Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, May 25, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:04 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act. On today's agenda are the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honorable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee.
First of all, I would like to introduce the committee members who are with us today. To my left, Senator Champagne, deputy chair of the committee, who is from Quebec; Senator Mockler from New Brunswick, and Senator Comeau from Nova Scotia. To my right, we have Senator Tardif from Alberta; Senator Losier-Cool from New Brunswick and finally, Senator Jaffer from British Columbia.
This evening, we have a number of witnesses from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Their testimony will help us as we continue our consideration of the issue of broadcasting the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games and Olympic Games, which will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.
The CRTC made a recommendation on this matter in a report it published in March 2009. This report is entitled Report to the Governor in Council on English and French-language broadcasting services in English and French Linguistic Minority Communities in Canada. The committee would like to follow up on the recommendations found in the report.
Furthermore, the committee is interested in the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and would like to ask the representatives of the CRTC about their achievements and initiatives in this regard.
I would like to welcome the two officials from the CRTC, Mr. Scott Hutton, Executive Director of Broadcasting, and Ms. Annie Laflamme, Director, French Language Television Policy and Applications. Thank you for coming this evening. Mr. Hutton, you now have the floor.
Scott Hutton, Executive Director of Broadcasting, CRTC: Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members.
[English]
I thank the committee for inviting us to express our views on a matter of national importance. In less than a year, Canada will welcome athletes, media, and spectators from dozens of countries as the host of the Olympic and Paralympic 2010 Winter Games.
[Translation]
The competitions will be broadcast around the world in countless languages. And yet in Canada, we face the prospect that some 12,000 francophones may not have access to coverage of the Olympic Games in their own language on conventional over-the-air television. The International Olympic Committee awarded the domestic broadcasting rights to Canada's Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium, which includes CTVglobemedia and Rogers Media.
As it currently stands, the Olympic Games will be seen in French on the conventional television network TQS and the specialty services Réseau des sports (RDS) and Réseau Info-Sports (RIS). In addition, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network will dedicate part of its French-language programming to the Olympic Games.
The consortium intends to make TQS, RDS and RIS available free of charge to all cable companies that offer digital television services in markets with an English-speaking majority — and this, for the duration of the Olympic Games. Unfortunately, this will leave francophones who rely on over-the-air television signals or who subscribe to analog cable, without access to French coverage of the games. Their options will be limited to watching English broadcasts or, for those who have access, relying on the Internet or mobile devices.
[English]
The best solution, as far as we can see, is for CTVglobemedia and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to reach an agreement allowing the CBC to broadcast the competitions and the events surrounding the games on its French language television services.
In January, we held a public hearing to examine broadcasting services available to Canada's official language minority communities, leading to the report you mentioned. Both CTVglobemedia and the CBC appeared before us during the hearing. We took advantage of this opportunity to press the broadcasters on the issue of the Olympic Games.
When the CBC appeared on the first day, we were informed that negotiations with the consortium had ground to a halt. We reminded the CBC that, as a public broadcaster, it has a responsibility to serve Canadians in both official languages from one end of the country to the other. Moreover, only the CBC has the capacity to offer over-the-air television coverage of the Olympic Games to francophone minority communities.
We questioned CTVglobemedia on the following day. In response to the suggestion that further discussions be held with the CBC, Rick Brace, CTVglobemedia's President of Revenue, Business Planning and Sports told us: ``In our view, it is just too late in the process now to turn back and try to make it happen.''
In our view, CTVglobemedia has a responsibility as a private broadcaster using the public airways to ensure that Canadians see national events like the Olympic Games in the official language of their choice.
[Translation]
Going into the public hearing, we wanted to hear a commitment from both sides. The answers we received were not satisfactory.
We urged them to resume discussions and to find a solution so that French-language coverage of the Olympic Games is seen by the maximum number of francophones, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
We feel that we have done everything in our power to bring the two parties together. Only commercial negotiations can lead to an agreement, and the commission cannot intervene in this type of negotiation. Our role can be summed up as defining the principle objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and then establishing a regulatory framework that will enable the industry to attain them.
That being said, on April 17, the chairman of the CRTC, Konrad von Finckenstein, wrote to CTVglobemedia and the CBC asking for an update. Attached herewith are copies of the chairman's letters and the two responses he received.
[English]
On May 12, during its appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, CTVglobemedia explained that it had made a new offer to the CBC. This offer was rejected two days later, when the CBC management appeared before the same committee. From the CBC's perspective, the financial stakes were too high for it to accept CTV's offer.
Today, we are calling once again on the goodwill of both parties to find an acceptable, fair and equitable solution that will enable all francophones in the country to have access to broadcast of the competition of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games in their mother tongue.
At the very least, we would like to see CTVglobemedia and the CBC reach a compromise and negotiate an agreement on the broadcasting of the opening and closing ceremonies, for example. Any Canadian who is interested should be able to see their athletes parading proudly and watch the opening and closing shows in both official languages.
This largest international winter sporting event will take place here in our own backyard. We believe that situation should count for a great deal during discussions between the broadcasters.
As we have already said, we are limited in terms of what we can do. Any steps that the members of this committee can take to help find a solution will be greatly appreciated.
[Translation]
During our public hearing in January, we also explore the availability of broadcasting services through new media. The commission believes that these services could play a key role in enhancing the reflection of official-language minority communities in the Canadian broadcasting system. There are a number of social networking websites that bring together people from dispersed communities who share a common interest such as language.
For instance, groups can be created by Saskatchewan francophones or by anglophones living in Gaspé by using social networking software such as Facebook.
We were somewhat disappointed that official-language minority groups do not seem to have grasped this medium's potential, that it could be used in a variety of ways to support their cultural development.
We still believe that the new media are the way of the future for francophone communities outside Quebec.
[English]
The Olympic Games provide a perfect opportunity to make full use of new platforms. The consortium has informed us that all of its programming, whether it originates on TSN or TQS, will be streamed live on its websites. Real-time updates and video will be available on mobile devices, and programming will also be available on demand if people want to watch an event they missed earlier in the day.
While the consortium's strategy is commendable, much of this content is accessible only through broadband Internet connection. We all know that there are many areas in this country where broadband is not yet available. The most recent federal budget set aside $225 million for the deployment of broadband Internet in remote communities. In addition, all the provinces and territories have been developing their own initiatives to improve broadband access. These signs are encouraging, but more work needs to be done.
In the report we submitted to the federal government on March 30, we recommended that all levels of government support the adoption and implementation of broadband access in remote and rural official-language minority communities. Short-term solutions might include favouring cost-effective technologies such as satellite or wireless Internet access.
[Translation]
In closing, everyone associated with the 2010 Olympic Games has a responsibility to do the country proud. And Canadians are entitled to watch the events, which are taking place in their own backyard, in the official language of their choice. The commission feels very strongly about this. We have encouraged CTVglobemedia and the CBC to meet again and work through the current impasse. We see no reason why they would be unable to reach a compromise.
We would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: You did say that the CRTC's role is to encourage the partners to work together to ensure that the games are broadcast in both official languages as widely as possible. But unless I am mistaken, we find ourselves at another impasse. The consortium has made an offer to CBC/Radio-Canada and apparently CBC/Radio-Canada has refused the offer. In your opinion, is there anything unreasonable in the consortium' s offer or in the refusal from CBC/Radio- Canada?
Mr. Hutton: We are trying to bring the parties together, because we do not have direct authority over the programming of the country's broadcasters. We at the commission are of the opinion that despite a refusal, from one side or another, they are very close to an agreement. We are encouraging the authorities, including your committee, to continue putting pressure on both sides so that they can reach an agreement.
The Chair: It is absolutely necessary to reach an agreement. Time is quickly running out, is it not?
Mr. Hutton: We agree with you on this issue. If the committee could ask the various parties to appear before it again, that would be another opportunity to bring the two sides closer together.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hutton.
Senator Comeau: I would like to continue on this issue. Is it not in the interest of CBC/Radio-Canada not to be accommodating with this request so as to keep a door open in the future? It is somewhat like an investment. CBC/ Radio-Canada could say that since CTV does not want to provide this kind of service, only CBC/Radio-Canada can do it. So in this case, it is not in the best interest of the corporation to accommodate minority-language communities.
Mr. Hutton: Indeed, you have hit the nail on the head. The Olympic Games are a major sporting and cultural event for the country. But when you get down to brasstacks, the games are also a major commercial event. The two major broadcasters, the consortium and CBC/Radio-Canada, are competing fiercely for all sports.
Understandably, that is why it is difficult to bring the two parties to an agreement. I believe that there has been a great deal of progress on both sides, and I would not want to accuse anyone at this time of not cooperating. I think that if everyone put some pressure on the two sides, a solution to this problem for francophone viewers will emerge.
Senator Comeau: I too would have a hard time accusing CBC/Radio-Canada of doing that. But I was suspicious as soon as I learned that the CBC had not got the contract for broadcasting the Olympics. From that point on, there was resistance to participating. Perhaps it is up to us to continue discussions with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. Hutton: I encourage you to continue discussions with the authorities within the consortium and within CBC/ Radio-Canada, because the two groups are currently exchanging offers. So that is a positive sign. And I believe that the two groups are becoming more and more accommodating.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I thank both of you for coming here tonight. I appreciated your presentation. My colleagues and I heard your plea to get us to do more. I am curious as to what arsenal you have to get these two broadcasters to work together. You certainly, in my book at least, are the policemen.
Mr. Hutton: In this particular case, as I explained in the presentation, we try to set the framework. The framework can be detailed, but our framework and our own powers do not go as far as to dictate programming. We do not have direct power or a policemen's power. We have been exercising public policy leadership, to the best of our ability. These parties do come in front of us at various hearings. We are asking questions, pushing, coming before your committee expressing again the need for help, helping explain the two parties' views to hopefully come closer to an arrangement, but it is the power of persuasion that we have. That is our limit in this case.
Senator Jaffer: This is not so much a question, but we all remember when CTV won this bid. It is lessons learned afterwards. We will all have to look at how we do things differently and what lessons we learn. Perhaps afterwards, we will want to talk about how, in the future, we go about this. As you said in your presentation, it certainly would be unfair if Canadians could not see the games. With that in mind, equitable access of equal broadcasting of the games is important, and this is something we are all struggling with.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: As I listen to you, I am reminded of what this committee itself has been experiencing for a while now. Perhaps the best title would be ``the more things change, the more things stay the same.''
I remember that at the first meeting we had on this topic, the people from the CTVglobemedia told us that they had made a request of the CBC, hoping to use some of their output, and in rather blunt terms they were told no. Shortly thereafter, the people from CBC/Radio-Canada, sitting in the same spot as you, told us that they had never received anything from CTV!
Some time went by, and CTV tabled a copy of the letter that they had sent as well as the reply from CBC/Radio- Canada. The next day, we got a letter of apology from the CBC. The issue had got to a certain level in the hierarchy, but the people who were there were not aware of the issue. In a big organization like CBC/Radio-Canada, the right hand does not always know what the left hand is doing, so we had some problems.
But if you read the exchange of correspondence between the same two people, you clearly see that because of the terms that CTVglobemedia is setting, CBC/Radio-Canada cannot get involved... I will quote a part of the letter:
. . .Your proposal, which would involve allowing CBC/Radio-Canada access to the most popular events at the games [including the ability to sell advertising in these programs] is not feasible.
There at least, they are agreeing that they did exchange correspondence, which is a step ahead compared to the situation a year and a half ago. But we are still at an impasse. What can we do to impress upon them that we must not have two categories of Canadians, one who can bear witness to some of the finest moments in the history of sport in our country, viewing the event in their own language, and a second group, not able to do so? In your opinion, what can we do?
Mr. Hutton: I will go back a little bit before I make any suggestions. Each one of the parties is wrong and each party is right in this whole adventure. According to recent discussions, apparently there has been a rapprochement. At the heart of this dispute is the fact that the Olympics are also a commercial undertaking. This conflict is about money, compensation, on each side, for CBC/Radio-Canada's costs or a better allocation of revenue and expenditures on CTV's side. That is what the business dispute is all about.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages saw the same thing to some extent. As you can see in the document and in my remarks, the two sides are talking to each other by exchanging correspondence; they are never sitting down in the same room to talk to each other, like people do during real business negotiations. Perhaps they did at the beginning, but not during the most recent exercise.
If there is a suggestion to be made, I would suggest inviting them to appear before your committee at the same time to see if they can look each other in the eye and come to an agreement.
Senator Champagne: Is there something that you can do?
Mr. Hutton: We do not really have the ability to do anything. We do not have any hearings planned for this matter. Our next hearing on television issues is scheduled for October.
Senator Champagne: Do you not think it would be worthwhile to create the opportunity?
Mr. Hutton: As I said earlier, we would have to have the power of oversight on this issue. In order for the CRTC to have a hearing, we must have the ability to impose an agreement, and we only have the power of persuasion.
Senator Champagne: And would we have any more power than you?
Mr. Hutton: We have less authority having them appear before us. We cannot force a commercial agreement on them regarding this issue.
[English]
It is a question of shaming people into it.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I would like to go back to this issue. I am sure that my colleagues have other questions for you.
Senator Losier-Cool: Could you explain to me the difference between your authority and your direct authority? I thought that one of the CRTC's powers was to renew licences?
After the Olympics, if you find that these people did not meet their obligations concerning rebroadcast of the Vancouver Olympic Games, do you have the authority to withdraw their licence? Does the CRTC not have that direct authority? It is the question of authority that I do not understand.
Mr. Hutton: The CRTC has oversight on licensing and can withdraw a license after following the course of natural law. But to withdraw a license, we must have already set a condition for the licence, and the undertaking must have broken that particular condition.
We cannot set a condition of licence for programming as such. For instance, we cannot specify a condition of licence and say that the broadcaster must do this or that. That is the heart of the matter.
Senator Losier-Cool: So that is the heart of the matter.
Mr. Hutton: Yes.
Senator Losier-Cool: You cannot impose any conditions.
Mr. Hutton: We cannot impose detailed conditions. The CRTC can establish a regulatory framework to ensure they broadcast Canadian content, or in the case of over-the-air television, provide local programming. But the commission cannot pick and choose the programs that are broadcast. That is what would have to be done in this case.
Senator Tardif: I was reading the correspondence between the consortium and CBC/Radio-Canada. It appears that the consortium has indicated that, and here I quote in English:
[English]
We believe, while we remain sensitive to the issues raised by CRTC Chairman, Konrad von Finckenstein, during the recent minority language proceeding, we believe they are being fully addressed addressed by our current coverage plans.
[Translation]
I perhaps misunderstand the paragraph, but do they mean to say that the 96 per cent of francophones outside Quebec who could receive the broadcasts is sufficient? And that they do not have to do more?
Mr. Hutton: Up until quite recently, until their appearance or the day prior to their appearance before the House Standing Committee on Official Languages, that was their position. Their position today has now evolved, and they are ready to reach a commercial agreement, but with a list of nine conditions to increase the coverage.
Senator Tardif: Let us take a look at the list of conditions. Some of these conditions state that SRC would have to relinquish its advertising slots and broadcast the consortium's advertising as is.
Mr. Hutton: That is the major sticking point.
Senator Tardif: That is the single most important condition. That SRC should interrupt its coverage for Quebec francophones: What do you think of that?
Mr. Hutton: That is probably something that would have to be negotiated. It is Radio-Canada's policy to offer the same programming — which is national in scope — both in and outside Quebec. The problem we are now discussing is basically the coverage outside Quebec. If Radio-Canada steps in, it will become another sticking point for CTV. CTV's francophone partners are TQS, RDS and RIS. Using Radio-Canada's airwaves will decrease their ad revenues in Quebec, because that is their major market.
As for Radio-Canada, it is looking to increase its revenues somewhat in order to offset the costs of covering the Olympic Games for the language communities outside Quebec. At the same time, CTV is trying to protect the commercial market in Quebec, where most francophones live and where the signals will be distributed by TQS, RDS and RIS.
These are some of the common issues; the two major sticking points. Radio-Canada wants revenue, wants to be able to broadcast its own advertisements, and be able to pay its hosts, cameramen, producers, and so forth. Whereas CTV is saying: no, not at all, and what is more so, if you do so, do not distribute in Quebec because that will have a negative impact on the advertising revenue of the consortium stations.
Senator Tardif: Madam Chair, may I list the other conditions in order to understand the positions? I quote: ``SRC shall not receive accreditations for the international broadcast centre or for any Olympic venues. . .''
Mr. Hutton: This places me in a somewhat uncomfortable position, and I would like to point out that those are their conditions. I believe that there is room to negotiate. What they are trying to say is that ``You can cover the games, and we will provide you with the international signal, but we do not want to see your trucks, journalists or CBC/Radio- Canada logo near the games.''
Senator Tardif: It would therefore be impossible to conduct interviews on site.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct.
Senator Tardif: They would not have the right to set up facilities elsewhere.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct.
Senator Tardif: SRC would not be able to produce its own content. It would have to rely on the feed provided by the consortium and others. Is that so?
Mr. Hutton: That is correct.
Senator Tardif: SRC would have to pay any and all costs associated with the coverage.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct. Radio-Canada would have to pay for all of its broadcasting costs, including the cost of separating the Quebec signal from the signal for the rest of Canada, production costs and the wages of its hosts.
Senator Tardif: I know this places you in an uncomfortable position, but which condition would be the easiest to solve? And which would be the most difficult?
Mr. Hutton: To some extent, all conditions entail some costs. They should settle the revenue issue, and the rest. . .
Senator Tardif: How could they reach an agreement on revenues?
Mr. Hutton: CTV can either compensate Radio-Canada for all its coverage costs or allow it to run advertising. I think that is what Radio-Canada is suggesting in its response to that letter. It says that they are ready to accept the international signal, therefore not having any cameramen on site, but want advertising revenue in return.
Senator Tardif: If you do not have the power to get them to agree, then who does?
Mr. Hutton: Ultimately, it would be the Canadian government. Agencies like ours do not have any direct powers.
Senator Tardif: When you say ``the Canadian government,'' are you referring to Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Hutton: I am thinking of Canadian Heritage, but I also think that if the various committees and agencies maintain the pressure, they will eventually come to an agreement. As a last resort, a directive could be issued from the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Tardif: I will stop there for now.
The Chair: In the various talks that are currently ongoing, is someone, a group or an organization acting as a mediator, or are they sitting around a table and negotiating?
Mr. Hutton: They are not seated at a table. They are exchanging letters and correspondence prior to all of their appearances before the various committees. I think that is a positive signal, because they have been making progress at each appearance, whether before the CRTC, the Senate or the House. So, let us continue the process, we are not far from an agreement.
The Chair: In the final analysis, if I understand correctly, no group or organization other than the federal government would have the authority to impose a settlement. No one has such powers?
Mr. Hutton: That is correct.
Senator Champagne: Before concluding, I would like to come back to the issue that I addressed with them the last time, i.e., the broadcasting of the Paralympic Games. I was very concerned about that, and they finally admitted that the Paralympic Games were less well known, therefore less popular, and that it was more difficult for them to find sponsors willing to cover . . . and so forth.
Today — things are already better than they were — some 25 hours of coverage have been allocated to the Paralympic Games. Much progress has been made since the first games. We were told it might be possible to have two sledge hockey games. That was about as much as they would do. Now, I see that we are moving toward an interesting amount of coverage.
The broadcasting of the Paralympic Games is made more difficult because of a lack of money. At the same time, they say that: ``SRC shall be responsible to pay any and all costs associated with its productions of games programming on SRC including, without limitation, all costs associated with the delivery of the host feed to SRC master control,'' and they have no right to receive advertising revenue. I fail to see how they can come to an agreement not only for the Paralympic Games, but also for the Olympics. They are saying: ``You pay for everything. We get organized and prepare everything. We have our cameras and our advertisers in both French and English, and that is all fine and well. Do you wish to broadcast part of our feed? You will pay to deliver the signal, and pay your own announcers, commentators and analysts, but you must carry our advertising messages and will not get a penny for doing so.'' Where is the impasse? The impasse is that there are 4 per cent of francophones in Canada who will watch the Olympic and Paralympic Games in English. That is where we are headed whether we like it or not, is that not so?
Mr. Hutton: If we continue to maintain the pressure, I trust that a settlement will be achieved. They are so close; it is a matter of a few dollars. Without the numbers before us, the cost might seem astronomical, but it simply is not that great. Of course, Radio-Canada will probably broadcast a number of very specific events or key moments of the games. Needless to say, the corporation will not broadcast the 655 hours of competition, but rather a handful of events; so we are not talking about tens and tens of millions of dollars.
Both parties can easily reach a commercial agreement in order to compensate one another. CTV can protect its marketing rights and allow Radio-Canada to recover its costs in one way or another, whether through a payment from the consortium or advertising. They are within sight of the goal. I would not become discouraged; I would continue to keep up the pressure. That is what we are doing.
Senator Champagne: Do you think that the IOC is aware of what is now going on, of all the problems we are having? French and English are the two official languages of the Olympic Games; it so happens that they are the two official languages of our country; is the IOC aware of the problems caused by their decision or could they not care less about what is going on?
Mr. Hutton: I cannot answer that question. We have no contact with them.
Senator Champagne: Educated guess.
Mr. Hutton: Educated guess. They might be aware, but they have many other challenges besides these small details to deal with now in order to organize games that will be seen across the globe.
Senator Champagne: Than our little internal problems.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct. As for me, I think this should serve us a lesson for the next time.
Senator Champagne: That should be included in our report. Madam Chair, I find that to be an excellent suggestion: ``For us, for the next time.''
Senator Tardif: I have an observation to make following Senator Champagne's comments regarding the lesson learned for the next time. When the committee undertook its study on the use of French at the Olympic Games, it had already identified a number of key elements, including the broadcasting in both official languages, and warning VANOC and others to take action from the outset of the process. I remember having said how difficult it is to correct mistakes once the process in underway.
I am still concerned that it is the International Olympic Committee that decides on the broadcasting of the games and not the host country.
Senator Champagne: We are talking about big money, senator.
Senator Tardif: I know. Nevertheless, the Canadian government and Canadian public are supporting the games through their taxes, through their contribution. We should be able to say where the money goes and under what conditions.
Mr. Hutton: Various solutions will probably be implemented for the next Olympic Games. Today, the easiest solution would be to call on Radio-Canada. However, in our report on official languages, we indicated the new media represent a key medium whose potential to reach minority communities is not properly tapped. The new media need to be developed and given priority. If all Canadians had broadband access, they would only have to open their computers and instantly gain access to programming at all hours of the day, but we have not come to that yet. The solution can be addressed with International Olympic Committee representatives, but there are other ways to promote service availability.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like to clarify the role of the CRTC concerning the games. It is all very well to say that Radio-Canada does not respect this and that CTV does not do that, and so forth. However, the CRTC is one of the organizations that must meet the requirements of part VII of the Official Languages Act. I believe that you agree with the principle of equitable access and equal quality for both of Canada's official language groups. Would you be able to tell us whether this situation is equitable? Are you satisfied?
Mr. Hutton: As I indicated, there is a shortcoming. It is foreseeable that some francophones outside Quebec will not be able to watch the games in their mother tongue. That is the current shortcoming.
Senator Losier-Cool: The Commissioner of Official Languages submitted his report on the CRTC in January 2009. Recommendation 4 of the report proposed that rigorous follow-up be done at the time of licence renewal. Are you satisfied with the steps taken following that recommendation?
Mr. Hutton: At one of the hearings where we brought together all the stakeholders, we worked on the short-term renewal of CTV's licence.
Radio-Canada appeared at that hearing because it had to answer certain policy questions. That was one time when we succeeded in pushing things forward. In our view, progress was made. Both sides closed the gap and initiated dialogue. This was done through correspondence and not through an in-person meeting, but we succeeded in bringing them closer together. We tried again at the following hearing.
I think that the recommendation was broader, more relevant, encompassing all of our broadcasters. It recommended more stringent follow-up be done during licence-renewal hearings, whether for TVA, RDI, SRC, and so forth; to put pressure on all stakeholders. This is something we noted in our report and which we will raise during renewal hearings.
Senator Comeau: In a letter dated May 4, in response to a letter dated April 17 and addressed to the commission, CBC/Radio-Canada indicated that it would broadcast the generic international signal. Could you explain to us what a generic international signal is?
Mr. Hutton: Basically, that is the signal available to all international broadcasters. CTVglobemedia and the consortium are on site and can customize their signal. Because they are on site, they can conduct exclusive interviews with Canadian athletes, but the international signal of the games is the one that is distributed to all other broadcasters.
Senator Comeau: That means that a Canadian without broadcast access would see interviews with people from countries other than Canada?
Mr. Hutton: No, the signal is from the athletic activities.
Senator Comeau: I do not follow you. If we are talking about a generic international signal, is it not international rather than Canadian?
Mr. Hutton: Every country will have a national broadcaster present at the games. CTVglobemedia, the consortium, will be filming the actual events. In the case of a hockey game, for example, CTVglobemedia will provide the international signal without the hockey commentary. That is what is meant by the international signal.
The broadcaster from a given country, such as Belgium, will take that signal and add its own commentary and interviews.
Senator Comeau: The broadcast quality is very good.
Mr. Hutton: Yes.
Senator Comeau: There is nothing tricky in that sentence.
Mr. Hutton: No.
Senator Comeau: Perhaps the next sentence that says that for certain key events [. . .]. It is up to the CBC to determine what is key and what is not. Is that a potential difficulty for CTV?
Mr. Hutton: I think that they will have to agree on what is key and what is not key.
Senator Comeau: Does the idea that Radio-Canada would provide its own commentary pose a problem for CTV?
Mr. Hutton: No, that is not what is posing a problem for CTV.
Senator Comeau: Up to that point, what it says in the letter does not get to the heart of the problem. The parties are not discussing the financial side.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct. The financial aspect is what is missing.
Senator Comeau: That may be due to the fact that, in reality, CBC and CTV do not want to discuss these issues and come to an agreement.
Mr. Hutton: I would not want to accuse one side or the other.
Senator Comeau: Nor would I.
Mr. Hutton: I believe that there was a time that neither side wanted to speak to the other and reach an agreement, but I think that they are much closer to an agreement now.
Senator Comeau: The two sides are looking to the future.
Mr. Hutton: They are prepared to come to an agreement, but we do not know what the terms and conditions would be.
Senator Comeau: Given that the end of June is around the corner, perhaps we could invite them to appear before the committee. We could discuss these issues together in the same room.
Senator Tardif: There can be discussion and an exchange of views.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Hutton, I am somewhat baffled when you say that they have not come together and that they should sit down together to discuss this. It is not a very solid marriage if they cannot sit and have a discussion. Given your responsibilities and the official languages aspect, are you satisfied with what is happening right now?
Mr. Hutton: No. We have indicated quite clearly that we are not satisfied with the fact that some 12,000 francophones will not be able to receive the signal from the Olympic Games in French. We are using all means at our disposal to ask everyone to put pressure on the parties to resolve the problem.
Relations between the CBC and CTV are strained on a number of fronts, not only this one, but there is certainly tension around the efforts to come to a commercial agreement. They share services, towers and all sorts of things across the country, but this requires real negotiation. There are signs and little movements on both sides that indicate that we may see an agreement.
Senator Mockler: When I look at the correspondence from the chairman of the CRTC, I fail to understand what you mean when you say that you do not have the power to ask these people to meet.
You do have that power. I had some experience with the CRTC in the context of some other responsibilities I had, and I think you do have the power to say that in this case, what is being jeopardized is the image of Canada.
Today I am being told that someone or other must be asked to step in, but in my opinion, you have a role to play. Your Canada-wide role is to require these people to meet. We have to tell them that we are concerned because there will be no broadcasting outside Quebec.
Mr. Hutton: I think the CRTC is concerned and is taking this problem seriously. It is true that we have the authority to ask the parties to meet under certain conditions. There must be a part of the act which provides that the parties must agree. For example, in the case of distribution by RDI, which is a Radio-Canada specialty service, we can request this, because there are regulations on distribution by RDI. We have the clear authority to require that the parties get together in a room and negotiate their fee for the distribution of RDI. And this is not the case at RDI, because the CRTC forces distribution outside Quebec. And within Quebec, the fee exists.
What we need is not just leverage, it must be attached to a particular authority or regulation. In this particular case, our leverage is not attached to a particular authority or regulation. That is the problem.
Senator Champagne: They tell us that they have entered into agreements with quite a few cable companies whereby these individuals agreed, without average people having to contribute, to unscramble the RDS or RIS signal in all parts of the country.
They made an attempt to get an agreement from Rogers and the other companies. These are the regions where over- the-air service is the only option, where digital is not available either through cable or satellite services. Am I mistaken about that?
Ms. Laflamme: One point should be clarified. Satellite service is available throughout Canada. The problem affects rather the people who have opted not to subscribe to cable or to satellite service — who have chosen over-the-air television service and are deprived of the signal because only Radio-Canada operates over-the-air outside Quebec.
Senator Champagne: But a number of people who pay for satellite service, but who do not pay for RDS, will have it free of charge during the Olympic Games. Some very major efforts have been made to ensure that the games are available in French for everyone. We are asking Radio-Canada to say: ``If you pay, we will send our feed to your head office, but you are not going to be sending a feed to Quebec via Radio-Canada, because we already have broadcasters such as RDS and RIS who are doing that''.
We are talking about a little thing that is nevertheless very important. I am not saying that the 12,000 French- speaking Canadians who will not have access to the games in French are not important. They remain important. It is probably the fact that I tend to see the glass as being half full that leads me to say that efforts have been made, and we have managed to get all kinds of things from the cable companies.
We have been told that there were still two hotels in Vancouver that still had no French feed. If Radio-Canada agrees to do this, it must not lose a fortune as well, because it cannot broadcast its own advertising and recover some of the money it will have to spend. To whom are we going to say: ``Come on, be nice, contribute a little money''?
Mr. Hutton: In this case, the glass is much more than half full. I think we have a high number of hours of broadcasting in English and in French. I think efforts have been made to make services available to cable and satellite subscribers. A great deal of work has been done to date, and people should be proud of this.
I am going to stick to the message I have been stating from the beginning: both sides have to put a little water in their wine. I think both sides can bridge the gap between them and reach an agreement.
Senator Champagne: With respect to these 12,000 or 13,000 Canadians, is the problem that they do not want to subscribe to cable or satellite service, or is it because the service is not available where they live? That is a very significant difference.
Mr. Hutton: As Ms. Laflamme said, the service is available everywhere. So it is a question of subscribing to the service. At first glance, if someone really wants to see the Olympic Games in French, they will have to subscribe to one service or the other. If we do not find a solution, the person will have to subscribe to cable or satellite service, and pay the cost involved.
Senator Champagne: Perhaps you and I would be good salespeople!
Senator Losier-Cool: If you are a good salesperson, can you tell us what our committee should recommend regarding the Olympic Games?
Mr. Hutton: If we are talking about structures, we should ensure that for the future, the government authorities that negotiate international agreements take this issue into account. The agreements were entered into a few years ago and the problem cropped up after that. We should learn from this. If we promote broadband coverage for our official language minority communities, that would provide another source for the signal. Money is involved, but a structure of this type would be useful for distributing national or cultural events. It makes sense that people living in minority communities be able to develop culturally and to do business on the Internet, just as all other Canadians do.
We are also working to establish new distribution systems for the future. One of the major problems we have in this country at the moment is digital conversion and HD. This is very difficult, particularly in the case of digital service, in more rural regions. We are therefore trying to find a solution to the problem. Perhaps satellites could be the answer, and if some of the service is free, we might be able to avoid the problem in the future.
The Chair: We have spoken to people who will not be able to get the broadcasts because they are not subscribers. Is that because they choose not to subscribe? The service is available everywhere, so subscribing or not is a personal choice.
Mr. Hutton: That is correct. There may be some people who cannot afford to subscribe, so in that case it would be more than a question of choice.
The Chair: Does this mean that this situation also applies to English-speaking Canadians, or does it just affect French-speakers?
Mr. Hutton: The problem is the same for everyone.
Senator Tardif: Since you are here, I would like to talk to you about Part VII of the Official Languages Act. You are one of the institutions that come under Part VII of the act, and you are supposed to submit an annual report. In your 2008-2011 Action Plan, you talked about the implementation of Part VII, and you said you wanted to have some training provided to the senior management of the CRTC. What progress have you made in implementing your action plan?
Annie Laflamme, (Director, French-Language Television Policy and Applications, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: First of all, there have been a number of new commissioners recently. Systematically, when a new commissioner arrives, he or she is informed about a range of issues, including official languages. They are told about the responsibilities of the commission in the area of official languages. The fact that we are a designated organization means that we must take into account the realities and needs of the communities in our decision-making. All the executive directors and the secretary general are aware of the commission's responsibilities. The issue of official languages was taken into account in a number of the matters we have been involved in. That is the approach we used to make senior management aware of our responsibilities.
Senator Tardif: How do you define the term ``positive measures''?
Ms. Laflamme: We have discussed this with the Commissioner of Official Languages when he appeared at the hearing on service to the communities. In the context of a public process, a positive measure is to determine whether there are any official language issues, and whether the market can deal with them. The CRTC regulates when the market cannot deal with a particular situation. When we take a ``positive measure'' we have to ask ourselves whether the measure is necessary in the light of the other objectives of the Broadcasting Act that the commission must take into account in making its decisions.
We also established a discussion group. That was one of the recommendations in the Commissioner of Official Languages' audit report. We invited a number of representatives of both the francophone and anglophone communities to state their views. So far, we have had three meetings. We made them aware of the need to take part in our proceedings. Since that time, we have noticed that they are much more involved in what we do, and this has had a significant effect, because the issue is put on the table. The communities express their views and inform all CRTC staff of the problems they are encountering. This has been the most helpful thing we have done to fulfil our responsibilities.
Senator Tardif: You have had three meetings in one year?
Ms. Laflamme: Yes.
Senator Tardif: In various parts of the country?
Ms. Laflamme: The first meeting was held in Ottawa in September 2007, the next in Halifax in March 2008, and the other one was last fall in Quebec City.
Senator Tardif: Is there an action plan that covers continued meetings of this type? What are the plans for next year, for example?
Ms. Laflamme: We hope to continue holding this type of meeting. Depending on our budget, we would like to go out west, since we have already held meetings in Ottawa and in the east. That is our plan.
Senator Tardif: Do you see ``positive measures'' as mainly consultation and discussion with the communities?
Ms. Laflamme: Actually, the positive measures refer more to the steps taken by the commission as an organization to promote the country's linguistic duality. However, we are a quasi-judicial tribunal. Contrary to a department, which could, for example, develop specific programs to support the communities, we are an organization that develops policy and grants and renews licences. So we must behave with circumspection. The commission must make decisions on the public issue before it. The key component is really the participation of the communities, so that we have a good understanding of their concerns and their situation.
This is the easiest way to take them into account. In other words, within the confines of our mandate, and bearing in mind various objectives of the act, we can determine whether we can adopt a more proactive approach in promoting community development.
Mr. Hutton: We should not underestimate the impact of having these people before us. If they are not before us, we cannot introduce measures that might be seen as positive, concrete measures. When they come before us and describe their needs and even possible solutions, we have what we need to make decisions as a commission, to establish activities or programs.
Senator Tardif: When we were talking about the Olympic Games, you said hat you did not have the authority to require the consortium — CTVglobemedia and CBC/Radio-Canada — to meet in order to reach an agreement. You said that you had no regulations of this type.
Do you think there should be some regulations for implementing the provision on ``positive measures'' in the Official Languages Act? If there were regulations in place, would you have more authority to introduce ``positive measures''?
Mr. Hutton: We do introduce measures — not only under Part VII, but under the Broadcasting Act as well — by asking for regional programming. If we take Quebecor's TVA service, we can ask them to provide regional programming. This is the type of regulation we have. This is what we can do. We cannot tell them to broadcast certain people, certain producers or certain programs. That is the distinction that must be understood. I do not think that the regulations or the CRTC could be more specific about dictating what type of programming must be broadcast.
The Chair: But there are definitely conditions attached to the licences you grant. Must these conditions also reflect the requirements of the Official Languages Act? These conditions must be taken into account, must they not?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, we do place certain conditions on certain broadcasters to reflect these requirements. For example, we can ask that there be programming done outside of the urban centres.
The Chair: I see.
Mr. Hutton: This is a way of reaching out to various communities. In the case of Radio-Canada, if we require that the station in Manitoba provide a local service, this will automatically be a reflection of the Manitoba community, the Franco-Manitoban community in this case. That is how we operate.
The Chair: Would that not be an example of positive management, if there were more regional or local programming? Is that not a type of positive measure?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is indeed what we do.
Ms. Laflamme: We are already doing this. We can impose licence conditions that promote the purchase or production of television programs, for example, by francophone broadcasters. We can also do so for anglophone broadcasters in anglophone communities in Quebec. What we cannot do is dictate that broadcasters present a certain type of programming. All we can do is make requirements about the so-called optional services, those that can be obtained only by cable or by satellite. However, we cannot dictate requirements for a particular program.
The Chair: No. But for a percentage of programs?
Ms. Laflamme: Yes. We already doing that, and we have examples of this.
The Chair: And do you follow up, to ensure that there is compliance?
Ms. Laflamme: Absolutely.
The Chair: And when there are budget cuts, do you track closely how they are implemented?
Ms. Laflamme: Generally, we notice that the conditions are imposed during the term of the licence, which is generally seven years. Often, despite budget constraints, the broadcasters do everything they can to live up to their conditions.
Of course, during licence renewal, we discuss and review the obligations of the broadcaster. However, generally speaking, licence holders comply with their obligations during the term of their licence.
Senator Tardif: Is there a document available where we could find this type of information? For example, if we wanted to find out about all the ``positive measures'' the chair was discussing with respect to programming obligations, and percentages, where could we find this information that you are talking about?
Ms. Laflamme: First, we submit an annual report to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is the interdepartmental coordinator for section 41. We submit our reports outlining all the activities, and in our case, the activities are the things we have done — both in the area of policy and licence renewals. We do this annually.
It is true that we may not have a document listing all the decisions in which we impose certain requirements. However, for example, in our consultation notice, before the hearing on services to communities, we surveyed the services that did have conditions on the issue of service to the communities.
Senator Tardif: It would be interesting to have a document of this type.
Ms. Laflamme: We will make note of that. It is a good suggestion.
The Chair: You could send it to the clerk.
Senator Comeau: I did not know that you had the authority to tell Radio-Canada and the other broadcasters that they should be more involved in the communities. I think that is a very important instrument.
Quite recently, an assessment of Radio-Canada was done which showed that in the Atlantic region Radio-Canada's presence was about 1.4 per cent compared to 4 per cent for CBC, for local broadcasting. So, if Radio-Canada had a figure of 1.4 per cent, that means that 88.6 per cent of its broadcasting was outside of the Atlantic region. I find this figure extremely alarming.
Are you aware of this fact? Do you do this type of analysis of the presence of Radio-Canada in various regions?
Mr. Hutton: We have not done that for the 1.4 per cent, but what we do ask of all the companies — such as Radio- Canada, all the national companies — is to offer local programming. The obligations vary a great deal from market to market and even from station to station.
Although the final decision on our recent hearing on licence renewals has not been published, our chairman has said that we would try to harmonize local programming obligations.
That is something we do for all broadcasters, particularly for Radio-Canada. However, there are specific conditions about reflecting our regions and our local communities that go beyond this principle. This is something we take into account at all licence renewals. And it will be a hot topic at the next licence renewal.
Senator Comeau: You have not done this so far?
Mr. Hutton: We do not do it exactly in this way, but we do check on local programming, and we are aware of the number of hours. That is how we do our measurements, rather than in percentages. That is what I was getting at in my answer.
Senator Comeau: Are these figures public? Could the committee have access to these figures so that we could review them?
Mr. Hutton: Yes.
Ms. Laflamme: Could I clarify things? At each licence renewal, Radio-Canada makes a commitment to broadcast a certain number of hours of local programming for each of its regional stations, including the one in the Atlantic region, for example. We have that information, and we will provide it to you.
The figures to which you refer were mentioned in a number of newspaper articles. If I recall correctly — and please correct me if I am wrong — the reflection of the Atlantic provinces in Radio-Canada's network programming is also something we take into account. Clearly, this is an issue we will be looking at with Radio-Canada at its next licence renewal, because that is one of the points that emerged, not only at the last renewal hearing, but also from our study on services to the communities.
First of all, the communities want access to services in their language. This seems to have been settled, given that cable and satellite services are now available throughout the country.
What did emerge from our hearings, to a greater extent, is the need for local communities to be reflected not only locally, but also nationally, on Radio-Canada network programming. We will check into the data we have on this, although this may be somewhat more difficult to define.
Senator Comeau: Programming in the first language of the community — French — is much appreciated, but if the entire content focuses on just one province, then it becomes less interesting. For example, the first 15 minutes of the national news are about things that happened on Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal, and the rest is about events in Canada. As a francophone from Nova Scotia, I find this less interesting, and I am more inclined to switch to the news in English. The quality of Radio-Canada's programming must be reviewed. If Radio-Canada targets just one province, people in the other provinces are less interested in their coverage. This aspect of the quality of Radio-Canada's programming must definitely be reviewed. I think the assessment I was referring to was done in this context.
Ms. Laflamme: Absolutely.
Senator Comeau: We agree that the ideal would be for Radio-Canada to be the preferred source of news for all French-speaking Canadians in Canada. However, from what I see, that is not he case. Perhaps you could help Radio- Canada understand that?
Ms. Laflamme: That is certainly something we will be looking into at the time of the licence renewal. As Mr. Hutton said, the whole question of new media has been discussed in detail with the communities, and the idea is really to improve service to the communities so that they can see themselves in other francophone communities of the country as well. There is a limited number of broadcasting hours on television, that will always be the case? However, the new media really provide an opportunity to provide content that would not normally be available. This is the type of discussion we will be having with Radio-Canada at the time of its licence renewal.
Senator Losier-Cool: We will be doing that as well.
Senator Mockler: I like your optimism when you say ``We see no reason why they would be unable to reach a compromise.'' That is on page 5 of your statement. You mentioned earlier, in a clarification, that there could be some 12,000 francophones who would not have access to coverage. However, can you provide a figure for the number of anglophones who might not have coverage either?
Mr. Hutton: We do not have that figure here, but we could look into it. A great deal of work has been done on the French-language side, and less on the English-language side. We will find that for you.
Senator Mockler: Could we be given this information, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Send it to the committee clerk, and then we will distribute it to the committee members.
With that, a behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you, Mr. Hutton and Ms. Laflamme, for appearing before the committee today.
Mr. Hutton: Thank you.
Ms. Laflamme: It was a pleasure.
The Chair: We would like to thank you for your patience with our questions. As you know, senators always have a lot of questions. There is a lot of work ahead, and I think you have given us another responsibility, namely to continue tracking this file. And that is what we will do! Once again, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)