Institutional links

• Broadcasting Sector

  • Distribution
  • Radio
  • Television

• Broadcasting Resources

  • Authorized non-Canadian Services
  • Broadcasting Reports and Publications
  • Certified Independent Production Funds
  • Commission Letters
  • Financial Summaries
  • Forms and Access Key
  • Glossary
  • Industry Codes
  • Local Broadcast Markets
  • Ownership Charts
  • Radio and TV Station Lists
  • Related Links
  • Statutes and Regulations

Privacy and Security
Transparency

Minutes

4^th Meeting of the Official Languages and Minority Communities-CRTC Discussion Group
September 24-25, 2009, Fort Garry Hotel, Winnipeg

---

1) Welcome (Annie Laflamme), round table

Annie Laflamme announced her new position and stated that her successor will be taking over. She pointed out that the meeting was a success with a high level of participation (28 people around the table) and thanked those who submitted agenda items.

2) Round table and statement of expectations

The participants introduced themselves and stated their expectations of the discussion group.
In short, they want to:

• provide effective input on broadcasting matters when licences, particularly the CBC's licence, are being renewed;
• be an advocate when issues of concern to them are being addressed by the CRTC;
• be better prepared for the switch to digital;
• establish a point of contact and interaction;
• identify streams of action and find tools;
• help improve services for the Official Languages and Minority Communities both in terms of access and the degree to which the communities are reflected in services;
• obtain pertinent and useful information on the status of matters;
• voice their concerns about CRTC regulations and gain a better understanding of the intricacies of CRTC operations;
• communicate effectively with the CRTC;
• make the CRTC aware of Official Languages and Minority Communities issues.

The participants said how grateful they are to have the discussion group, which gives them an opportunity to improve dialogue with the CRTC and other members of the group so that they are better prepared for the CRTC proceeding in which they will be involved. Kirwan Cox acknowledged the CRTC's efforts and the progress that has been made and highlighted the Official Languages Act and its impact on the mandate of the CRTC, which creates potential that the Official Languages and Minority Communities should use to their advantage. France Cassey stated that the role of federal institutions is to implement section 41 and reiterated the importance of involving young people to ensure greater success in meeting the challenge posed by new platforms. Benoît Henri reminded the participants that the group's action plan is about to expire and that the time has come to review it; he also reiterated the group's mandate, which is to facilitate participation by the Official Languages and Minority Communities in pertinent CRTC proceedings, and cautioned against expectations that go beyond that mandate and are unrealistic. He also pointed out that the Official Languages and Minority Communities have submitted more briefs to the CRTC in recent years and that if they are to take their input farther, they need to work together to review the group's mandate. The participants also acknowledged the importance of the CRTC's role in ensuring regional representation in the media throughout Canada.

Annie Laflamme referred to the 2007–2008 report on results submitted to Canadian Heritage affirming the increase in participation by the Official Languages and Minority Communities in proceedings that concern them. She stated that the only way for them to express their views is to be part of the process. The Official Languages and Minority Communities will be informed by e-mail of pertinent proceedings and sent a timetable, and specific objectives will be reviewed.

3) Report to the Governor in Council on English- and French-language broadcasting services in English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada,30 March 2009

Annie Laflamme summarized the main recommendations:

• access to television services is not a challenge, but reflection of the Official Languages and Minority Communities is;
• with the exception of the CBC and community radio stations, there are few radio services in French and funding is a problem for community stations;
• the public broadcaster is especially important to the Official Languages and Minority Communities, yet the CBC has had its budgets cut and conventional television is going through tough times;
• reflection of the regions is an important theme and will be reviewed by the CRTC as part of the licence renewal process;
• new platforms are the way of the future, and it is important to use them;
• access to broadband is a challenge, and the CRTC has made a recommendation to the government on that subject.

The participants voiced their concerns about new media. Serge Quinsy expressed concern about broadband, particularly in the context of the switch to digital, and its impact on French-language specialty services. He referred to the 1 in 10 rule that will come into effect in 2011 and suggested that French-language specialty services will lose ground because of the new rule. Véronique Lehoux acknowledged the challenge these technologies represent and reassured the participants that the CRTC has a team doing research in this area. Serge Quinty stated that Rogers, Shaw and Telus do not and are not required to offer French-language content. In his view, putting content on new media does not contribute to advancement of the Official Languages and Minority Communities. Annie Laflamme noted that the March 30 report focused on the challenges and opportunities presented by new technologies.

Régis St-Pierre raised the case of TV5 in the Yukon: Northwestel discontinued TV5's analog service in September 2009 in order to leave more space on its bandwidth so that it could increase the number of digital television stations. Northwestel claims that TV5 has the smallest audience of all programming services, but TV5 contends that it is the most watched specialty channel in all of western Canada. Régis St-Pierre said he is disturbed by the situation, because TV5 is part of people's daily lives and the community does not have the resources to stay on top of these matters. Annie Laflamme pointed out that if there is a signed contract, the CRTC cannot intervene unless TV5 makes a formal complaint.

Acknowledging the complexity of the distribution rules, Annie Laflamme explained the rules on access to minority-language services (1 in 10 rule) set out in paragraph 81 of Public notice 2008-100:

The existing minority-language rules for terrestrial BDUs vary according to their size and digital capacity, and depending on whether they offer a digital service. Generally, the BDUs with large digital capacity must distribute all minority-language analog and Category 1 specialty services. Smaller BDUs must distribute one specialty service in the minority language for each ten services that they distribute in the majority language (the 1:10 rule).12 The smallest BDUs are not required to distribute any minority-language services. In English-language markets, the larger BDUs must continue to distribute the same number of French-language services on an analog basis as they did on 10 March 2000.

Annie Laflamme stated that DTH undertakings are required to carry all Canadian services in both official languages; under the 1 in 10 rule, for every 10 English-language services they carry – whether those services are or are not Canadian – BDUs are required to carry one Canadian French-language service. She added that reflection is an issue that should be addressed at the time of the bulk renewal next year and that funding for the public broadcaster is not determined by the CRTC. She admitted that production funding is a problem that also affects the majority and that the problem is worse in minority communities. She acknowledged that new media are here to stay and help improve reflection of the Official Languages and Minority Communities throughout Canada and bring the communities closer together.

Kirwan Cox pointed out that for English linguistic minority communities, the challenge is not distribution, but regional reflection. The Official Languages Act states that the public broadcaster has obligations to the Official Languages and Minority Communities, and the CRTC should make it known to the government that budget cuts have a significant impact on the communities. For example, community radio stations cannot intervene in public proceedings because they do not have the resources. He added that hew media are important in terms of distribution, but not in terms of production. The reality is that production requires specific funding.

David Teasdale dismissed the idea that new media are being developed at the expense of conventional media. He went on to discuss the frequency problem where licences are granted to corporations that share the same territory. This results in a loss of capacity in favour of the more powerful networks and takes away community radio stations' potential to grow. The biggest losers are community television and radio stations.

The issue is whether Industry Canada, which is subject to the OLA, should take the positive step of protecting the existing frequencies used by community media outlets. David Teasdale stated that the Official Languages and Minority Communities do not have the funds needed to manage relations with federal institutions by monitoring their initiatives while at the same time operating their stations. Annie Laflamme explained that because of the COL's audit, the 41 lens is in place and the analysts are required to conduct case-by-case analyses of the impact of proceedings on the Official Languages and Minority Communities. In other words, there is now a system for assessing impact. France Caissy stated that Industry Canada is also subject to the OLA and suggested that the department be represented in the discussion group.

According to Sylvia Martin Laforge, it is important to have synergy between the English- and French-language networks of the CBC in order to improve reflection of the Official Languages and Minority Communities.

Léo-Paul Provencher said that he was surprised to hear that the complexity of a licence can change the regulations; he pointed out that the regulations are not up to date and do not include the OLA. In his view, protection of the Official Languages and Minority Communities is jeopardized because Part VII of the OLA is not being implemented 100%. Véronique Lehoux explained that the 41 lens is progress; in every case, the Official Languages and Minority Communities issue is raised. The 41 lens makes it possible to implement section 41 obligations taking into account the interests of the Official Languages and Minority Communities in the Commission's decisions and identifying the effect on the Official Languages and Minority Communities in information documents on public hearings and memorandums prepared for Commissioners. As for the rules, the challenges stem from the complexity of the industry. However, the way it is written (i.e., many Commission rules state that a condition of licence can allow exemptions) leaves the door open to adaptation depending on the licensee's situation.

Annie Laflamme stated that exemption from the rules does not equate to a free market. She added that the criteria and requirements for exemption and the 1 in 10 rule work to the Official Languages and Minority Communities' advantage. In 2001, when the first report, Achieving a better balance: Report on French-language broadcasting services in a minority 
environment (2001-25), was issued, access and reflection were issues. There has since been progress, and the advances are enhancing the vitality of the Official Languages and Minority Communities. In the report of 30 March 2009, access to television services was described as no longer being a problem.

Natalie McNeil asked if there will be a watchdog overlooking new media.
Annie Laflamme replied that there will not because there is no funding. She added that the issue of measuring Canadian content in new media is at the heart of the debate. The CRTC has a group doing research on new media.

Régis St-Pierre stated that the report mentioned the role of the French-language network of the CBC where Radio-Canada Nord does not exist, in contrast to the English-language CBC network, which is available. Annie Laflamme reiterated that the issue can be addressed at the time of licence renewal. The CRTC is clear: regional reflection will be a focal point of the discussions, and budgets and all other factors will be taken into consideration. Madeleine Faucher voiced her concerns about the recommendation on new media in the report of 30 March 2009. Her point: as far as new media go, we are not there yet; we need to strengthen our conventional media and then develop new media.

It bears noting that the government has not responded to the report.

4) Upcoming proceedings

Peter Foster presented the proceeding announced in Public Notice 2009-411, Policy proceeding on a group-based approach to the licensing of television services and on certain issues relating to conventional television. He stated that the public hearing will take place from 16 to 27 November and announced the government order calling on the CRTC to hold hearings on the impact and relevance of compensation for the value of local television signals and submit to the government a report containing recommendation in that regard. This proceeding will take place in December 2009 and will be separate from the one before it.

Annie Laflamme stated that the purpose of the public hearing scheduled for November is to establish the structure that will be used to deal with licence renewals. She pointed out that conventional television, which is funded entirely by advertising, is going through especially hard times because of the current economic crisis. The radio industry is also affected, but to a lesser degree because most of its advertising revenue is from local advertising that is not affected as much as national advertising.

She added that for the Official Languages and Minority Communities, the critical time for intervention is licence renewal. The November public hearing will be an opportunity for the communities to state any positions they have on the regulatory structure. Peter Foster stated that the LPIF and the issue of incrementality will also be raised at the November 2009 public hearing.

Owing to the government order on conventional television, the proceeding related to community television will be deferred to the spring of 2010.

Kirwan Cox asked for funding for research to prepare for the consultation phase and not to prepare for interventions during public processes. He referred to the audit report of the Commissioner of Official Languages on the Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA published in 2007 that identifies two distinct CRTC functions: adopting regulations and developing policies, and the power to grant or revoke licences. Given that the second function is quasi-judicial in nature, the audit covered the general scope of the decision-making aspect, which is adopting regulations and developing policies. Kirwan Cox mentioned recommendation 8 subsequent to which the discussion group was created, to "establish a structured and coordinated process for consulting affected groups, in particular national and provincial (or regional) representatives of official language minority communities," and added that this discussion group set a precedent of reimbursing Official Languages and Minority Communities that should benefit from the funds in order to better participate in the consultations. In addition, Kirwan Cox wondered about the role of the CRTC's official languages champion and added that the two parties should settle the issues before the Official Languages and Minority Communities considered other unintended options. He asked that the Official Languages and Minority Communities be compensated because instead of two meetings per year, the CRTC was planning one meeting with the Official Languages and Minority Communities due to limited resources. He acknowledged that progress had been made and that CRTC staff had been co-operative and helpful. The CRTC is a model when it comes to discussion with the Official Languages and Minority Communities: "The CRTC is the gold standard," he said.

Annie Laflamme explained that it would be problematic for the Commission to fund groups to submit interventions, given that the Commission is an administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial functions. It was a delicate question, she added, not to mention the fact that resources were limited because the CRTC had not received funding to fulfil these obligations under Section 41. The CRTC was funded by the licence fees and would need to go to the Treasury Board Secretariat to increase its funding. Furthermore, the CRTC had no funding program. Everything depended on the willingness of Cabinet. It was not just a question of means. The question to ask was whether the CRTC can effectively seek this authority, and it is not clear what the government's reaction in this case would be. Kirwan Cox replied that the CRTC would not know if it did not ask, whereas it was the OCOL's recommendation that resources be allocated to meet the obligation to consult the Official Languages and Minority Communities. He added that the consultations were a two-way street and gave the example of the radio sector that could not participate because of a lack of funding.

Annie Laflamme responded that the Commission could not be both judge and defendant and take into account the interventions it will have funded. This was a legitimate legal issue, she stated. Kirwan Cox repeated that the money would be for consultations and not interventions. Véronique Lehoux explained that the OCOL, to whom staff had explained the nature of the CRTC's mandate during the audit, understood the situation very well and the conflict of interest that could arise.

Sylvia Martin-Laforge stated that in terms of impact on the Official Languages and Minority Communities, it was necessary to involve partners in order to develop decision policies. By being innovative, the Commission would really be seen as a leader: "look for ways and then you will become truly a leader," she clarified. David Teasdale explained the problem of resources in the radio sector and added that in five years, it would be too late. It was therefore crucial that the Official Languages and Minority Communities be on equal footing, he said. Madeleine Faucher stated that the report of March 30, 2009, had been very useful for the Official Languages and Minority Communities to prepare them for future CRTC hearings. She added that if the Official Languages and Minority Communities could not conduct research to be on the same footing, the communities would be weakened. She went on to say that the hearing on January 13 on official language broadcasting services in Official Languages and Minority Communities was proof of the discussion group's positive impact, but that ultimately, the Official Languages and Minority Communities did not have the resources. Régis St-Pierre continued that without resources, the Official Languages and Minority Communities were doing the best they could and that it was not enough. The Official Languages and Minority Communities needed resources to respond intelligently, he said.

Annie Laflamme explained that the CRTC had no resources allocated to this issue and that there was no additional money. Benoît Henri acknowledged that a financial challenge accompanied the CRTC's designation and that it was indeed problematic that the Commission fund research for the memorandum submitted during its processes. He added, referring to the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013, that this reality should be addressed to Canadian Heritage.

In response, France Caissy summarized the historic evolution of the OLA. She recalled that the OLA has existed since 1969 and was amended in 1988 to include sections 41 and 42, among others. She continued that in 1994, an Accountability Framework for the Implementation of Sections 41 and 42 of the OLA was established requiring that designated federal institutions prepare an action plan and status reports regarding implementation of Section 41. In 2005, the OLA was reinforced by Bill S-3. It was not instinctive for federal institutions to implement Section 41 and Canadian Heritage had the co-ordination mandate, she stated. The federal institutions have made progress, but willingness and imagination were still required to introduce positive measures and meet the expectations of Official Languages and Minority Communities. She said she understood the conflict of interest issue, but wanted to know what would prevent the deployment of political efforts to try to better document the needs and realities of the Official Languages and Minority Communities. France Caissy continued that it was necessary to evaluate how far the federal institutions could go to support Official Languages and Minority Communities without conflict.

Véronique Lehoux stated that the Commission was having research done that would be submitted to the public file and Peter Foster gave the example of the study conducted for community television. Serge Quinty said that it was not the first time that the research issue had been raised in this group. Official Languages and Minority Communities needs had been heard and taken into consideration, he stated, referring to the Supreme Court decision in favour of the Official Languages and Minority Communities. It was true that the CRTC decided to which services the Official Languages and Minority Communities were entitled and it was true that the communities were not on equal footing in terms of capacity. The crux of the issue was to collaborate to find the resources, he continued.

Léo-Paul Provencher said that he was not clear on the idea of conflict of interest. Canadian Heritage's role was to support community development, especially if a community did not have the means to intervene, and even more so since the notion of enabling was included in the OLA.

Nathalie McNeil stated that it was necessary to work together to seek these funds and be able to develop specific thought processes. Annie Laflamme came back to the CRTC's specific problem given its status. The Commission had to work within its incorporating acts. Solutions existed and it was necessary to establish courses of action, such as working with Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada. The collaboration and funding issues could be put on the agenda for the next meeting. She added that the Commission could conduct research on the legal impact of funding Official Languages and Minority Communities in their research work. France Caissy added that the response did not depend only on the CRTC. She pointed out that there was an official languages working group at Justice Canada that could help to find the answers. Canadian Heritage would work with the CRTC, she reassured everyone.

Jean Léger said that the Official Languages and Minority Communities also had responsibilities and that if follow-up was required in the short term, it was up to the Official Languages and Minority Communities to do it. He suggested that the Official Languages and Minority Communities consult among themselves in preparation for the next meeting.

The participants agreed that it was necessary to identify the partners: Justice Canada, Canadian Heritage, Industry Canada.

5) Presentation on community radio by Michael Craig

Michael Craig presented the main points of PN 2009-418, Review of Campus and Community Radio. The public hearing will take place on November 30, 2009.

Question period:

Michael Craig explained that Astral had offered to pay $1.4 million over a consecutive period of seven years to the Community Radio Fund of Canada (CRFC), which has in the meantime been recognized as an eligible recipient. Note that this amount would come from a transfer of ownership involving the purchase of Standard Radio FNC. The purpose of the fund is to finance part of the operations of 150 community radios. Michael Craig also explained the Canadian Content Development (CCD) regime. Commercial radio was expected to contribute financially to the broadcasting system. According to the new regulation, these radio stations would contribute based on their revenues. A few million dollars would go into the CCD. Some money was discretionary.

In response to Kirwan Cox, Michael Craig stated that only the base contributions to the CCD were a regulatory obligation. The Commission would examine conformity with the regulations by auditing the financial statements. The monitoring reports provide the contribution data. Annie Laflamme added that the Community Radio Fund was eligible for the CCD. Kirwan Cox pointed out that this model did not exist for television. Annie Laflamme clarified that besides financial contributions, broadcasters had to respond to Canadian content requirements. As for television, there were quotas, expenditure requirements (specialty TV) and priority programming for conventional television. Peter Foster explained that this was a rule and that the average financial contributions were calculated by the policy group within the CRTC. Annie Laflamme explained that conventional television presented local programming (news), which in itself constituted a contribution to the system. This contribution required a specific infrastructure and was expensive. The Commission considered this factor.

Léo-Paul Provencher recognized that the Official Languages and Minority Communities were aware of the importance of the processes that allowed them to give a voice to the communities. He asked if the CRTC had considered preparing a simple, brief layman's document on the community radio process. Michael Craig responded that such a document did not exist but that Broadcasting Notice 2009-418 gave the background and explained the issues. Annie Laflamme added that the public notice helped to guide discussions. The questions were formulated based on an analysis of the problem, she specified. Régis St-Pierre asked if the policy would include the official languages. Michael Craig responded that he could not answer on how the Commission would proceed regarding certain issues that would be discussed in the process. This was a delicate topic. He suggested they submit an intervention at the hearing.

Michael explained the distinction between Type A and Type B community radio in paragraph 10 of 2009-41:

The Commission currently licenses community radio undertakings as either Type A or Type B stations. A Type A station is one where there is no other radio station, other than one owned by the CBC, operating in the same language in all or in part of the market.1 All other community stations are licensed as Type B. As is the case with campus stations, both types of community stations are expected to provide minimum levels of spoken word programming during each broadcast week. Type A stations must devote 15% of the broadcast week to spoken word, while the minimum spoken word level for Type B stations is 25% of the broadcast week.

Benoît Henri asked whether Official Languages and Minority Communities had the flexibility to present a position on an unasked question. Annie Laflamme responded that they could.

6) Presentation on community TV by Shereen Ghattas

Since the process was postponed, the presentation covered the normative framework and the Policy framework for Community-based media, in PN 2002-61, and the distinction between the context in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

Discussion period

Kirwan Cox stated that there should be a fund for Official Languages and Minority Communities programming and added that there was no funding for English-language community television. Reference was made to PN 2008-100, Regulatory frameworks for broadcasting distribution undertakings and discretionary programming services, which opens up the possibility that direct-to-home (DTH) satellite broadcasting companies offer community television service. Régis St-Pierre stated that DTH in remote regions could present an opportunity. He added that there was no content in French, there was no official language obligation and there was no funding. Furthermore, the preference was to serve the majority, he added. He gave the example of MUSICATION to demonstrate how financial contributions had local benefits.

Jean Léger stated that there were two small community television stations in Chéticamp and Baie Ste Marie; they were not really local expression, but rebroadcasting. He added that no new content was being developed. The communities therefore had to get organized, he pointed out. Daniel Boucher asked why RDUs did not fund community television and what the commitment of cable distribution undertakings was. It was explained that since 1998, RDUs have had the possibility to operate a community channel and the amounts allocated depended on the system's capacity: Class 1 cable distribution undertakings serving less than 20,000 subscribers allocated all of their 5% contribution to local expression (Section 71, amendment to the Distribution Regulations); Licensees that elect to distribute two community channels in the same market, one in each official language, could apply under Section 29 of the Distribution Regulations for a condition of licence in order to allocate up to 2% of their required contribution to Canadian programming to each of the community channels (PN 2002-61).

Sylvia Martin-Laforge stated that in terms of content, it was necessary to align the priorities so that the official language policies were coherent. France Caissy said that the Interdepartmental Coordination Directorate set up working groups on the content and that it continued to coordinate these groups that brought together federal institutions and the Official Languages and Minority Communities.

Serge Quinty proposed examining the community television model and the viewing habits of the public. It was necessary to align with an "on-demand" model.
Benoît Henri pointed out that if the official languages perspective was taken into consideration in the strategic framework, the Official Languages and Minority Communities would be better able to manage and discuss the model.

7) Discussion of the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF),
Public Notice 2009-406, by Peter Foster

• The LPIF was created and announced in 2008-100;,
• Increase in funds available; conventional television services claimed that they were having financial problems and needed more revenue. The Commission denied their application for the distribution rate.
• Explanation of the formula (paragraph 22).
  • "One third of the overall funding will be allocated equally to stations across both francophone and Anglophone markets, the precise amount to be determined based on the number of stations eligible for funding."
  • "The remaining two thirds of LPIF funding will be divided such that 30% is directed to francophone markets and 70% is directed to Anglophone markets."
• The markets in Anglophone Ottawa, Vancouver and Toronto were excluded. The intent was to direct the money to where the need was greatest and local distributors needed support;
• SRC outside Quebec was eligible.

Kirwan Cox expressed his dismay with the LPIF and its eligibility criteria; there was no funding for Anglophones in Quebec. Eligibility was granted based on knowledge of the language, which is not, the standard definition used by the government, whereas based on the hours of distribution per week, Montreal was smaller than Winnipeg and Quebec City, which were eligible. He asked why Anglophone stations in Montreal were not eligible and why the Commission had used this broad definition of knowledge of language. Peter Foster explained that this was the appropriate decision according to the Commission.

Régis St-Pierre pointed out that SRC stations in Toronto and Vancouver could receive funding to enrich their local programming. Annie Laflamme specified that SRC was eligible and had to show that the money was invested in local programming but that local programming was in reality regional programming. Annie Laflamme and Peter Foster explained the formula: In a minority situation outside Quebec, funds came from the amounts allocated to the Anglophone stations. The money from distributors was used for new programming or for improving existing programming. Kirwan Cox stated that Kitchener and Quebec City should be excluded based on the definition used for Montreal. Peter Foster pointed out that these two cities were deemed eligible based on demographic calculations and that the Commission had no plans to change the eligibility criteria. Madeleine Faucher asked whether it was only for television. The answer was affirmative.

8) Recap

• The Commission will review options for funding for Official Languages and Minority Communities to participate in proceedings.
• Invite Industry Canada to join the discussion group, as well as other partners, such as Canadian Heritage, that can provide the communities with support.
• Next steps: organize a conference call among Official Languages and Minority Communities to discuss the items raised at this meeting. The FCFA will bring the Official Languages and Minority Communities together to determine the course of action and the partners will then be invited. A united front with Anglophone Quebeckers is very important.
• Next meeting: review the discussion group's mandate and objectives and prepare a new action plan: Commission staff will discuss this and present a draft to the Official Languages and Minority Communities.
• Funding: at the next meeting, Commission staff will submit a table summarizing BDU contributions. Note: there are exceptions and each licence has its own requirements.
• Upcoming proceedings: inform Official Languages and Minority Communities of key dates.

Mario Bertrand replied to Kirwan Cox, explaining section 56 of the Telecommunications Act.

Award of costs

56. (1) The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.

The major players pay the costs, which are not enormous. This is not a grant and the Commission is not concerned, in this instance, about the conflict of interest, because there isn't one. It is not the Commission that pays the costs, as Véronique Lehoux explained.

9) Discussion of recommendations to the CRTC in the report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Shadows over the Canadian Television Landscape: The Place of French on the Air and Production in a Minority Context

Annie Laflamme explained that harmonizing the definition of regional production first requires initiating discussions with the Canada Media Fund. The Fund is being restructured, and once that process is complete the Commission will initiate discussion on the possibility of adopting a common definition. If necessary, the Commission will have to hold a public paper process to establish the definition. Currently, there is no specific regional production requirement imposed on broadcasters, but is included in priority programming.

Kirwan Cox pointed out that the Fund is not subject to the OLA, although Canadian Heritage seems to believe that because of the contribution agreements signed with the Fund, it has to abide by the intent and spirit of the Act, which opens the door to interpretation and the risk that the definition will not be harmonized. The Canada Media Fund sets aside an envelope for Francophones outside Quebec, but there is no such envelope reserved for Anglophones in Quebec. For the Fund, regionalization and OL mean the same thing, hence the need for education. Canadian Heritage has a lot of responsibility in this respect. France Caissy explained that the contribution agreement should be looked at, which Canadian Heritage has promised to do.

Annie Laflamme pointed out that the Commission's definition is different from the Fund's definition, which has consequences; the Commission will initiate discussion. However, the Commission has no authority over the Fund, which will ultimately decide on its own definition. Kirwan Cox replied that the Fund should work with the CRTC, which has authority in practice. Annie Laflamme added that she cannot speak for the Fund.

On the issue of compliance with conditions of licence, Annie Laflamme explained that before each renewal, the Commission considers these issues, which are raised during the public hearings. As regards TVA's conditions of licence, the licensee is in compliance, but the Commission will determine what action to take concerning commitments by the licensee, which apparently have not been respected. Annie Laflamme added that the Official Languages and Minority Communities can work together, and pointed out that they are not required to participate in all proceedings, which is why this group was created: to inform the communities of proceedings and help them prepare and that no other group benefits from such a forum.

Benoît Henri reported that he has contacted ARC du Canada to find out how they intend to intervene. He said that it is quality that counts. He listens to what the others say and then focuses his intervention, without repeating what has already been said by the other interveners.

Concerning funding for research, Serge Quinty proposed that the communities get in touch with each other by appointing a spokesperson to make arrangements.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge said that there is funding provided outside Quebec, and that Official Languages and Minority Communities need to consider ways of working together. She said that it is clear that in this sector, the Anglophone community in Quebec does not have the resources to participate physically in the debates. The federal partners with the CRTC have to take action to make the situation more equitable.

Concerning the March 30, 2009 report, Kirwan Cox asked about the recommendation to implement a national co-ordination strategy. France Caissy replied that there are working groups for Francophones in minority communities, and that for Anglophones in Quebec, efforts are being made in this direction in co-operation with the Montreal regional office. Sylvia Martin-Laforge emphasized the importance of both communities working together. France Caissy replied that this is possible. Annie Laflamme mentioned that Canadian Heritage has a working group on music and sound recording and one on media arts, in which the CRTC participates. Kirwan Cox pointed out that there is no such group on the Anglophone side. France Caissy explained that efforts are underway to set up working groups for Anglophones in Quebec. According to Sylvia Martin-Laforge, this approach is not working and both communities have to work together at the national level. In response to Kirwan Cox, France Caissy said that it is important to identify the issues for Anglophones in Quebec before implementing a national strategy, and she will follow up with PCH's Quebec office on setting up working groups for Quebec's Anglophone community.

Kirwan Cox came back to the issue of regional reflection and explained that there is a difference between the Francophone communities' issues and those of the Anglophone communities. While Anglophones do not have an issue with access, this community is not reflected within the broadcasting system. He added that OCOL recommended that the CRTC develop a regional reflection policy and asked what the status of the recommendation is. Annie Laflamme replied that there are requirements for priority programming that includes regional productions, but there are no specific requirements imposed on broadcasters. This issue will be raised at the public hearing in November and then at the licence renewals.

Kirwan Cox said that ELAN has a problem with the March 30, 2009 report. The Commission looks at the Official Languages and Minority Communities' situations case by case, giving it a fragmented view of the communities and increasing their workload. This forum is the only place where the issues are looked at globally, but it meets only once a year. A case-by-case approach is inadequate. Annie Laflamme pointed out that this is how the Commission operates. Kirwan Cox added that an holistic public policy approach is required. He said that Lens 41 is an excellent approach, and the communities are hoping to see results. However, a global view of the issues is lacking and the Commission should consider this. The report did not address this problem. Véronique Lehoux said that the Official Languages and Minority Communities should be involved when policy is being developed, because that is when the framework is set up. Kirwan Cox stated that the Commission does not justify either its definition or its decision. He said that the communities get involved to a point, but reiterated the approach is inadequate.

10) Lens 41

Annie explained the procedure was implemented to systematize consideration of issues that impact Official Languages and Minority Communities. Where there are issues, the analysts look at the impact on Official Languages and Minority Communities. Annie Laflamme noted that this is an internal procedure flowing from the recommendation in the March 30 report.

The Commission agrees with the proposal by the Commissioner of Official Languages that it adopt an analysis of the impact of its decisions on these communities as part of its decision making process. The Commission intends to systematize its practice to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its obligations and that it has considered all factors in its decisions.

Although the Commission is required to address the issue, its decision reflects the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. Lens 41 is a positive step in the sense that it systematizes consideration of the realities and needs of Official Languages and Minority Communities, notwithstanding the decision. This procedure is part of an internal policy that is undergoing approval. Although the COL recommended that the Commission develop a policy on Part VII of the OLA, the Commission extended the policy to other sections of the OLA:

IV- Communications with and services to the public
V- Language of work
VI- Participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians
VII- Advancement of English and French

The policy was adopted by the Chairman and will soon be on the Commission's meeting agenda for adoption. This policy led to a high degree of internal awareness. In terms of accountability, the annual report on results will identify the proceedings that impacted Official Languages and Minority Communities and required impact analysis. France Caissy pointed out that the results appear in the annual report that Canadian Heritage submits to Parliament.

In response to Léo-Paul Provencher, who suggested a Lens VII, Véronique Lehoux
stated that it is essentially the same. Régis St-Pierre pointed out that it is difficult to establish the link between a decision and OL. Véronique Lehoux noted that linguistic duality, as an objective set out in the Broadcasting Act, is incorporated within the Commission's activities, and that the Commission makes additional efforts to integrate it further via lens 41. She asked the Official Languages and Minority Communities to call client services if they have questions. Régis St-Pierre replied that instead of calling, the information should be available. Annie Laflamme asked them to call client services. According to
Régis St-Pierre, Official Languages and Minority Communities are not ordinary citizens and the institutions have responsibilities. Annie Laflamme explained that each decision is individual and that follow-up is done individually. She added that the CRTC has to operate within its mandate, as set out in its incorporating Act.

Natalie McNeil asked if the CRTC will publish comments resulting from lens 41. Annie Laflamme replied that the analyses are confidential and that lens 41 is an internal procedure. However, the annual report on results identifies the proceedings that impact Official Languages and Minority Communities.

11) French-language community radio in Ottawa

The Official Languages and Minority Communities expressed their satisfaction and Serge Quinty pointed out that this is an interesting precedent. François Côté thanked the CRTC and Astral for approving this frequency, and added that this decision has an impact on all community radio stations in terms of advertising, and gives a voice to the wider Francophone community.

In response to a question, Michael Craig gave a plain-language explanation of Industry Canada regulations concerning second and third adjacent regulations.

12) Web page

The Official Languages and Minority Communities said they have trouble finding the Official Languages page on http://www.crtc.gc.ca/fra/5000/lo_ol/lo-ol.htm

Serge Quinty suggested creating a list of internal links and a resource bank on the page reserved for the communities. Véronique Lehoux explained that the upgrade depends on resources. Benoît Henri asked the Commission to send an e-mail keeping Official Languages and Minority Communities informed of relevant proceedings. Annie Laflamme suggested exploring this issue.

13) Olympic Games

The Senate released its Fourth Report: Reflecting Canada's Linguistic Duality at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Golden Opportunity.
Serge Quinty noted that there are agreements between TQS (now V) and the small cable companies for unscrambling analog signals. It is not clear at what point the signals will be unscrambled; 95% of the population will receive the Games coverage in French.

14) Next meeting of the discussion group

May 2010 in Ottawa was proposed.

Jean Léger stated that the Official Languages and Minority Communities need more than one meeting a year to follow up (even by telephone). Annie Laflamme explained that owing to budget cuts, the meeting has to be held centrally. Kirwan Cox noted that according to the three-year action plan, a success indictor is the number of meetings each year.

Suggestions for the agenda
- review the group's mandate and action plan;
- funding for Official Languages and Minority Communities;
- table showing all types of contributions by the various regulated sectors (TV, radio, BDUs).