LANG 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, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

1530

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen (Minister of Public Works and Government Services)

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

1535

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC)

Hon. Stephen Owen

1550

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1555

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

1600

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1605

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

1610

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.)

Hon. Stephen Owen

Hon. Claude Drouin

Hon. Stephen Owen

1615

Hon. Claude Drouin

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

1620

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC)

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. James Lunney

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. James Lunney

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. James Lunney

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1625

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

Mrs. Nicole Bourget (Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Information Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Nicole Bourget

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Stephen Owen

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Executive Director, Broadcasting Directorate, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1640

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1645

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jacques Langlois (Director General, Broadcasting Policy Group, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

1650

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

1655

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1700

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

1705

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

1710

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1715

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1720

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mr. Jacques Langlois

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jacques Langlois

The Chair

1725

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1730

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 010

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): Order, please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to examine the impact of the suspension of federal government advertising activities on media operating in a minority environment in Canada.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to mention that we don't have anything under the orders of the day for today concerning future business. I would like us to consider very, very seriously the possibility of inviting the Minister of Transport to speak to us regarding the situation of bilingualism and official languages at Air Canada and of the issue of keeping the head office in francophone territory.

The Chair: Thank you for your suggestion. We have it written down and we'll be able to get back to it after hearing from our witness. We will take notice of it, and we will get back to it in between hearing from our two witnesses if possible, or after hearing from the second witness. We could even deal with it before adjourning today's meeting.

That being said, we have with us today the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Hon. Stephen Owen. I see that he is accompanied by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Nicole Bourget, and by the Supporting Assistant Deputy Minister, Guy Bédard. Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

Minister, do you have a statement before we proceed with questions from colleagues?

[Translation]

Hon. Stephen Owen (Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dear members and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, let me apologize for my French. I'm working very hard to improve it, but it is a slow process. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will continue in English.

The Chair: Minister, in this committee, one does not have to apologize for speaking either official language, because it's the Official Languages Committee. Please continue. I thank you for your comments.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I'm very pleased to appear here today to talk about the government advertising policy as it has changed over the last year or so, but over the last few months more dramatically, I suppose.

On March 15 of this year, I announced the new advertising policy, or at least a good part of it, of the Government of Canada. This really built on work that was commenced, I think, when our chair was Minister of Public Works, and then continued through Minister Goodale's time at Public Works. I was in the happy position to sort of pull this together and announce the way forward on March 15.

Included in that announcement was a moratorium that was to take place immediately, on March 15 of this year, and to continue until June 1 on any new placements of government advertising. This didn't affect continuing advertising campaigns--for instance, anti-tobacco campaigns, issues around the budget or taxation, or issues that were under way--but it did affect any new advertising campaigns, except for ones that might be emergencies or notices in the Canada Gazette and such things. Exceptions would have to be specifically requested for that purpose.

Another aspect of the new policy going forward involved the government's intention to reduce by 15% over the next three years the amount of money spent on the placing of government advertising--not the whole production cost, the total cost, but the actual placing of the advertising, which actually makes up the bulk of the cost to government. Producing the material is much less expensive than actually placing it on radio and TV or in newspapers.

This moratorium of several months was put in place in order to bring into effect new advertising rules that include the switching from commissions to hourly based labour rates. As we all know from the Auditor General's comments with respect to advertising as well as sponsorship, there has been some concern, real concern, about the use of commissions, which are harder to measure value for money from the services provided. So that's one shift.

Another shift for advertising companies and for an agency of record is to provide the restriction that 80% of a particular advertising company bidding for government work should be Canadian content. The previous rule, as our chair will be well aware, was that they must have 100% Canadian ownership. By going to 80% content, rather than 100% ownership, it widens the field very considerably, and therefore increases the competition available in the advertising field.

Also involved in these changes was continuing the competitive process, which is just coming to its conclusion now, for a new agency of record. In the future they would not be able to take part in advertising activities themselves, but would simply be involved in the placement of advertising products in various media across the country.

Of particular concern, I suppose, but a real target of the government's intention, is to reduce the cost across government of the placement of government advertising. Part of this will be accomplished just by the efficiencies of putting the strategic responsibility for advertising not in each department but in the Privy Council Office. Therefore, when we have government campaigns, we can ensure that across all departments the messages are consistent, not duplicative, and not contradictory. The role of actually granting and then monitoring and managing the contracts remains with Public Works and Government Services, but PCO will take over this more strategic role.

It will also have a strategic regional role to ensure that even though the same message may be going out, if there are different characteristics to different regions of the country, the message is properly targeted and phrased to address the particular characteristics. In an anti-smoking campaign, for instance, if in one region of the country the smoking rates were higher, the campaign might be promoted and produced in a different way.

¹ (1535)

I must say that there has been concern expressed by some media that government advertising would reduce because of the reduction in the placement budgets. This may well take place, but if we look at the trends over the last few years, I think we should take some confidence in various media and minority media, which is the concern, I understand, of this committee. Their concerns may not be well founded.

If we look at the amount of money spent to place ads over the last two years--and we just have the 2003-04 numbers in now, or at least an approximation of them--about $140 million was spent over 2002-03 and 2003-04, so over a two-year period. Two years ago it was $87 million, and last year it had dropped to $53 million. So when we look forward over the next three years to limit it to $70 million a year--that's what the 15% reduction from 2002-03 would be--we'll actually have an increase in spending this year.

If people aren't following me, perhaps I should switch to French. I know the numbers get a little confusing, and I'm sorry to give you so many in a row.

The practical effect of the 15% reduction from 2002-03, which was the base year, means that more money will actually be spent, averaged over the next three years, than was spent in the last year, which was 2003-04.

If everyone is still with me, I might refer, Mr. Chairman, to the appearance last month before the committee of representatives of several minority language media organizations. I understand that these organizations are concerned that the 15% reduction in media buying by the Government of Canada could have a serious financial impact on their businesses, and they are asking for immediate measures to compensate them. They've also suggested that 3% of all federal spending on advertising be set aside for minority language media.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the percentage that went in over the last two years, of the $140 million, $2.6 million of that went to minority media, which is about 1.6%, and the minority media organizations that have come before this committee have suggested a 3% target. So that's where we are now compared to what they're suggesting.

While I can appreciate their concerns, I must point out that the government spends taxpayers' dollars on advertising to inform Canadians about federal programs and services that affect their lives. Compensating media for lost revenues would defeat the purpose of the spending freeze.

I should also clarify for the committee that each department or agency of government is responsible for its own advertising media plans. Public Works and Government Services plays only a coordinating and advisory role as well as contracting for advertising services. We cannot direct the department on where or how to spend its advertising budget. That said, I am confident that the federal departments and agencies, through the new agency of record, will continue to place advertisements in minority language media when warranted.

Let me remind members that the communications policy of the Government of Canada with respect to advertising is very clear. The policy clearly states that institutions must respect the government's commitment, as stated in part VII of the Official Languages Act, to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. Advertising plans and campaigns must address the needs, concerns, and language preference of such communities. Media buys, media purchases, must include the purchase of advertising space and time in organs serving a community's official language minority, be it English or French.

Mr. Chairman, our government has clearly taken unprecedented and broad-based actions to address problems in the advertising program. We are moving aggressively to complete the job, but we need to get the changes right. In the end, I am confident that this approach will allow us to manage our advertising more efficiently with better planning, improved coordination, and a stronger focus on government priorities. This will ensure better value for taxpayers, which should be the litmus test for all federal spending.

¹ (1540)

When we consider the concept and the needs of minority media, be they French or English, anywhere in the country, by definition almost, it tends to be in smaller communities serviced by smaller media outlets, community newspapers, minority language newspapers, or other media. The cost of advertising in these types of media outlets is much less than it is the large, mainstream media in larger centres or areas where there is a dominant English or French population. When we think of the request of 3% of advertising dollars going to minority media, because that would reflect the percentage of, for instance, French population outside Quebec, this is not a tool for enhancing minority media, it's a tool for actually informing the public in an effective way of what services and programs the government is providing. It is not itself a cultural initiative to support any particular media in any particular language. There are under Heritage Canada initiatives and opportunities to receive funds to support the capacity building of minority media, but that is not the purpose of the government advertising initiatives, certainly through Public Works.

I might also say in conclusion, Mr. Chair, that the Government of Canada is extremely concerned that the Official Languages Act be complied with effectively, not just in the word but in the spirit, the effective spirit of ensuring minority language rights across the country. To that end, Public Works and Government Services is developing a new advertising handbook, which will have a special section dealing specifically with minority media. We will provide training in concert with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to all departments to ensure that in their application of the advertising practices they respect the Official Languages Act, as well as all the recommendations of the fall 2002 report and of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I would be happy to deal with any questions the members have, Mr. Chair.

¹ (1545)

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

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. I appreciate your informative discussion. I was just reviewing some information I had from a few years back on the subject, and you are very thorough in your discussion.

One of the things I've always wondered about--and perhaps you or the officials who are with you could enlighten us on this--is thee extent to which the dollars spent in minority language media are effectively placed in a way that actually reflects the placement of minority populations in the country. Let me give you a simple example of what I'm getting at when I look at something that strikes me as being not a particularly effective use of money, and you can tell me whether I'm off track on this.

In my own constituency there is a newspaper, called the Perth Courier, that services an area in which the number of francophones is very tiny indeed. It had an ad regarding the taking of water from the Tay River, which is a little river that runs through my area, in both French and English. It strikes me that this money might have been used more effectively, within the envelope you are working with, had it been used in an area with a more substantial francophone population. We're talking about an area that has virtually no francophone population. There are areas, of course, outside Quebec where there are very substantial francophone populations, including some areas, Mr. Godin's riding, for example, or our chair's riding, where francophones are a majority and there are a large number of people who don't speak English at all.

I'm really asking whether there is any consideration taken of this fact and an assurance made that those areas with the largest populations, and therefore the greatest need, are the ones that get the lion's share of the relevant advertising dollars.

Hon. Stephen Owen: I'd certainly agree that is the correct objective. If we're going to spend money as a government to advertise government services and programs, we want to spend it as efficiently as possible, so targeting is essential. The adjustments to the government's advertising policy I mentioned do include this new role for the Privy Council Office to ensure that rather than having each department perhaps going in a way that might be scatter-gun, there's an overall and a regional focus, to ensure that we're targeting in the most effective way.

I take your point. I think it's a good one. That should be underlying a department's and Public Works' oversight on the contracting, as well as PCO oversight on the strategic focus. It should be part of all of those objectives.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Scott Reid: Do you have any information you would be able to have your officials gather up and send to the committee that would provide some kind of breakdown of this sort? Obviously, you wouldn't have it today, but if you were able to dig it up, that would be really helpful, giving us some indication of regional breakdown. I'm not interested in the specific outlets, but the regional breakdowns, to see the extent to which they reflect the actual placement of minority language populations. I'm not just thinking of francophones outside Quebec. Within Quebec the anglophone minority are not placed randomly, they're in certain areas and not others.

Hon. Stephen Owen: I'm sure we can provide that information.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good afternoon, minister.

Who is responsible for the Official Languages Act within government?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Each department will have an official who is responsible for ensuring that the department complies with the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But there is a minister who is responsible, right?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: It's Minister Coderre, isn't it?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If this were a trial, I would say: "I have no further questions, Your Honour", but I would like to...

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Excuse me. The minister responsible overall is Minister Pettigrew.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right.

Requirement 23 of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada provides that and I quote:

Institutions must respect the Government of Canada's commitment, stated in Part VII of the Act, to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.

It also provides that:

Media buys must include the purchase of advertising space and time in organs serving a community's official language minority, be it English or French.

So this is a requirement under your department's policies, aside from the act, the Constitution, and even the Charter.

How do you meet this requirement and what follow-up is done to ensure that your department complies with this requirement? Is there a way for you to know and for us to know?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: As I've said, Mr. Chair, the point of having advertising for minority language media is to get a message out. The Government of Canada is very concerned that it get its message out. That is self-evident. We wouldn't have a program for the public if we weren't interested in telling the public to come to receive it. I think we can take as an article of faith that we are very concerned not only to comply with the requirements of the Official Languages Act, but also to effectively communicate with Canadians. Minority language media placement is an essential part of that.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would say that what you're telling us is self-evident: to inform, you get informed. I wonder what you do to ensure follow-up. Under requirement 23 of your policies, Public Works must purchase advertising space and time in organs serving a community's official language minority. It's an obligation. Do you apply this requirement 100% of the time, 50% of the time, 22%? Is it easier to obtain this list or the list for the national unity fund? Which one is more accessible?

¹ (1555)

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: There is monitoring of the effectiveness of advertising, as with any contract. As the contract management practices improve, as the recent report of the Auditor General has brought to everyone's attention, there is much greater attention to the need to ensure not only that there are proper competitive processes for advertising, what was sponsorship, and other government contracts, but also that these contracts are clearly set out with the obligations, as well as a measurement and post-mortem audit, to ensure that the objectives of the contract have been complied with. I must say as well that with respect to placing ads for the Government of Canada, where it is warranted, a department would place an ad in both official languages to ensure that it has the maximum scope.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm sorry, but I still have a problem with this. Under the Dion plan, with respect to the Official Languages Act, the most important thing is supposed to be accountability. The objective is for the government to make the most progress on the issue of accountability. Currently, two departments are under investigation for not complying with the Official Languages Act, National Defence and the Privy Council.

Yours is one of 27 institutions and departments which have to file an annual report, but the issue of accountability is completely absent from these annual reports tabled pursuant to a requirement of the Official Languages Act.

I ask you, what accountability measures have people in your department initiated to meet requirement 23? What you say is nice, but they are statements Mr. Parizeau would dismiss as words, words, words. There is no evidence that you're complying with requirement 23.

There is talk of allocating 3% of the budget to community media in minority environments. Can we see a chart? Earlier on, you said that the figure was about 1.1 per cent. Therefore, what you are saying is that in a way, you are not respecting the act. It was honest of you to say so. Can we have a chart to follow the situation as it evolves? If men and women are able to land on the moon, would it be possible to have that?

The Chair: Please answer briefly Minister, because time is running out.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: You have two questions there, one on how we measure the outcomes of our advertising placements with respect to the Official Languages Act. I'm sure I don't have to remind the member that there is a commissioner of official languages. For the fiscal year 2003-04 there were zero complaints to the commissioner of official languages with respect to Public Works and Government Services.

With respect to the 3%, I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted. It is not our objective to reach 3%. This is an artificial measurement for the placement of government advertising. What we are concerned with is getting the message to people who need to get it. The 3% was based on trying to link populations of a minority in an area to the overall budget for placement. That is not the correct equation. The correct equation concerns the cost. If you have smaller communities, which, by definition, minority communities are, the cost of advertising in those communities is much less than in the mainstream media. So having a dollar-to-population ratio is not the right measurement. The right measurement is impact and reaching people who need to get the information.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Welcome, Minister. I don't often get to address a colleague from western Canada at this committee, so welcome.

The media, in minority locations, has been hit not once but four times with some of the issues we're talking about today. First of all, we have the moratorium. We have the 15% cut, and I'm happy to hear you say it will still be over and above the base-year expenditures, if I heard you correctly.

Third, crown corporations apparently aren't advertising like they used to. For instance, I'm told BDC has just cancelled its advertising campaign. Fourth, I'm told that when the federal government does not advertise in local papers or local radio, it's also a disincentive for the provinces to advertise. So these people are being hit four times. You've obviously heard them tell you that some of them count on that for 20% to 40% of their revenue, essentially.

So I'm just wondering, when we made those decisions to cut and the decision on the moratorium, was the effect it would have on the minority media taken into consideration?

º (1600)

Hon. Stephen Owen: I must say that from Public Work's point of view, and the government's advertising objective overall, the capacity and support for minority media was not the prime objective. The prime objective, through the advertising aspects of government, is to get information effectively to people who need it.

Heritage Canada, on the other hand, is a department that could be looked to for capacity building for minority media. It may provide funding now, but I'm not aware of the specific level of its funding. That would be a more appropriate government department to deal with capacity in minority media. The advertising objective is simply to get the message out.

On the funding, just to make this clear, 2002-03 is the base year looked at that the 15% of placement funding is reduced from. In that year, the placements overall were $83 million, and they will drop over the next three years to about $70 million. That's the 15% reduction. But last year it was only $53 million to $54 million, so there should not be a decrease; in fact, there could potentially be an increase in the next three years, from last year, in minority media funding or placements.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I'm not sure if I misinterpreted this, but it seems to me your predecessor, Minister Goodale, indicated in the House at one point that we would no longer be utilizing advertising firms, or we would be doing this on our own. Is that correct?

Hon. Stephen Owen: That was with respect to sponsorship. In the last year, since our chair has been minister and Mr. Goodale has been Minister of Public Works, they have switched from using intermediary advertising companies to Communications Canada, within Public Works, doing it directly.

Mr. Raymond Simard: We have a responsibility as a government to ensure that whenever we advertise in one region in English, we advertise in French, or vice versa. Apparently that is the basic rule. On one of the issues I've been hearing about from some of the minority areas, for instance, a community radio station cannot keep track of whether or not we are providing that service, or if we are advertising in French when we are advertising in English. We just don't have the resources to follow that.

How do we ensure that happens?

Hon. Stephen Owen: We're going to be switching to a single agency of record--and that competition is just coming to a close. But for the whole country, media plans will be submitted to the agency of record, which will then arrange for the placements across the country, and we will be able to track it through comparing all of those media plans. So there will be records to track that, but that's an excellent point of vigilance we should have.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Minister.

Our briefing document reads as follows:

The fact that there are few or no anglophone community radio stations in Canada complicates the sale of government advertising products by Public Works and Government Services to francophone community radio stations outside Quebec. According to ARC du Canada, the department does not want to be perceived as favouring one linguistic group over another.

Is this true?

º (1605)

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Excuse me, are you suggesting that the government is favouring one linguistic group over another?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. They don't want to be perceived as favouring one group over another.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: We do not want to be perceived as doing that. We don't want to be favouring one over the other, in reality or perception.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: But is it not part of your mandate to help and support minority communities?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: It's certainly within the mandate of Public Works and Government Services, with respect to government advertising, to ensure that government messages about programs and services are effectively communicated to the public.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: You do not want to be perceived in this way, but it's part of your mandate. Are you ashamed of minorities outside of Quebec?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Certainly not.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I don't understand the point of the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier on, Mr. Chairman, our colleague Scott Reid said that there was money being spent in his riding where there is only a tiny francophone minority. You mentioned you agreed with that and that you wanted to ensure that the government was not spending money where it wasn't effective. Do you acknowledge that there is legislation here in Canada which states that we must accept both communities, francophone and anglophone, and that this money is not misspent, as long as there is one Canadian who cannot have access to service in his or her official language?

According to what you said earlier, we're going to spend money where it should be spent, but not in places where it will not be of great use. That's the message I understood.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: With respect, I think that's an extraordinary conclusion to take from my remarks. My remarks relate to effectively getting to Canadians the government message about services available to Canadians. That is the very purpose of ensuring there are placements in minority media in areas where there is a significant but minority media that needs to get the message in their own language, whether it be English or French.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Minister, you're saying that it has to be significant. That is the crux of the issue, because there are minorities. You agree and you admit it. Your message is of no help to me. In fact it frightens me, because you're saying money must be well spent, and that if it's not significant, it's not appropriate.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Certainly my objective is not to frighten our colleague, but to make the point that it is less expensive to advertise in minority media in communities where, by definition, that language group is a minority. You're talking about smaller publications and often smaller media outlets, and therefore the advertising rates are less. This is in response to a comment that there may be inadequate need in a particular community to do advertising in an equal amount in one language and the other when the population difference is great. That seems to be self-evident to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand. We have two communities, and I don't see why it wouldn't be fair to give everyone the same information, which doesn't mean they all listen at the same time. I know that the Conservative Party, for years, believed that francophones were in Quebec and anglophones were in the rest of Canada. You seem to be confirming that, you seem to hold the same opinion. You didn't say it in so many words, but that's the message my Conservative colleagues want to convey.

º (1610)

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Quite the opposite, Mr. Chair. The whole point of placement in minority media is to overcome the concern the member is suggesting.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Have groups taken any steps to meet with you regarding the problems created by the cutbacks to sponsorships for minority media? Are you willing to work with your colleagues from Heritage Canada to try to find solutions?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: If the question is whether I am open to working with my colleague the Minister of Heritage to find solutions such as those expressed by the members of ARC, which came before this committee, certainly I am, as with sponsorship. Since the sponsorship program was cancelled and the Department of Canadian Heritage assumed responsibility for sponsoring cultural or local community sports activities or festivals, we refer people who may have been affected by the Public Works sponsorship program to Canadian Heritage, and they attempt to accommodate their needs. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing an outstanding job attempting to ensure, and very effectively ensuring to date, that most of the festivals and activities at a community level that were previously funded under sponsorship can be funded into the future.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, deputy ministers, it is a pleasure to welcome you to this committee.

Minister, I would like to quickly go back over one point. You refer to 2002-2003 as the base year. We're looking at $83 million. For 2003-2004, the budget was reduced by $57 million. You refer to a 15% annual cut over the next three years. In fact for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, it would be about $70 million. That's what I understood. Essentially that's 15% more than for the year 2003-2004. Is that correct?

Hon. Stephen Owen: Yes.

Hon. Claude Drouin: All right.

You mentioned that according to some members it could reach 3%, when the minority outside of Quebec represents a bit more than 4% of the population, but the objective was not necessarily to have an absolute number. You mostly want the message to get out to the population. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I understood that in some areas the minority wasn't significant enough to allow for the message to be sent out.

In that case, can the department assess whether the advertising we do reaches minorities throughout Canada? It may be onerous but there is a budget; would it not be possible to send out the same message in both official languages to ensure that, in the areas where there are smaller minority groups, these groups are still able to receive the message in their official language?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: First of all, thank you. Your interpretation of my remarks on the percentages was right. Even though the global budget for media placements is going down by 15% from the average of 2002-03, because there was a drop last year, it will actually be going up over the next three years, rather than down. There was an anomaly last year, and I think we can all imagine why there was such an anomaly, because of the concern over sponsorship, and advertising generally. But also, this will fluctuate from year to year, because the need is not constant. The government advertises when it has a new program that particularly needs to be brought to the public's attention.

We do hold major evaluations after each campaign to try to assess the effectiveness of reaching the public generally, and that would, of course, include minority language populations in different parts of the country. There also is the right, under the Official Languages Act, of people to get information in both official languages, or the language they need, and that is part of the government advertising policy. We work with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to ensure that this takes place, and as I said previously, we will be providing training through Public Works and Government Services, with the office of the commissioner, to each department to ensure that they understand their obligations under the act.

º (1615)

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Drouin: Minister, I would like to get back to ways of ensuring that we are reaching out to our minorities in areas where they may be in smaller numbers.

Can the department do some sampling, if it doesn't already do so, to ensure that smaller minority groups have access to government messages in their official language?

I don't know if you understand my question.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Yes, I think so.

It's not within the mandate of Public Works and Government Services, as a general service provider with respect to contracting for advertising, to ensure in a global way that the Official Languages Act is respected in spirit, so that everyone communicates with the Government of Canada in the official language of their choice. However, this is an objective of our government, of course. I think the minister responsible for official languages has the general responsibility to work with the commissioner carefully to identify areas where they may be underserviced. It seems logical to me that where there's a very small percentage minority, it's less likely that there will be media outlets existing in that community. It becomes harder and harder to get a message out as the minority becomes smaller and smaller. That's an overall challenge of government, but I think it's beyond the mandate of Public Works and Government Services.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Before we move on to the second round, I have a question for the minister.

I understand that the objective of the program is not to subsidize community radio stations or other agencies. That's not the objective. The objective, as you just stated, is to inform the public. I think everyone accepts that.

Nonetheless, the threshold for a government, especially one which has to live with the Official Languages Act, is not the same as that of the general population or of the average businessman, which leads me to the following point. When you cancel a contract with radio stations, small minority media, you may be jeopardizing their viability, but if you cancel 1/16 of a page in the Globe and Mail, I don't think anyone will panic on Bay Street in Toronto. I think you have to admit that the effect is not the same.

Do you not think that, even if the objective is not to provide subsidies but rather to send out the government's messages, the threshold is higher for the government than for another advertiser?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: I quite take your point. I can see that as a challenge for all departments of government. There is, as you say, a threshold or critical mass below which a media outlet cannot continue. Since minority community media tend to be more dependent on government advertising than larger--

º (1620)

The Chair: They're vulnerable if they're cancelled.

Hon. Stephen Owen: Yes. This is a challenge. However, I think we have to look at different functions of government. There may well be a responsibility of government globally, whether through Heritage Canada or under the direction of the minister responsible for official languages, to try to ensure that the threshold is maintained. We shouldn't mix that with the responsibility for each department to advertise services. The advertising function is one way to deal with that, but I don't think the advertising budget is the way to do it. I think the way to do it is through other cultural and linguistic support programs.

[Translation]

The Chair: Finally, regarding the question raised by Mr. Reid, I want to look at it from a completely different angle. When there is no minority language media, I would say to you that we have an even greater responsibility to find a way to advertise in the majority language media, because in fact, that's all there is, for example in Mr. Reid's community, Lanark, which he referred to earlier. If you want to serve the francophone population, you don't have any other choice but to publish announcements in an English-language paper, but in French. Indeed, there is no other way to do it.

Rather than say that it is less important, shouldn't we be saying that it's even more important?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: It may well be, and in print advertising that is quite straightforward. It's more difficult when we're dealing with electronic media.

The Chair: Granted.

[Translation]

We will now start the second round.

Quickly, Mr. Lunney.

[English]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Thank you, monsieur le président.

I'm still going back over some of these numbers and trying to make sense of them. Minister Owen, you made reference to numbers like $140 million, which then became $87 million, I think in 2003.

Hon. Stephen Owen: The $140 million was the total cost of placing government advertising for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04.

Mr. James Lunney: That's a two-year figure.

Hon. Stephen Owen: It's a two-year figure: $87 million of it was the first year, $53 million was the second year.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you. I missed the addition there.

Figures we have here from the Library of Parliament say in 2002 and 2003 the Government of Canada invested more than $110 million in advertising. Those expenses included the planning, creation, and production of advertising and the purchase of media time and space. I'm trying to reconcile that with what you said earlier here about the 15% reduction in media placement expenses. Apparently, that doesn't apply to the production of ads, but just to the placing of the ads.

Hon. Stephen Owen: Yes.

Mr. James Lunney: Can you shed some light on how this is broken down? How much money is actually invested in placing ads and producing ads? Are these different accounts?

Hon. Stephen Owen: They would all accumulate into the same account, but the placement costs tend to be much higher than the production costs. In 2002-03 the placement costs were $87 million and the total for placement and production was $110 million, which would give you the ratio.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau, you may ask one last question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have several, but I would like you to reconfirm that no complaint was made to the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding advertising.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: In reference to advertising.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right.

I find it a bit odd that you're telling us to that you are going to provide training to people to explain to them how the Official Languages Act works, an act which has been in effect since 1969, or for 35 years. I want to tell you that I find that a bit odd.

Moreover, when you say that it is not your mandate to ensure that the Official Languages Act is complied with, but rather that of Canadian Heritage, I find the message rather ambiguous for the entire public service, if I've understood you correctly.

You say that after each advertising campaign, you do a major assessment to see if you've reached your objectives. Could you give us one, two or three examples of assessments you've done for large advertising campaigns? In these cases how was requirement 23 or the obligation under part VII of the Official Languages Act complied with? Take for instance an anti-smoking campaign, a luggage and air safety campaign, or a campaign on EDC. You do a major assessment to try to find out whether you were able to reach everyone and comply with Part VII of the Official Languages Act...

º (1625)

The Chair: You'll have to conclude, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Finally, do you agree with a fixed envelope for minority language communities?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: For the first part of that, I'll ask Madame Bourget to answer, looking historically.

[Translation]

Mrs. Nicole Bourget (Assistant Deputy Minister, Government Information Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Mr. Sauvageau, important advertising campaigns are assessed. You can find the results in our first annual report on advertising; it was published last year and we can send you a copy. We will be publishing one every year. However, seeing as most community media, namely radio stations, do not have BBM ratings, it is very difficult for us to measure results. We measure to see if we have reached our objectives, the target audience, etc. These assessments include certain things, but we don't go into great detail. Under certain circumstances we do assessments to try to measure the impact of the campaign, but it all depends on the nature of the campaign. But there is an assessment after every important government campaign.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is part VII of the Official Languages Act included in that?

Mrs. Nicole Bourget: Yes, because national campaigns must respect the spirit of the legislation. So, any promotion must be done in both official languages. On TV, the campaigns are in both languages. That is also the case for radio and print media.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The issue of the fixed envelope remains.

The Chair: Minister, can you quickly answer the second question?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Excuse me...?

[Translation]

The Chair: Repeat the question, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Would you agree with the principle of having a fixed budget, an envelope earmarked for minority language communities, to enable them to plan their activities?

[English]

Hon. Stephen Owen: Each department has a responsibility for its own programs, to make sure they're properly communicated to the Canadian public. This will vary from year to year, and within a year, and from department to department, depending on its major campaigns. So I would not agree, in principle, with a fixed budget for advertising for a minority media. Remember, we're talking about placements in minority media for what may be a whole range of very different government advertising campaigns in any one year.

[Translation]

The Chair: Minister, we thank you for your presence here this afternoon. We also want to thank your two assistant deputy ministers, of course.

In a few minutes, we will be meeting with Mr. Marc O'Sullivan of the CRTC as well as other witnesses.

Did the members want to deal with the issue raised by Mr. Proulx? Or we can take a two-minute break and get back to it at the end or...

If you like, we can take a two-minute health break and resume afterwards with the CRTC.

The meeting is suspended for five minutes maximum.

º (1630)

º (1635)

The Chair: Order, please. We will now resume.

We have a full quorum if we include everyone who is in the room and will be coming to the table shortly.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying on the broadcasting and availability of the debates and proceedings of Parliament in both official languages by CPAC.

Our witnesses this afternoon are Mr. Marc O'Sullivan, Executive Director, Broadcasting Directorate, the CRTC, and Mr. Jacques Langlois, Director General, Broadcasting Policy Group.

Gentlemen, welcome. Did you have a statement before taking questions from the members?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Executive Director, Broadcasting Directorate, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): I have a brief statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I will outline the actions taken by the CRTC in light of both your committee's report, Role and responsibilities of the CRTC in developments in the area of official languages in Canada, and of the government's response to your report.

First, the committee recommended that the commission develop the concept of a bilingual market. In its response, the government was of the view that while the committee's recommendation had merit, the commission's existing policies aimed at providing a wider distribution of minority-language specialty services, already in place, would seem to not only achieve the committee's objectives, but surpass them. The commission's policies in this area ensure that all Canadians regardless of where they live, will receive services in the official language of the minority as cable companies upgrade their systems. This has already resulted in an increase in the number of services in both official languages offered to all Canadians.

Second, the committee urged the CRTC to require direct broadcast satellite service providers to carry the signals of the regional television stations of the CBC/SRC.

In our decisions renewing the licences of Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice published March 31, 2004, the commission determined that the licensees will be required, as a condition of licence, to distribute a minimum of five CBC English-language television stations and a minimum of five CBC French-language television stations. These will include at least one English-language and one French-language station from each time zone. Furthermore, the licensee will be required to distribute at least the same number of CBC English-language television stations as English-language conventional television stations from any other broadcasting group. This also applies for the CBC French-language owned- and-operated television stations.

[English]

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Thirdly, the committee recommended that the Government of Canada add the CRTC to the list of designated federal institutions in its accountability framework adopted in August 1994 in order to ensure the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of part 7 of the Official Languages Act. The commission was added to the list of designated federal agencies and institutions on August 22, 2003. Accordingly, the CRTC consulted various interested stakeholders and developed an action plan for the implementation of section 41. This action plan will be made public shortly.

Fourthly, the committee recommended that the Governor in Council, by order, direct the CRTC to make it mandatory for all broadcasting distribution undertakings, without exception, to distribute to all of their subscribers the video and audio signals of the debates of Parliament via CPAC in both official languages. The government, in its response, indicated that it would issue a directive to the CRTC to require class 1 and class 2 cable systems to distribute CPAC on two separate video channels, one for each official language.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated in her testimony to this committee on March 30, 2004, the commission is presently being consulted on this issue. We will be responding to the government in the days to come.

Fifthly, the committee recommended that the CPAC signal be distributed as part of the basic cable service, protected from displacement by closed-circuit video programming, and that the broadcasting distribution regulations be amended in this regard, if necessary.

As indicated by the government's response, the commission requested that all licensees in exempt distribution systems notify their hotel and motel customers of the changes to the broadcasting distribution regulations, which took effect on September 1, 2002, and the requirement that they must now distribute CPAC in both official languages.

º (1640)

[Translation]

Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to outline the present requirements regarding the distribution of the CPAC service as specified in Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-377 and Public Notice 2001-115 as I understand that this has been discussed at a recent committee hearing.

The commission requires all Canadian broadcast distributors, with the exception of the smallest analogue cable distributors, to distribute CPAC in both official languages throughout Canada. This means that satellite distributors must distribute CPAC in both official languages. In addition, all distributors, cable or others, with more than 2,000 subscribers must make a second audio feed of CPAC available in the official language of the minority in their market, using second audio programming or SAP technology.

All distributors with more than 2,000 subscribers using digital technology with a capacity of 750 megahertz or more are also required to make available a separate video channel of CPAC in the official language of the minority in their market on either a digital or an analogue basis. All smaller distributors with less than 2,000 subscribers using digital technology, with 550 megahertz or more, are required to provide CPAC in both official languages. However, these undertakings are granted flexibility with respect to the technical means, either analogue or digital, by which they distribute CPAC in both official languages.

Any smaller distributor with less than 2,000 subscribers, whose system is fully interconnected, must distribute CPAC with the same distribution status in both official languages as the system to which they are interconnected. That means that unless a smaller system that is connected to a major system can show the commission that it does not have sufficient channel capacity, it must provide the same level of service to its subscribers, with respect to providing CPAC in both official languages, as the larger system.

CPAC has also made a commitment to assist smaller distributors with the purchase of technical equipment that allows for the distribution of a second audio, or SAP, channel to subscribers. CPAC is also committed to developing and funding a marketing campaign to increase subscribers' awareness of the CPAC programming option.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing us with this opportunity to convey our remarks. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Sullivan.

The committee members have probably noticed that there were no briefing notes from the Library of Parliament for these witnesses. That is because confirmation of their appearance came very late, which meant that the Library people did not have time to prepare documents.

That said, Mr. Sauvageau, you have the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome.

My first question deals with the second recommendation in your brief, on page 1. The second paragraph states:

In our decision renewing the licences of Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice published March 31, 2004, the commission determined that the licensees will be required, as a condition of licence, to distribute a minimum of 5 CBC English-language television stations and a minimum of 5 CBC French-language television stations. These will include at least one English-language and one French-language station from each time zone.

In your response to recommendation 2, would it not be appropriate to require CPAC to be included in this so-called package deal?

My second question deals with your response to recommendation 4, which reads as follows:

The committee recommended that the governor in council, by order, direct the CRTC to make it mandatory for all broadcasting distribution undertakings [...]

The response to that recommendation states:

[...] the commission is presently being consulted on this issue. We will be responding to government in the days to come.

Given that the report dates back to February 2003, which is 14 months ago, and you will be giving your response in a few days, could you give us a scoop? In a few days, we may no longer be here. We may be doing other things. If you can and wish to give us a scoop, go ahead. I would be pleased if you did.

Turning now to recommendation 5, I am probably completely off topic and out in left field, but I will try something here. If you can get involved in closed-circuit programming in hotels and make a rule that CPAC cannot be removed, do you have any oversight when it comes to closed-circuit retailing of films that are 99.9% in English? In Quebec City and Hull, 99.9% of the films available are in English. I know that this is not directly connected with what we are talking about here, but since you are here before me, I want to take advantage of this opportunity. Do you have any oversight regarding this?

Those are my three questions.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: All right. I will answer them in the order in which you asked them.

º (1645)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: First of all, with respect to CPAC by satellite service, that is, Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice, the requirement is that two CPAC signals have to be distributed. So that is already covered and required. Following our decision on CPAC, it must be distributed in both languages by both satellite services.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Your second question dealt with the order. You are quite right in saying that the government gave its response some time ago. However, we are waiting for the order itself. The Broadcasting Act requires that the governor in council consult the CRTC before issuing the order in its final form. So we were waiting. In late March we received this official consultation on the part of the government. We had to wait for the commission's next meeting because the consultation took place with commission members and not CRTC staff. So we had to wait for the commission's meeting, which will be held this week. The commission will then be in a position to respond to the government regarding the proposed order.

Concerning your question about a scoop. The chairman knows very well that a proposed order is a confidential cabinet document. So it is difficult for me to reveal the content...

The Chair: We understand that.

Do you have any other questions, Mr. Sauvageau?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you have any oversight with respect to closed-circuit programming in hotels?

We MPs are often in a situation where we arrive somewhere with our families and 99.9% of the films available are in English, which is a bit frustrating. Yet we are living in Quebec, in the National Capital Region. You state:

The committee recommended that the CPAC signal be distributed as part of the basic cable service protected from displacement by closed-circuit video programming [...]

Are you referring to hotels, conference centres, etc.? Since you have that oversight regarding CPAC where closed-circuit programming is concerned, do you have any oversight or regulation when it comes to private circuits?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: To begin with, hotels are exempt, subject to certain conditions. The main one is that they have to distribute basic local cable service. Their closed-circuit service, that is, films, is not broadcasting; it is an internal service offered by the hotel that guests can pay for. We have no oversight there.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much. Do I have a little more time?

The Chair: You may ask another question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: After the committee's report in February 2003, after the recommendations and the responses to the recommendations, did the situation regarding CPAC in both official languages improve for the minority language communities? Has there been a tangible, major change, or is this a long-term effort?

Mr. Jacques Langlois (Director General, Broadcasting Policy Group, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): There certainly has been progress. Ms. Watson appeared before us not long ago. She would probably be able to give you the details about expansion of the service in both languages.

The commission has heard that the second audio channel is being deployed very quickly and that it is well received. There are many systems that exceed their basic obligations. They distribute two video signals, whereas they are required to distribute only one signal and the secondary audio signal.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jobin.

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): We had the CPAC people here the other day and they explained to us the technological problem involved in providing CPAC services in both languages. They told us that it would have to wait until 2010, when everyone will have converted to digital. They said that the current technology would have to be used until then, as you indicate in your document as well. All the distributors offer the SAP system with their own technology, whether it works or not.

It is mainly older people who watch this programming and use this system, and they have a great deal of difficulty getting CPAC in the language of their choice. Would it not be a good idea, even with an analogue system, to choose a French channel and an English channel to broadcast CPAC in the various regions?

º (1650)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Are you talking about distribution on two analogue channels?

Mr. Christian Jobin: They could drop an American channel. There are about 93 American stations that invade Canada. One of them could be replaced with CPAC in French, and another with CPAC in English. Could that be done from now until 2010, when we will have the new digital system?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: It would be possible from a technical standpoint. There is no reason that such a requirement could not be imposed. That is basically how the CRTC saw the issue when it made its decision on the renewal of CPAC's distribution licence. The CRTC strategy is to serve minority language communities better while taking into account the wishes of the public as a whole. It is a question of balance.

The switch to digital is the ultimate solution because that technology will offer increased capacity. That will allow us to do more things for the official language communities, but also to fulfil other social objectives. APTN is an example of a service that we would like to have distributed as widely as possible.

So this capacity problem will be partly resolved by the transition to digital technology. Requiring two channels to be set aside so as to be able to offer one service in both languages is a major decision. To my knowledge, that is not done for any other service. If it was decided to replace a channel in an analogue system by a second CPAC channel offering exactly the same programming—there is no distinct programming in the other official language; it is the same programming translated into the other language—there are people who would ask what we are doing and why we are forcing them to have two identical services in the two official languages. So we have tried to strike the right balance.

The government's order will indicate what exactly should be required. If I were appearing next week, I would be able to tell you what the order says, but I am unfortunately not able to do so right now.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: I would like to add that digital penetration is moving ahead very quickly and I am not sure that 2010 is the magic date. I believe that we may get there before then, since there are already 4 million digital subscribers. So there are 4 million Canadian subscribers who can receive CPAC in both languages on different channels.

The Chair: Mr. Jobin, one last question.

Mr. Christian Jobin: At one point, La Soirée du hockey was no longer being broadcast in Quebec by Radio-Canada. Those responsible finally realized that 20% of the population was using an ordinary television with rabbit ears. When the public speaks, the government reacts, and La Soirée du hockey is now being shown by Radio-Canada. I think that people will finally start talking about CPAC and then something might be done.

My second question is on satellite service. There are two main players: Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice. The cultural communities that want to watch programming from their original cultures have to use, not the black market, but the grey market. In other words, they set themselves up with an American address and receive the signals they choose. In Canada, there are 93 foreign channels, of which 75 are American. That leaves 18 for other countries, but only four of them are currently used. Should we not ensure that our cultural communities can have legal access to satellite television by increasing the foreign programming on the 14 stations that are now available?

º (1655)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: That issue was debated yesterday with your colleagues at the industry committee, who are considering Bill C-2, which would amend the Radiocommunication Act by increasing certain fines for satellite signal piracy.

The commission is trying to maintain a balance by taking into account the ultimate objective of the Broadcasting Act, which gives us our mandate, dealing with Canadian content. The Broadcasting Act states that the broadcast system must belong to Canadians, must be predominantly Canadian in content, and must be a reflection of Canada's cultural identity and cultural sovereignty. So our ultimate objective is to try to have as much Canadian content as possible on television screens.

To achieve that goal, we give licences to Canadian broadcasters to provide programming both in English and in other languages. We allow them to broadcast foreign content, which is often the most popular and constitutes the economic backbone of the station; in exchange, we require that they broadcast Canadian content. The broadcasters finance the Canadian content by the foreign programming they are allowed to air, which is more popular. On the English side, this is American programming.

The same thing is done in the case of ethnic services. They receive licences, and the programming that they buy from the various countries is the most popular and enables them to do local, Canadian programming in that other language.

So we are trying to build a Canadian system that includes languages other than French and English and native languages. To do that—

The Chair: We are running out of time, sir.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The issue of the number of foreign services that are available is related to that. When a cable company applies for a licence to distribute a service from another country, we must determine whether or not this service will compete with an existing Canadian channel operating in the same language, and serving the same population. If that is the case, then we assess the extent to which this service would likely compete with the Canadian channel, and the licence is either granted or denied accordingly.

The Chair: We must continue with the questions. Otherwise, members will not have a turn to speak, and the bells will start to ring.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'Sullivan, I don't agree with what you have said, and I will tell you why in a minute. You say that it is difficult to justify broadcasting two identical channels in two different languages. We are not talking about an ordinary program. We are talking about the proceedings in Canada's Parliament, where the people can watch their elected members in action. There is a difference here. If CBC or Radio-Canada broadcasts a western movie, we don't expect the film to be translated. That is not what we are talking about. We are discussing CPAC, the broadcasting of parliamentary debates. According to clauses 41 and 42 of part VII of the Official Languages Act, this service must be provided to all Canadians. That is the difference.

There are not too many Canadian channels broadcast in the United States. I can assure you that Americans do not have much to say about the Prime Minister of Canada or Yvon Godin. But there is a lot of American coverage on Canadian television. Mr. Jobin says that we could replace one American channel. I can tell you that where I come from, in Bathurst, people do not watch channel 14. I would be prepared to sacrifice that channel. Let us replace it by CPAC so that people can watch the House of Commons debates. That is the difference between the two.

In Bathurst, where I come from, Rogers should be a class 1 company. I don't think that Rogers is a class 3 company. It has a class 1 licence. In his report, the minister said that the class 1 and 2 companies would broadcast two video channels in two languages. Do clauses 41 and 42 of part VII of the act not mean that these people should be served in both languages? That is the problem that we have. I am sure you are aware of it and that you have looked into it. That is why we are here today.

The SAP is really only accessible to those who have a stereo television set. The people who watch CPAC and who vote are generally older. These people are retired and have time to watch question period. They are the ones who are interested in watching.

My preamble may have been a little long, but I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject. What is your take on this?

» (1700)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: You have raised an interesting issue. If I may, I would like to ask you a question on the relationship between the House of Commons debates and the rest of CPAC's programming.

When the committee examined this matter prior to the recommendation that you made relating to CPAC, was there any thought given to distinguishing between the House of Commons debates and the rest of the programming on CPAC?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't think we covered that. For some years now, and more recently, we have had access to programming in French, and not only for the debates. We watch CPAC at seven in the evening, and it's live, etc. The committee debates are broadcast in both languages. We have access to that programming. As recently as last week, for example, when the committee met, CPAC broadcast everything in English in my region. It was done just like that, someone pushed a button and everything was in English. The phone in my office started to ring off the hook. It was unbelievable. The anglophones thought that, finally, CPAC is broadcasting in English. That afternoon, francophones started calling Rogers, to ask about the English audio. And all of the anglophones were calling my office. That shows you how interested people are, and I don't mean only one or two.

I'd like to come back to the minister's recommendation for classes 1 and 2. This even involves digital technology, with a 10-year window, or two, or one. That is too late. That's not what people want.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Rogers can afford it and find a way to do it.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The Minister, Ms. Copps, had issued a press release after the tabling of your report and the government response. There will have to be a clear order in council. We are following the guideline. This has not yet been made public.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but the cable companies must broadcast CPAC. I think this is included in the basic subscription. Now, people will have to buy a digital decoder. What about the subscriber who does not have access to programming in the language of his choice? The company is happy not to have to add another channel and to sell a decoder. As far as I am concerned, the CRTC is responsible for ensuring that we have regulations to protect the two linguistic communities in Canada. That is essential, otherwise we will make no headway.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The CRTC is aware of the will of the committee, the will that has been expressed by the government. It will be even more aware of that fact when the government issues its guideline. All that I can tell you is that the CRTC took that into account in rendering its decision on CPAC. I know that you feel this is not good enough. You don't think our decision has gone far enough in responding to the distribution requirements. The government will respond through an order in council. The government will tell us exactly what demands must be placed on the cable distributors.

The Chair: Agreed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: May I have one more minute? No, okay.

The Chair: No. You may have another turn later, if you like. Mr. Simard, your turn.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

I would like to come back to the question put by my colleague, who mentioned last week's witnesses, the cable company representatives. I believe that their main argument was based on financial considerations. They felt that it made no sense to reinvest in analogue technology which is outdated. They quoted some figures, but I can't remember them. I think that to convert all of the existing systems to digital, the cost would be in the billions, perhaps two or three. This represents a substantial investment. They tell us that their main competition comes from the satellite distributors. If I understand correctly, they have two networks that are 100% functional. But what must come first? Is it financial considerations, market forces, or the right of Canadians to have access to services in both languages? That is the decision that you will soon have to make, and I would like to hear your position on this.

» (1705)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: In reviewing the licence renewal application for CPAC, the commission did not so much consider the number of subscribers, but rather the capacity to move to digital. That is why we distinguished between systems with a capacity that was smaller or greater than 750 megahertz and those with a capacity that was greater or smaller than 550 megahertz. We had to consider how well they could convert to digital. There are a lot of incentives available to cable companies to move to a digital universe. CPAC represents a minor incentive for them to improve their offerings because of the competition by satellite systems. And they will also have other revenue-generating opportunities. Interactive television may provide them with other sources of revenue.

It is therefore to their advantage to have a digital system up and running as quickly as possible, certainly in the larger centres and progressively in the other areas. There is also the deployment of high-speed Internet services that they want to make available to as many areas in Canada as possible. So they do have incentives, and they are evolving.

We tried to take into account the different capacities, but most of the class 1 services, which serve the larger urban areas and the largest segment of the Canadian population, have already made the move to digital. So, the possibility does exist. I understand the frustration about digital being the only solution. And digital service is more expensive. As a result of our decision, there will be no extra charge for access to CPAC. If digital service is provided, then CPAC must be included; there must not be any additional fees to subscribe to CPAC as part of a digital package. But I agree that it will cost extra to have a decoder.

We tried to take the capacity into account. We don't need to force them to convert to digital, because they are already doing that. The cable companies want to convert, because they see this as a source of future income for their industry. So they are doing this willingly. But I know that there will always be communities here and there, even if the numbers are dropping, that won't have the service. There will always be people who will not be willing to pay extra for digital service. I understand that.

The government will tell us what the requirements are.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: Another important factor is that Canada's entire broadcasting system is moving towards digital. Not only the cable companies and the satellites, but also conventional, over-the-air television. There are now licences for over-the-air television. Like the United States, where they are further than we are, the entire Canadian broadcasting system is moving to digital. Analogue technology will eventually disappear. The cable companies told you last week that they saw no advantage to investing in analogue because it is a dying technology. All of their future investments will be in digital.

The Chair: One final question.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Two short questions, if I may.

» (1710)

The Chair: Fine. Go ahead.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I know we all want to be reasonable, but we became very concerned when we heard 2010. We know that when people say 2010, it ends up being 2015. We aren't talking about tomorrow morning, or even the near future. I find that a bit worrying.

Mr. Chairman, my question should perhaps be to you. We gave our report to the minister in February, received a positive response, and were assured that an order in council respecting this recommendation would be issued, but have heard nothing to date. I don't know whether we might ask you to contact the minister to see how far this has got, and to see whether we might have something concrete within the next few days.

The Chair: We can do better than that. We can ask a question in the House of Commons. I will volunteer to put the question, but others may do so if they wish.

Mr. Raymond Simard: It is time to see something concrete in place.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we start on the next round, I have a question myself.

Isn't there a contradiction in the policy on CPAC? Please forgive if I'm wrong. We know that, if CPAC is provided, it must be provided as part of basic cable. Is that correct? Distributors may not ask people to pay more.

But it seems that, to have CPAC in both languages, customers need digital service which carries an additional cost, and need to buy or rent a decoder. Doesn't that amount to an imposition of additional costs for access to CPAC in the second language? Isn't there a contradiction in the policy?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: You can access the second language through the video signal, or use the SAP function in the same video signal, cost-free.

The Chair: But there are costs, really, because you need a new television set.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: I am told that, for the past 10 years, most television sets...

The Chair: We did a test here. In a now-notorious experiment, one of the members even bought a TV set at Canadian Tire. However, the system did not work in his riding.

That said, would you not agree that there is a contradiction in the statement that this should be included in the basic package? It doesn't matter how you define the term "basic". What it always implies is that it is the package that costs the least. If we need to buy an additional service for access to the second language, essentially that means we no longer have the basic package, since we need to pay an additional cost.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Requiring the same service to be offered on two separate video channels, providing exactly the same programming in one or the other official language, is very burdensome.

Logically, I understand that is how the set up should be. What we do for one language must be done for the other. From a purely legal standpoint, in terms of linguistic rights, there should be exactly the same distribution for the programming in both languages.

The Chair: To my mind, the need for digital service to have access to the second language is equivalent to paying for a far more expensive package. Would you not agree?

At home, I get basic service for $30 or $40. For $5 extra, I have a few stations more. The channel in the second language is part of an additional package, just like those channels, is it not?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: It's the same thing, in that there are indirect charges to pay.

The Chair: That's what I mean.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: As we were saying earlier, the consumer needs to buy or rent the decoder. However, to receive CPAC, there are no direct charges to pay, only indirect charges associated with the rental or purchase of the decoder which makes it possible to receive digital signals.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, please ask your next question. I think I have exhausted this subject.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: If I may, I'd like to add something about capacity management. The reason for our focus on the transition to digital is that the capacity required for an analogue channel is equivalent to the capacity required for 10 digital channels. In other words, with digital, we multiply our capacity by 10.

By contrast, a service broadcast over two analogue channels takes up as much space as 20 digital channels. So this is a capacity management issue. For every analogue channel that we drop, we can add 10 digital channels. We can increase choices for Canadians. By setting aside a second analogue channel, we lose the ability to broadcast 10 digital channels.

» (1715)

Mr. Yvon Godin: However, if we take away an analogue channel and replace it with another analogue channel, there is no difference except for the lost analogue channel. If the U.S. channel were replaced by CPAC, that would amount to a simple transfer, not a loss of capacity.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: Exactly. However, even if you don't like that U.S. channel, many others probably do. Those people would probably not be happy to see their favourite channel replaced by CPAC in the minority language.

For example, in the west, CPAC in French would be heard by francophones in minority communities. Other people would be disappointed to see their channel replaced by another channel they would almost never watch.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But it's a question of respect for official languages.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: I fully understand your point of view.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to give Mr. Proulx a chance to ask his question, but I do have a last one for you nonetheless.

In my riding, Bathurst, I have a decoder, but I cannot get CPAC. Yet this is a town with 13,500 people. At the last meeting, we were told that apparently people on some streets did get the signal. So now everything depends on which street you happen to live on.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: This might be due to a technical problem that Rogers is having in Bathurst. The fact remains that Rogers' obligations in Bathurst are those of a class 1 cable distributor distributing digital services. The company must offer both.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but it does not.

The Chair: Very well.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to flag something here. My colleague, Mr. Sauvageau, must have confused you because when he mentioned the National Capital Region, he did actually mean Ottawa, not... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. He has been living here, in the region, during the week. I have drawn his attention to this.

I would like to come back to the issue of TV sets that are less than or more than 10 years old. I must say that I am not happy with the way you are prepared to treat minorities. Allow me to explain. As you know, I live in the riding of Hull—Aylmer. In that riding, there are communities that are in the main French-speaking, others that are English-speaking, and others that are very bilingual. When francophone consumers want to hear the CPAC channel in French, there is no problem. However, if they want to hear the floor, they do have a problem if they do not have a recently-purchased television set. I'm also unconvinced by the 10-year period you cite, Mr. Langlois. A little earlier, I was making a joke. I was making fun of my colleague, who had a bought a TV set just recently...

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's when your friend choked.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: And I was accusing him of having bought it in the parking lot. Then I looked at a TV set I bought less than 10 years ago, and I realized I did not have access to the service. I cannot make the electronic transition, if I can put it that way, even though I did not buy my TV in the parking lot.

What this means is that, in my riding, the French-speaking or bilingual community cannot hear the floor, which is the original. These people are forced to listen to interpretation whenever anyone speaks English. I have a great deal of respect for interpreters, but I am sure that you, Mr. O'Sullivan, and you, Mr. Langlois, are like most bilingual people in the region and like myself here, at the committee: you would rather hear the floor. Hearing a gentle, beautiful woman's voice when a man like Yvon Godin is speaking can be tiring and disruptive.

There is another, even more serious problem in my riding—the English-speaking consumer who wants to hear House or committee proceedings. If that consumer does not have the latest expensive TV set, with all the trimmings, that consumer cannot hear the floor, which is part English and part French. All that consumer can hear is French. And there is no way around it, because the consumer does not have the equipment he needs—unless, like the lady from CPAC explained, he has a CD player or VCR. And, I regret to say, minorities and older people are two quite different groups.

If young people like Mr. Godin and myself have difficulty understanding how the controls and options work, just imagine how much difficulty an older person, or someone with impaired vision or other difficulties might have.

You said that the solution would be two channels, one in English and one in French. I believe the solution would be to have three channels: one in French, one in English, and one for the floor.

If we have to go to a digital system, this will entail a high cost for Canadians who want to listen to parliamentary debates and follow the proceedings. Without knowing the recommendation you plan to make to the government, following the report the committee submitted to the government and the government response, I think that you will have to consider the issue of providing equitable service for all Canadians, not just for those who can afford the latest television sets and who know how to use the controls. As my colleague was saying earlier, a high percentage of people—you probably have figures on this—still have TVs with rabbit ear antennas or non-parabolic antennas—in other words, they have regular service. So unless somebody runs a wire out to them, I think that their situation won't change.

I don't expect an answer from you, because you will very likely repeat what you have already said. However, I strongly recommend that you consider not only technology buffs but ordinary people as well.

» (1720)

The Chair: Mr. O'Sullivan, would you like to respond?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: If we had a third signal, a third channel for the floor, we would exacerbate the problems we already have with two channels, which I outlined earlier. Moreover, the floor would be appreciated by bilingual people, but those who are not bilingual would wonder why there was a channel broadcasting in one language or another all day long. In fact, I think Jacques had an anecdote about this.

Mr. Jacques Langlois: When we first started televising the House—in 1978, I believe—we had the floor feed. But people complained. Francophones who did not speak English wanted to hear the interpretation as did anglophones who did not speak French. That is why we went to two channels. But personally, I agree with you completely. When I listen to the debate, I switch from English to French.

The Chair: We have exactly five minutes left, and two members are still on the list. Please ask one question each. We will come back to you if we have time.

Mr. Drouin.

Hon. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are one or two points I would like to have clarified.

Mr. Langlois, you said that you had 4 million subscribers to your digital service. What percentage of all your subscribers does that figure represent?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: I think it comes to about 20%.

Hon. Claude Drouin: Twenty per cent?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: That's right. There are 8 million cable subscribers, of whom 2 million have digital. Moreover, subscribers to direct broadcasting by satellite all have digital. That amounts to about 2 million subscribers more, or 4 million in all. So that figure is about 40%, not 20%. I made a mistake. Four million subscribers out of 10 million have digital services.

Hon. Claude Drouin: I see.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Forgive me, but you are not counting rabbit ears, are you?

Mr. Jacques Langlois: No.

The Chair: People with rabbit ear antennas do not get CPAC.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

» (1725)

Hon. Claude Drouin: The last point is on the order in council. Mr. Simard referred to it earlier. You mentioned it during your presentation, and also talked about the scoop we tried to get. Could you please clarify that for me? Not the scoop, but your situation with respect to the government's position and the order in council.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Of course. The government announced its general position when Ms. Copps issued the press release, then there was the government's official response. The government stated its intention of giving us a directive. The proposed directive was shared with us at the end of March. We were to wait for the next full cabinet meeting, which took place this week. That is when cabinet can comment on the draft order in council. We would like to move ahead with this as quickly as possible. That is when the government will decide whether to approve the order in council and give us the directive it wishes to give. We will comply with it.

The Chair: I see.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a comment.

Mr. O'Sullivan, I believe you were referring to me in your comments earlier. You may think that we are partial here, in this House, with regard to everything involving debates in the House, etc. You mentioned that it may be exaggerated to ask for two channels, one in French and one in English, when the images are the same, and the program is the same. I would like to point out, Mr. O'Sullivan, that whether I watch a hockey game or a baseball game or the Grand Prix in French or in English, the images are the same as well. All that changes are the comments. So, here, we are also asking for both languages.

The Chair: Do you have any further questions, Ms. Thibeault?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: No, that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Is that all? We still have two minutes. Perhaps we should move on to the question raised by Mr. Proulx.

I will therefore thank the witnesses for coming. Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Langlois, thank you for appearing before us this afternoon; your contribution was very useful.

I will not adjourn the meeting, because we are going to discuss the question raised by Mr. Proulx. Mr. Proulx, would you like to say anything further on the issue?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Because of how the situation is unfolding in the world of aviation and Canadian airlines, rumour has it that, for the purposes of a transaction, it is Air Canada's intention to ask the Government of Canada to bypass its contractual agreement and Air Canada's statutory obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act. I think that it is absolutely fundamental and imperative that we ensure that our government does not fall into this trap. That is why I suggested that we call the Minister of Transport of the Government of Canada before our committee to confirm what the Government of Canada's intentions are in this regard, not only in the short term but also in the medium and the long term.

I know that this afternoon, in question period, Minister Valeri replied that it was the Government of Canada's intention to uphold everything in the Air Canada Public Participation Act, including official languages. I think that it is highly important that we have the minister explain his government's intentions to us in this matter.

The Chair: Is this the wish of the members of the committee?

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this because compliance with official languages was understood to be a part of the agreement from the very beginning. Air Canada belonged to the government and was a crown corporation. The government privatized Air Canada and this was part of the deal. It's not true that after a few years they can just turn around and say that now the company is privatized, and the government can no longer manage Air Canada the way used to, and that official languages will be dispensed with. This was part of the agreement.

I support this 300%.

» (1730)

The Chair: Fine. I don't want to have a huge debate on this today because we need to go to the House to vote. But if I have understood you all correctly, the members of the committee are interested in calling this witness to appear before us. Mr. Sauvageau indicated that he also supported this. Mr. Reid, do you have any objections? Then we will ask our regular clerk or the clerk who is here today to ask the Minister of Transport to come before the committee.

Before wrapping up, I would like to tell you that next week we will be working on a draft report, as we said we would, on the issue of advertising.

Then the Minister of Justice will appear before us. If I have understood correctly, he will come on May 10^th, not next week but the week after.

Fine, I see your reactions.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Not on that point; on something else.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If we're considering May 11^th, on what date could we consider having the Minister of Transport?

The Chair: We have two meetings planned for next week and at this point, we only have one meeting's worth of work. So, the Minister of Transport could appear before us next week.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Please.

The Chair: The Minister of Justice will not be here next week, not because we couldn't have accommodated him, but because he will only be available the following week.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'd like to say something about the schedule, Mr. Chairman. We should invite Radio-Canada as well, because rumour has it that they want to drop La dictée des Amériques, the Festival franco-ontarien and perhaps even La Soirée du hockey. In my opinion, it would be really interesting to hear what the people from Radio-Canada have to say given all the work this committee has done to get La Soirée du hockey back on the air.

The Chair: Are you interested in that?

Mr. Christian Jobin: In fact I wanted to bring up La Dictée des Amériques. I was involved with it earlier on this year. The Société Radio-Canada dropped La Dictée des Amériques from its line-up with just about a week's notice.

The Chair: Okay. So, if you'd like, and depending on the availability of witnesses, we will try to hear from the Minister of Transport and Radio-Canada officials next week. It shouldn't be too hard get them to appear, them, they don't have far to go. Of course, we will work on our report so that we can table it as soon as possible. The following week, we will hear from the Minister of Justice.

The bell is ringing to summon us to the House of Commons.

The meeting is adjourned.