now, the federal regulator has been granting undue preference to the English media or, if you prefer, has been imposing undue hardship on the French media.

Here are our recommendations.

Impératif français is asking the Government of Canada to adopt those laws, regulations and policies necessary for Canadians to have priority access to Canadian public and private television stations, so that Canadians living in that part of Canada outside Quebec may have analog access to the greatest possible number of French-language Canadian television public and private stations; so that in Canada's capital, Ottawa, the capital of both official languages, Canadian citizens have priority analog access to Canadian television station signals; so that the policy and regulations of the CRTC concerning the granting of licences to re-broadcasters not have the effect of depriving Canadians of higher Canadian content television stations and increase the disparity between services available in French and in English; so that Canadian cable distributors reserve the best basic digital signals on the analog band to those Canadian television stations with the highest Canadian content in their programming during prime time; so that the Canadian government and the television and cable distribution industries put more resources into producing and broadcasting Canadian programs and consequently make sure that adequate funding be available—I think that with the proliferation of new television stations, we are sentenced to excellence and we'll have to do even better; so that Canadians have greater access to a greater number of Canadian programs produced and broadcast by Canadian television stations; so that viewers and listeners have access to more local, regional and community television and radio production; so that all regulations on broadcasting discriminating in favour of anglophone markets and foreign anglophone stations to the detriment of French-language Canadian stations be eliminated whether the grid is digital or analog.

Á (1110)

I'd also like to suggest a few amendments to the Broadcasting Act. I will tell you right away that this is not exhaustive and that the texts of these amendments won't be found in the document.

To clause 3 of the Broadcasting Act, we'd like to see added, after 3(1)(c), the following:

(v) the Canadian broadcasting system is an essential tool for the development of the French language and culture in Canada;

We'd also like to see the following added to sub (j:

(j) the programming offered by the Canadian broadcasting system should both:

(vi) ensure the development and the vitality of the Canadian francophonie,

And subparagraph (k) should be amended to get rid of its outdated elements. The new paragraph would read as follows:

(k) a complete spectrum of broadcasting services in French must be offered to all Canadians;

Those stations are also Canadian stations. I don't see why American stations are being given priority everywhere in Canada rather than giving priority to Canadian stations because they broadcast in the French language. I absolutely do not understand. That is an historical mistake and it must be corrected.

Subparagraph (m) concerns the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's mandate. Subparagraph (iv) says:

(m) the Corporation's programming should be both:

(iv) offered in French and in English to reflect the particular situation and needs of both official language communities including those of the minorities of one or the other language,

Now, with budget cuts, Radio-Canada's funds don't allow it to do its job properly for outlying francophone communities.

In the same vein, subparagraph (v) provides that:

(m) the programming of the Corporation should both:

(v) tend to be of equivalent quality in French and in English,

But the French network has available a lot less money per hour of production.

Finally, paragraph (t) on distribution systems should first be implemented. Subparagraph (t)(i) reads:

(t) distributors:

(i) should provide Canadian programming services on a priority basis...

I totally agree, but why then do many cable distributors not broadcast French-language Canadian stations in analog mode and give priority to foreign American stations? Perhaps we should see to it that the regulation is implemented. You can't have two classes of citizens.

There should also be a paragraph providing that distributors:

serve Quebec and Canada's francophone minorities in such a way as to participate in the development and vitality of the French language and culture,

The effect of that would be to at least make them responsible for one of Canada's realities: the existence of French-speaking people in Canada.

We are ready to answer your questions and listen to your comments if there are any, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Á (1115)

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Fantastic.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much , Mr. Perreault. We listened to your presentation with great interest. We visited a number of francophone communities and heard from their representatives, and we are certainly aware of the situation. We are very interested in achieving a far greater degree of impartiality in broadcasting, particularly in minority communities in provinces other than Quebec. We would like small francophone minorities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to be given a better chance. So we are sympathetic to the issue you raise.

I must also tell you quite frankly, because I think it is time to say these things, that I have never thought that big words such as: “assimilating”, “isolationist”, "pseudo-minority in Quebec" were very helpful. I represent a lot of the “pseudo-minorities”. In fact, they make up the majority in my riding. I can tell you that most of them are people of good will who want greater social justice throughout the country. In any case, this has always been my approach. I do not like big words like “pseudo-minority”. I do not apply them to francophone minorities elsewhere, and I fail to see why they would be applied to a minority which, after all, is an official minority in Quebec. That is what I wanted to say. I do not think that using big words is very helpful.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: I would like to comment on that, Mr. Lincoln. In Montreal, the cable companies broadcast twice as many English-language stations as French-language stations. In the Outaouais, which is close to here, the cable company broadcasts almost three times as many English-language stations as French-language stations.

If we compare the situation of the anglophone community in Quebec, which, in the broadcasting context, enjoys more television and radio services in its language, for the promotion of its culture, to the situation experienced by francophones living outside Quebec, you will agree that... This was made possible by the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC regulations.

The CRTC regulations provide that there must be at least one Canadian station for each foreign station. If that is true for Canada as a whole, I do not see why the same logic would not be applied in the Quebec market: at least one French-language station for every English-language station.

The CRTC regulations, which I read you earlier, have allowed the anglicization of television in Quebec, by giving priority to English-language stations. So Canadian French-language stations were not distributed in Canada outside Quebec, because the regulations gave priority to English-language stations, even though they were American.

I'm sure you will agree that in Canada as a whole and in North America as a whole, when we look at the unique situation anglophones in Quebec, who are part of the anglophone majority in Canada and the anglophone majority in North America, the concept of them as a minority is rather hard to take. Anglophones in Quebec very often benefit from the advantages enjoyed by the anglophone majority in Canada and even anglophones in the United States, because our cable companies give priority to distributing the American channels.

I understand that this concept may be disturbing, but nevertheless, we have to face the facts: anglophones in Quebec are part of the anglophone majority in Canada, and the anglophone majority in North America. This is confirmed by what happens in cable and broadcasting services.

Á (1120)

The Chair: I do not want to get into a quarrel, Mr. Perreault. I think I made it clear that the substance of the issue you raise is not at all what bothers us and what bothers me. We are very sympathetic. We have visited francophone communities. We know that there is a disparity that needs to be addressed. All I said is that sometimes your choice of words is unfortunate. That is my perception.

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Perreault.

You outlined the decisions of the CRTC. As Mr. Lincoln said, we visited some francophone minority communities in the West. One point they made was that many anglophones are starting to learn French. You spoke about French as a mother tongue and the percentage of the francophone market. The representatives of these communities deplore the fact that there was no radio or television programming in their language. They said that the francophone market was not strong enough to allow anglophones, after taking a French course, to maintain ties with the francophone community outside of the educational system. If these individuals had access to radio or television programming in French, this would have an impact in these communities, and people could improve their knowledge of French and participate more in French cultural life.

You spoke about the percentages of choices in French that have been granted for radio and television. This is in keeping with one of the concerns of francophone minorities outside of Quebec. They said they needed help getting decisions from the CRTC that are more compatible with their needs.

I believe that in the past, francophones made up 50% of the population in Saskatchewan, whereas the figure now is 9 per cent. It is hard to keep the communities together, because they are scattered over a relatively large area. A number of community radio stations are required or more French television channels to link all of these communities, but given their small numbers, private television will not be able to meet their needs, because private television thinks in terms of profits.

We are looking at what can be done to improve the Broadcasting Act. This is one of the aspects that we should be improving. We have spoken about Canadian culture. Why do you think Quebec is so reluctant to think about Canadian culture? The reason is that we know very well what has happened to francophones. Over the years, they have lost ground outside of Quebec. We want to remain a majority at least in Quebec, with our own institutions and our own voice on radio and television. We want our institutions to remain strong.

This morning, you gave a good description of the CRTC decisions, which will help us see what needs to be done. That is a helpful piece of information.

Have you ever filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages? You spoke about all these control procedures introduced by the CRTC. The CRTC is going to have to make decisions that give francophones a stronger voice.

Á (1125)

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: May I reply, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. Gagnon, the statistics from the 2001 census done by Statistics Canada show that 91% of English Canadians are unilingual English. They also show that the assimilation rate in Canada outside Quebec is 33%, and in Canada as a whole, including Quebec, it is 3.2%.

You will agree that these rates are the result of Canadian policies and practices that very often originate in government. If such conditions are established that Canadian anglophones outside Quebec are never exposed to French because in the cable system, priority is given to foreign English-language stations rather than to supposedly Canadian French-language stations, these anglophones become culturally isolated, a fact which is confirmed by the statistics. And this happens despite the efforts to promote French among anglophones, 91% of whom remain unilingual. We also create a linguistic assimilation dynamic—people may not like the term, but it is accurate—and a situation in which the culture of Canadian francophones outside Quebec is eroded.

I'm sure you will agree that these results have been caused mainly by the Canadian government. Through its legislation and regulations, among other things, the Canadian government has promoted situations of this type. It is completely unacceptable that historically, we have established conditions that did not make it easy or mandatory to broadcast French-language Canadian stations throughout the country, even though the situation of francophones living outside Quebec was well known. There was a strategy behind this. I understand that this make people feel uncomfortable, but that is not our fault. This situation still exists today. I think that as a standing committee, you have a responsibility in this respect. We hope that situations that are so discriminatory and dissymetric will be corrected.

Let me give you the example of the definition of an anglophone market. The act defines a francophone market as one in which 50% of the people speak French as their mother tongue, while an anglophone market is defined as anything that is not a francophone market. You will no doubt agree that this is cultural fundamentalism and amounts to giving priority to one community to the disadvantage of the other. Moreover, the language transfers clearly show that this view of Canada produces good results, because the English-speaking population of Canada has increased by one third compared to the francophone population, because of language transfers by allophones. This is not surprising. This is the vision that contributes to this type of situation, Ms. Gagnon, and cable services and broadcasting have an important role to play in this area.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You spoke about the CRTC report entitled Achieving a better balance and you said decisions had been made about this imbalance between francophones and anglophones as regards broadcasting services. You said that the technology used was not accessible to everyone. We thought that digital services might be accessible to everyone, but we know that digital services will not be available to everyone for several years, and also that at the moment they are very expensive. The cost will be high until this service is accessible in all regions of the country. Satellites and decoders are used. We have been told about this problem. It is expensive to have access to some French-language programs outside Quebec.

What is your advice to those who do not have access to these French-language programs? Could the amount they have to pay be tax deductible? I would like to hear some suggestions. Some people have made some suggestions, for example a tax credit until digital service is available to allow people to have access to programs in French.

Á (1130)

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: If I may, I must say that the most widely used technology is analog technology, and using this technology, if we want to promote access to Canadian language and I insist on this point television stations, I think this is where the government, through the act or the regulations of the CRTC, must make it mandatory, and a priority, to broadcast Canadian television stations. The analog grid should include seven or eight French-language channels at least. They are Canadian too. If they' re available in Quebec, I do not see why they would not be available outside Quebec. We must give priority to Canadian stations on our airwaves, on Canadian airwaves.

I would also say that if the Canadian government is really sincere about this initiative, it should give Canadian stations with the highest levels of Canadian content the best places on the spectrum, the best places on the dial. At the moment, this is not the case. Very often, stations with the best Canadian content are relegated to such high numbers on the dial that many people cannot get them using their cable TV converter. If we really want to promote Canadian products, stations with high levels of Canadian content should get the best places on the spectrum, and should be given priority over all foreign stations in the basic analog service. However, that would call for courage on the part of the Canadian government, because it would have to acknowledge the historical error it made in filling up the analog dial with American stations.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Perreault, I was shocked at the percentages you delivered to us in your brief today. We tend to take for granted that the CRTC is treating and implementing the Broadcasting Act in a fair way. It was painful for me today. In fact, I thought, “How can we fix this?” My immediate reaction was that we should make you the chairman of the CRTC. That would probably be the quickest way to put the trajectory back on the right track.

I also need a moment of reflection here, because I had the privilege, the pleasure, of working on the personal staff of Pierre Trudeau from 1980 to 1984. I'd hate to think where this country would be without the courage he had to go against the wind and make sure, to the best of his ability, the French community in Canada could feel comfortable everywhere in Canada. Obviously, if he were sitting here today he would feel very disappointed at the way we've slipped in the last few years.

I don't have any really specific questions for you today, but I'm going to do my best to encourage all of our committee members here today to make sure, within that zone up to 25, 35, 40, that the francophone presence is somehow reinforced. It's shameful that we give so much priority as a nation to those American channels and exclude our francophone presence.

That's all I have to say.

Á (1135)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: Thank you very much for your comments. I'm very encouraged by what you said. It must have taken some political backbone to say what you did because as I've already mentioned, in the past, there have been probably deliberate mistakes made, which have meant that in terms of analog bands, priority was given to foreign stations over French-language Canadian stations. This is probably why we now find ourselves facing the current situation, as I mentioned earlier. Ninety-one percent of our unilingual English countrymen and colleagues have been deprived of the opportunity to access French culture through television. We are now facing assimilation rates of 33% in Canada for francophones living outside Quebec. This is because we have deprived francophones of access to French-language Canadian stations because foreign stations take up too much space on the dial setting. I haven't even mentioned that in many cases, English-language Canadian based stations carry a very low percentage of Canadian content and most of the time these stations merely rebroadcast programs that can be found on U.S. stations. You will agree with us....

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: You know, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I've been a member now for 14 years, and for 12 years I have been trying to get my pal Richard Séguin on anglophone radio stations in Canada and other parts of the country. I can't understand why the CRTC won't give Canadian francophone recording artists one or two spots on each rotation. We talk about Canadian content. For 12 years I've been asking the CRTC and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. It's not going to make less money for these English radio stations if they give eight or ten or twelve or fifteen plays in a day to Canadian francophone recording artists. And that way we're going to eventually eliminate the need for a separatist party in the House of Commons.

(Laughter)

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have any other questions Mr. Duplain?

Mr. Perreault.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: In fact, the issue raised by the member is a very interesting one. This is a huge issue. What is the cause? What is the impact? How is it possible that both English-language TV and radio stations carry so little Canadian produced content, when you consider that this country of ours produces and exports enormous amounts of cultural material? We have been successful in exporting our culture to the rest of the world and yet we have failed to convince our anglophone countrymen to appreciate it. You are quite right in what you say. How is it possible that artists like Jean Leloup and Paul Piché and even Richard Séguin aren't aired more often on the radio? Yes indeed you can hear Quebeckers who sing in English on the radio, people like Céline Dion for example. But as soon as it comes to the same songs in French, all of a sudden, it seems that there's a desire to sideline them. I would just point out that both legislation and regulations promote and express this desire to exclude the French language. This is all part and parcel of the Canadian government vision of Canada.

What should come first? Should it be a Canadian-based vision or should it be the government's vision? Between you and me, I believe that there is room for both. However, this coexistence creates tensions between the two and in turn, this creates tension between the two language communities. In terms of the Canadian reality and approach, it appears that one is superior to the other. We have to try to break this cycle.

The Chair: I am sure that we would like to break a lot of things, Mr. Perreault, but I hope to be able to do that in a more constructive manner and to avoid dredging up all those bitter slogans which are always based on the same things: assimilation and the downtrodden people, etc.

I think that in the Canada of today all that is quite unfortunate because in my riding, we have the highest rate of bilingualism among young Canadians in Quebec. I hope to be able to build bridges between people and to relegate those bitter provocative and unhealthy slogans to the past.

For example, you congratulated Vidéotron for buying Quebec-made programs rather than those put out by Rogers. That is a point I'll concede, but what initiatives did Vidéotron take to activate TVA's licence on a Canada-wide basis, outside Quebec? How many French-language programs has TVA carried in Vancouver, in Edmonton and in other French communities? Answer: a big fat zero.

Therefore, don't try to tell us that the CRTC [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. TVA was provided with a licence. What did TVA do with that licence? What are you doing to lobby TVA to provide French-language programs in Vancouver, Edmonton, or in Saskatchewan? TVA has had this licence for nearly two years now. What steps have you taken? A big fat zero. That is Vidéotron for you and that is a Quebec company.

Á (1140)

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: Mr. Lincoln, do not transfer to a non-profit organization the responsibilities that belong to the Canadian government. We are here to remind you of your responsibilities as a government. You created the CRTC. The commission has the mandate of regulating Canadian airwaves. Do not ask a non-profit organization to supercede the commission. If you do so, give us the resources and the mandate that go together with the responsibilities, and we will act. If Vidéotron does not fulfill its mandate in Canada outside of Quebec, it is up to you to act and to call them to order. Please do so, Sir.

The Chair: I just want to underline that your criticism is one-sided. For example, you do not want Rogers to be in Quebec. It is Vidéotron that is there, but Vidéotron had done nothing to put into practice a licence that it has been given to promote French in Canada. So perhaps it would have been a good idea to have some small criticism in this regard as well. In this way, we could have had the feeling that you were somewhat impartial, but your whole vision is always focused on the issue of assimilation, on the Government of Canada deliberately hurting francophones, and so on.

I, for one, strenuously object to this kind of one-sided politics. We should build bridges between people, we should find the right words, the reassuring and constructive words, instead of always firing these pointed remarks, without ever uttering the slightest criticism against the other side.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: Mr. Lincoln, I do not believe that you can make the reality vanish by wishing it away. The best thing that we can do to make it disappear is to talk about it. You may not like us talking about linguistic assimilation and cultural erosion, but this reality exists, even in areas like Montreal and Ottawa. Just imagine: the rate of language retention among francophones in British Columbia is around 30%. It is all very well for you to tell me that you don't like us talking about that, but I believe that you should rather be concerned about creating conditions that will lead to the disappearance or the reduction of these situations. Perhaps then we will not hear as often the phrases that displease you, but as far as we are concerned, it is the reality that displeases us, and we are asking you to act on the reality and not be carried away in the political correctness movement that would have an existing reality just disappear by simply denying the facts and refusing to use a term that you do not like, if I may say so, Mr. Lincoln.

The Chair: I never said, Mr. Perreault, that you should not have the right to say what you think and to express the reality that is yours. I merely said that the way to do so and the words chosen are sometimes very unfortunate, and that is what I find: there was a very unfortunate choice of words. There are ways to use words that will not hurt and that are constructive. For example, to speak of the pseudo- minority in Quebec, that I represent in part, I find that a very unfortunate choice of words. That is the kind of thing that, instead of rallying people to your cause, will always create frictions, because you are deliberately using words that will hurt people, and I object to that. That's all.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: Mr. Lincoln, let me tell you that it is all very well for you to insist that we avoid using words that you may not like, but throughout Quebec,—you will not like this, but it is a statistical reality provided by a federal agency called Statistics Canada—even today, 62 or 63% of language transfers benefit the English language. That is not indicative of a minority situation. In Montreal, 75% of language transfers from allophones benefit the English language. In the Ottawa region, it is 100%. You may not like hearing about it but I believe that you should try and change that reality instead. If you were to do so, that redundancy that you are deploring in our insistence to publicize such deplorable situations as this one would not exist, we would not be talking about it today, if the reality did not exist. For my part, I would prefer to see you act on that reality.

Á (1145)

Le président: Mr. Duplain and Ms. Gagnon. Then we will wrap up.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Your message is loud and clear and I believe in it, and we are working on it, but I must tell you that I fully agree with what Mr. Lincoln said. These are words that I, as a francophone from Quebec, do not accept either, words that I do not use when I negotiate or when I discuss with my colleagues. I do not use them because I know that they antagonize poeple rather than solve problems. We are only talking about words here and this has nothing to do with the answer that you gave to Mr. Lincoln. We are fully aware of the situation and we agree that what you are saying is true. We are only talking about the words chosen to describe the situation.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: You will be judged by the results.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Perreault, I would just like to understand. When you talked about pseudo-minorities, what did you mean? A minority is not a pseudo- minority, it is a minority. In any case, if I was in Mr. Lincoln's shoes this morning, I would consider myself as a member of a pseudo-cultural minority that came here, that has chosen to live in Quebec. That may be it. Perhaps some explanation should be given. In what context did you say that because we always say things within a given context. That is what I would like to hear.

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: I will repeat some of the things I said. When you talk about minorities, there is the sociological concept and the numerical concept. Now, if you look at the Quebec territory, if you look strictly at the numbers, you may talk about an anglophone minority. However, if you look at the situation in the context of the whole Canadian and even the North-American context, I believe that if there is a minority, since in the world of broadcasting, borders are fast disappearing and if you look at it in the context of broadcasting and taking into account the reality such as it exists... For example, in Montreal, cable subscribers can tune in twice as many English-speaking television stations as they can French-language stations. In the Ottawa region, it is three times as many; in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, it is almost twice as many as well; in Rimouski, it is twice as many; in the Gaspé Peninsula, it is the same situation and in Sherbrooke as well. You will agree with us that we should not focus on the concept of a numerical minority when we are faced with a North-American anglophone reality that is supported by a legislation that even gives priority, in Canada, to foreign television stations. It has reached a point that even in Quebec, people can tune in more stations in their home. You will agree with us that you cannot talk about...

As well, when Canadian Heritage gives more than $2 million in grants each year to some anglophone groups to promote the North-American culture in Quebec, to promote the Anglo-Saxon culture in Quebec, you will agree with us that there is something particularly obscene in this scheme, especially when we know that the culture that is in difficulty in North America and in Canada, and even more so in Canada outside of Quebec is the French language culture. Now, we are seeing the Canadian government using its legislation on the two official languages to give grants to a group that is part of the Canadian majority. We see this in the field of television, in terms of grants. You will agree with us, when you look on the one hand at the disproportionate treatment that is granted to a numerical minority in Quebec, as opposed to what the francophones outside of Quebec do not obtain, because they are getting very little, that the equation between the two minorities... In my view, if there is a minority in Canada, it is a French-language minority. It represents some 23 or 24% of the population as a whole, and the anglophones in Quebec do not constitute, in my mind, a minority.

Á (1150)

The Chair: In closing, according to what you have said, I suppose you would have supported the CRTC decision not to grant a licence to TFO to broadcast in Quebec. Would you have supported TFO in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean and elsewhere?

Mr. Jean-Paul Perreault: Mr. Lincoln, we did that. The official position of Impératif français, and this can be found in a press release on Canada NewsWire, was the following: we want TFO to be on the basic package in Quebec, and we went as far as to ask for free analog basic service that everyone would have access to. That is what we suggested, that is what we asked for. That was the official position of Impératif français on that issue, and it will continue to be our official position: TFO, available free-of-charge to all subscribers on the basic package.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Perreault, and thank you to your colleagues.

I would remind committee members that we have a motion before us.

[English]

Ms. Gagnon's motion will be debated or analysed as soon as the delay is over. It's 48 hours, and we'll discuss it then.

And I remind members that tomorrow officials from the ministry will appear at 3:30 on Bill S-7.

The meeting is adjourned.