ARCHIVED -  Transcript / Transcription - Gatineau, Quebec - 2002-05-09

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages

Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.

In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.



                       SUBJECT / SUJET:


HELD AT:                               TENUE À:

Conference Centre                      Centre de Conférences
Portage IV                             Portage IV
Outaouais Room                         Salle Outaouais
Gatineau, Quebec                       Gatineau (Québec)

May 9, 2002                            Le 9 mai 2002

                           Volume 4


In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.


Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.

                 Canadian Radio-television and
                 Telecommunications Commission

              Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
                télécommunications canadiennes

                  Transcript / Transcription



Charles Dalfen                     Chairperson / Président
Andrée Wylie                       Commissioner / Conseillère
Cindy Grauer                       Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo                     Commissioner / Conseiller
Stuart Langford                    Commissioner / Conseiller


William Howard                     Legal Counsel /
Leanne Bennett                     Conseillers juridiques
Michael McWhinney                  Hearing Coordinator  /
                                   Coordonnateur de l'audience
Pierre LeBel                       Secretary / Secrétaire

HELD AT:                           TENUE À:

Conference Centre                  Centre de Conférences
Portage IV                         Portage IV
Outaouais Room                     Salle Outaouais
Gatineau, Quebec                   Gatineau (Québec)

May 9, 2002                        Le 9 mai 2002

                           Volume 4


                                                   PAGE / PARA



Application Nos. / Nos de demandes 
  2002-0127-8. 2002-0128-6



The Senate of Canada                               1073 / 6367



Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc.                  1103 / 6526


  1                       Gatineau, Québec / Gatineau (Québec)
  2       --- Upon resuming on Thursday, May 9, 2002
  3           at 0930 / L'audience reprend le jeudi
  4           9 mai 2002 à 0930
  5  5411                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning,
  6       ladies and gentlemen.
  7  5412                 We are going to resume the
  8       questioning of your panel this morning.
  9  5413                 The first question I wanted to ask
 10       you was in regard to the participation of your
 11       affiliates.  I think you indicated that you have
 12       received approval in principle of the CCTA to the
 13       proposed funding mechanism.
 14  5414                 MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Mr. Chairman, if
 15       you wouldn't mind, could I make one point that might
 16       help in terms of the questioning from yesterday, just
 17       to make it clear?
 18  5415                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sure.
 19  5416                 MR. STEIN:  We spent a good amount of
 20       time yesterday talking about the price for carrying the
 21       House of Commons, the cost of that as opposed to the
 22       cost of the wrap-around programming.  My colleagues and
 23       I thought it would be very important to emphasize that
 24       since 1992, we have seen this as one service.  That was
 25       the whole concept that we developed, first with


  1       Mr. Juneau and then, when the CBC dropped out, on our
  2       own together with the House of Commons.  It would be
  3       one service, an integral service.
  4  5417                 Yesterday it struck me how important
  5       that is.  It was reflected in the fact that yesterday
  6       there was quite a bit of concern that the House was
  7       very preoccupied with the Auditor General's report and
  8       yet last evening on CPAC one was able to watch the
  9       minister responsible explain at length -- not in a
 10       one-minute clip, not in a two-minute clip, but at great
 11       length -- exactly what the position of the government
 12       was, and the opposition parties had an opportunity to
 13       respond to that and to make their own points, in I
 14       thought a quite civil way.
 15  5418                 There was a scrum, and there was tape
 16       of the scrums, et cetera.
 17  5419                 For somebody who perhaps wasn't
 18       watching the House at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, they
 19       were able that evening to watch Question Period, to
 20       watch the tapes at length -- not clips but tapes -- of
 21       other things that happened.
 22  5420                 When Mr. Boudria was Government House
 23       Leader, he said he saw this as a unique partnership
 24       between the House of Commons and CPAC in terms of what
 25       we are able to do.


  1  5421                 The point of this is we see this as
  2       one service.  We see the value of this as being one
  3       service.  The difficulty with just one feed for the
  4       House of Commons is that it is only on when the House
  5       of Commons is on.
  6  5422                 Maybe our viewing numbers aren't the
  7       best numbers in the world, but the credibility that we
  8       provide to the public and the opportunity that that
  9       presents for the public is really important.
 10  5423                 We just wanted to make sure we
 11       emphasized that it is one service.
 12  5424                 The second point we want to emphasize
 13       is that we operate this on a not-for-profit basis. 
 14       There is no intention here, never has been and never
 15       will be any intention to turn this into a profitable
 16       operation.
 17  5425                 Some people might look at it in terms
 18       of that opportunity, but that is not how we have ever
 19       looked at it.  We have looked at this as a public
 20       service.  I think Phil Lind has badgered and cajoled
 21       the cable industry to staying with that principle.
 22  5426                 The investment that we made -- Phil
 23       first convinced us to put in $4 million, and we have
 24       ended up putting $40 million into it.  We have met our
 25       commitments all the way along.  For ten years we have


  1       met our commitments in terms of this service.  Anything
  2       we do over the next seven years is going to be exactly
  3       on that same basis.  Every penny that comes towards
  4       this service goes into the service.
  5  5427                 We just wanted to make that clear in
  6       terms of how it is priced.  I just wanted to make those
  7       two points.
  8  5428                 I don't know if anyone wants to add
  9       to it, but I thought we should clarify those points. 
 10       Thank you.
 11  5429                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  The second point I
 12       don't think was unclear.
 13  5430                 On the first point, I take your point
 14       about how you see it as a single service.  But
 15       conceptually and analytically, it is essentially two
 16       undertakings combined into one.  For purposes of
 17       analyzing the application, we are looking at it that
 18       way.  From your perspective, I understand how you are
 19       looking at it.
 20  5431                 MR. BUCHAN:  Mr. Chairman, could I
 21       just comment.
 22  5432                 I don't know that it is two separate
 23       undertakings combined into one.  There is a
 24       licence-exempt portion of the programming that is
 25       included within the service, which is the single


  1       service that CPAC has.  There are two licences.  One is
  2       for a French-language network, and one is for an
  3       English-language network.  Both include licence exempt
  4       programming.
  5  5433                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Maybe we can
  6       clarify that.
  7  5434                 This doesn't go to what you see on
  8       air and how you program it, but legally and, if you
  9       like, analytically if you look at the definition in the
 10       BDU regs of Public Affairs Programming Service, you see
 11       the definition of a service that in effect
 12       characterizes the wrap-around and not the House of
 13       Commons.  It wouldn't qualify if the House of Commons
 14       was part of that.
 15  5435                 The House of Commons is an exempt
 16       undertaking.  The wrap-around public affairs
 17       programming service is defined in the BDU regs.  That
 18       is how I am seeing it conceptually again, not from the
 19       point of view of presentation or anything of that sort.
 20  5436                 MR. BUCHAN:  I understand where you
 21       are coming from, Mr. Chairman, but CPAC is licensed to
 22       provide the House of Commons broadcast service plus
 23       public affairs programming.  That is how the licence of
 24       CPAC reads.  There is a licence for the French-language
 25       service and a licence for the English-language service. 


  1       CPAC has decided at the board level that although it
  2       holds two licences, it wants to run one national
  3       service in both official languages, coast to coast.
  4  5437                 If it is going to survive as a
  5       service and retain the support of all of its major
  6       affiliates, it is going to have to improve the
  7       French-language portion of its service.  The loss of
  8       one major affiliate anywhere in the country, for
  9       whatever reason, jeopardizes the business plan for
 10       CPAC.
 11  5438                 When the business decision was taken
 12       last summer on the relaunch, it was decided we weren't
 13       going to build a model for the English-language service
 14       and cut loose the French-language service, or vice
 15       versa.  It was going to be run as one national
 16       bilingual service but comprised within that service is
 17       the licence exempt portion.
 18  5439                 The Commission in its Public Notices
 19       and statements often refers to the licence exempt
 20       portion as though it could be truncated or hived off
 21       and delivered separately as though the wrap-around
 22       programming, which is maybe cognate to the service and
 23       complementary to the service -- and you can have a
 24       discussion about that as to how diverse it is and the
 25       contribution it makes.


  1  5440                 It can be costed separately.  That is
  2       what we have done with this business plan: cost the
  3       three cents for the House of Commons portion and that
  4       signal going up and the other seven cents for the
  5       wrap-around programming to enhance the service.
  6  5441                 The way it is licensed and the way it
  7       is operated is as one service, both official languages,
  8       coast to coast.  That is the business model on a going
  9       forward basis that CPAC is planning on.
 10  5442                 The other way you could back into
 11       this, looking at the exempt portion as a separate
 12       undertaking, would be to take a look at the exemption
 13       order for the House of Commons broadcast service.
 14  5443                 The exemption order, as it is
 15       drafted, wouldn't allow for a lot of the programming
 16       that CPAC is currently doing and has been doing since
 17       1995.  It would be outside of the exemption order.
 18  5444                 We wouldn't under our current
 19       licence -- you would have to unscramble the omelette. 
 20       That's all.
 21  5445                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  The point is under
 22       the exemption order, to operate the House of Commons
 23       service, one operates that service on an exempt basis. 
 24       The CPAC licences, as I understand them, provide for
 25       programming that is 100 per cent in Categories 3 and


  1       12.
  2  5446                 MR. BUCHAN:  It also says in the
  3       exemption order at (e):
  4                              "...any programming included in
  5                              the service, in addition to the
  6                              coverage of the proceedings
  7                              themselves, is limited to a
  8                              description of the process of
  9                              the House of Commons, the
 10                              legislature involved or an
 11                              agenda, including calls for
 12                              submissions by Committees, etc.
 13                              of upcoming activities."
 14                              (As read)
 15  5447                 That would be fine.  That is from the
 16       old House of Commons Parliamentary Service:  without
 17       any comment or analysis of the particular proceedings
 18       themselves.
 19  5448                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.
 20  5449                 MR. BUCHAN:  It is the comment or
 21       analysis which was built into the licence in 1995 and
 22       is there, and we are operating one undertaking.
 23  5450                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not
 24       understanding the debate we are having.  I think we are
 25       on the same wavelength here.


  1  5451                 Unless I am missing something that
  2       you want to come back to after the break, I see that
  3       the exempt undertaking contains the House of Commons
  4       plus all the items under (a) through (i), including the
  5       one you just mentioned.  And everything else CPAC does
  6       it does, if you like, under the licence for the
  7       wrap-around, as I am calling it, in Categories 3 and
  8       12.
  9  5452                 If you are saying that some of the
 10       programming -- how would you classify it under the
 11       exemption order or under the CPAC licence?  I am not
 12       too concerned about that.  If you add commentary, you
 13       leave the exemption order.  But fortunately, because it
 14       is in Category 3 or 12, it is caught by your licence,
 15       and it's fine.
 16  5453                 I am not trying to unscramble the
 17       egg.  I am just trying to conceptually understand --
 18       and I come to this more recently than you do -- how the
 19       Commission has licensed it and sees it unfolding
 20       through the BDU regs.
 21  5454                 If you like, Mr. Howard can comment,
 22       possibly.  But I don't think I am seeing a disagreement
 23       with you on anything here.
 24  5455                 MR. BUCHAN:  If I could repeat,
 25       reading our licence, the CPAC licence, we think we are


  1       licensed to operate one undertaking; two licenses, two
  2       undertakings, if you want a French-language and an
  3       English-language network, comprised of the House of
  4       Commons and the public affairs programming.
  5  5456                 It has never been part of the
  6       proposal or the concept of CPAC since 1995 that it
  7       would provide the House of Commons service only.
  8  5457                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you need a
  9       licence to provide the House of Commons service only?
 10  5458                 MR. BUCHAN:  Not just the bare House
 11       of Commons service.
 12  5459                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And anything in (a)
 13       to (j) in the exemption order.
 14  5460                 MR. BUCHAN:  But that is not what
 15       CPAC --
 16  5461                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understand that. 
 17       But one doesn't need a licence to do that.  One needs a
 18       licence to go beyond that, and you have a licence that
 19       permits you to go beyond that, as I see it.
 20  5462                 If you were only doing what was
 21       described in the exemption order, you wouldn't need a
 22       licence.  That is the only point I am coming to.
 23  5463                 I am not asking you to divide it
 24       sharply from a programming point of view and tell me
 25       where a given program does or does not fall into (e)


  1       that you just described.  I accept that the egg is
  2       unscrambled in a programming sense on an ongoing basis.
  3  5464                 Conceptually, anybody who wished to
  4       carry the House of Commons would not require a licence,
  5       including CPAC would not require a licence to carry the
  6       House of Commons and anything in those categories.  It
  7       requires a licence to go beyond it, which you do.
  8  5465                 Is that a correct analysis?
  9  5466                 MR. BUCHAN:  That is correct.
 10  5467                 MR. HOWARD:  That is the way the
 11       Commission has traditionally looked at the service.  I
 12       understand your argument that everything is so
 13       intertwined, and I understand the attitude that CPAC
 14       has always taken with regard to the entire service.
 15  5468                 But internally in the Commission, and
 16       I think externally, the Commission has taken the
 17       attitude that there were two undertakings which had
 18       sort of melded, and there are other examples where
 19       there had been two exempt undertakings which had been
 20       melded.  Some of the exemption orders specifically
 21       allow the putting together of two of them.
 22  5469                 I can't say too much more than that. 
 23       It may very well be, from the way you are speaking,
 24       that we should take a closer look and perhaps redefine
 25       the way we look at the CPAC licence.  I don't know.


  1  5470                 MR. STEIN:  Mr. Chairman, could I
  2       take a moment to confer with my counsel?
  3  5471                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  By all means.
  4       --- Pause
  5  5472                 MR. HOWARD:  If I could just add, I
  6       think part of the idea that the Commission had in that
  7       interpretation was to ensure that if someone wanted to
  8       take just the feed that comes from the Speaker -- and I
  9       think the Speaker has said the feed should go to anyone
 10       that wants it.  I think that was part of the terms.
 11  5473                 MR. BUCHAN:  That is correct,
 12       Mr. Howard.  It is a non-exclusive arrangement that
 13       CPAC has with the Speaker.
 14  5474                 MR. HOWARD:  If anyone wanted that
 15       and wished to carry it, they could.  So what's sauce
 16       for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 17  5475                 MR. BUCHAN:  We agree completely. 
 18       But conceptually -- and maybe it was because of the way
 19       the questioning started yesterday, it was fine.  We
 20       took the three cents and we were costing it, and we
 21       built the model with the three cents and the seven
 22       cents.
 23  5476                 You might be interested to know,
 24       Mr. Chairman, the same economist who did the Unitel
 25       model, which ended up costing some of the shareholders


  1       a bit of money, built that model.
  2  5477                 We costed it that way.  But CPAC has
  3       never been interested, the shareholders of CPAC have
  4       never been interested in running the old House of
  5       Commons Parliamentary Service, if the Commission wants
  6       to look on that as one undertaking.
  7  5478                 We have wanted to run the larger,
  8       broader, national bilingual service, with two licences
  9       perhaps, but as far as we are concerned one service.
 10  5479                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think that was
 11       clear.
 12  5480                 MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 13  5481                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think you
 14       indicated yesterday, Mr. Stein, that the affiliation
 15       agreements -- and I think Mr. Mayrand said all of
 16       them -- ended on August 31st of this year.
 17  5482                 Is that correct?
 18  5483                 Are you hopeful that you will get all
 19       the major cable and DTH distributors to approve and to
 20       rejoin on the basis that you have put forward?
 21  5484                 MR. STEIN:  As we said yesterday,
 22       there is no alternative.  We are hopeful.  We don't
 23       expect some of the discussions to be -- we hope to have
 24       frank discussions, and I think the expectation is that
 25       we will reach a good conclusion.


  1  5485                 It is kind of risky at the moment, to
  2       be blunt, because some people do not see the way that
  3       they can actually implement this rate in the
  4       environment in which we exist.  So there is a concern
  5       that trying to develop this service at this rate is an
  6       issue.
  7  5486                 I think what we have to do is take
  8       the time after this hearing to work with people and to
  9       talk to them about what we are trying to do and what
 10       our objectives are over the next seven years. 
 11       Hopefully, we will convince them.
 12  5487                 There have been some immediate steps
 13       that were taken that have now resulted in more positive
 14       discussions.  So I am hopeful about that.
 15  5488                 Colette, did you want to add to that?
 16  5489                 MS WATSON:  It has been an
 17       interesting year trying to keep all the members in the
 18       boat.  This is a public service.  There is no
 19       obligation to carry it.  There is no obligation to fund
 20       it.  It has been a public service for ten years.  It is
 21       a goodwill industry.
 22  5490                 When companies are faced with cash
 23       squeezes -- and I refer to the distributors -- they all
 24       look at where they can cut costs.  I am sure you have
 25       read about how some distributors have opted to make


  1       some cuts.
  2  5491                 Obviously, CPAC was on the table for
  3       some of them, and it continues to be on the table.
  4  5492                 I appear in front of you today as a
  5       program provider, not a distributor.  The reason we
  6       need the rate at CPAC is so that we can go in and
  7       negotiate a fair rate that applies across the board for
  8       what we feel is an efficiently run bilingual,
  9       not-for-profit, national commercial-free service.
 10  5493                 Without that published rate, what we
 11       get are arbitrary -- there seems to be a sort of
 12       lawlessness out there right now in terms of paying for
 13       published rates for program providers.
 14  5494                 So we are just asking for a rate that
 15       we can go to that kind of establishes a benchmark to
 16       keep this service sustainable and viable.
 17  5495                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  Let me ask
 18       you this:  Have any of the major MSOs balked at paying
 19       the three cents going forward, assuming that you got
 20       what you were looking for?
 21  5496                 MS WATSON:  We have discussed it with
 22       our board, not with the larger group of affiliates.  So
 23       within our board, no; but I can't tell you what the
 24       other affiliates --
 25  5497                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  No balking within


  1       the board.
  2  5498                 What major MSO is not on your board?
  3  5499                 MR. STEIN:  All the MSOs are on the
  4       board.
  5  5500                 I think the commitment to the three
  6       cents is there, but for some of the distributors that
  7       commitment is there based on the fact that CPAC is
  8       licensed as a single service as a wrap and a
  9       wrap-around basis.
 10  5501                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think I am
 11       understanding that from your answers.  I suppose in the
 12       worst case scenario of only the House of Commons
 13       remaining, so to speak, the regulation would kick in,
 14       and that has nothing really to do with the programming
 15       side that you are referring to, Ms Watson.
 16  5502                 MS WATSON:  We have not conferred
 17       with our DTH affiliates as to whether this would be
 18       appropriate.  They represent a significant portion of
 19       our revenue, and I can't give you a global answer with
 20       respect to that.
 21  5503                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  They are paying a
 22       differential rate currently, as I understand it.
 23  5504                 MS WATSON:  They are paying the new
 24       1997, the rate that went into effect in 1997.
 25  5505                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  Under this


  1       proposal, as you said yesterday, there will be a common
  2       rate, per sub rate for all.
  3  5506                 MS WATSON:  Exactly.
  4  5507                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  I was
  5       going to ask you a number of questions on C-SPAN for
  6       information, and if you can help us that would be
  7       useful.
  8  5508                 C-SPAN is the American public affairs
  9       channel with a mission, I take it, fairly similar to
 10       your own.
 11  5509                 C-SPAN's Web site indicates that fees
 12       paid by cable and satellite affiliates carrying C-SPAN
 13       funds its operations.
 14  5510                 Do you have any contact with them,
 15       and can you tell us what their funding mechanism is?
 16  5511                 MS WATSON:  We have a programming
 17       exchange agreement with C-SPAN where they are free to
 18       take programming that we uplink, as we are free to take
 19       some of the programming that they uplink.
 20  5512                 On September 11th, for example, we
 21       took the C-SPAN feed to get all of the Pentagon and
 22       defence briefings, and all of that.
 23  5513                 So it is really related to a
 24       programming exchange.
 25  5514                 With respect to high level


  1       discussions as to how they are funded and how we are
  2       funded, I, as the operator, have not had any of those
  3       discussions.
  4  5515                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Stein or
  5       Mr. Lind, can you assistance on that?
  6  5516                 MR. STEIN:  On the financing issue
  7       itself, in the United States the rates are not
  8       regulated; the rates are deregulated.  So there is no
  9       such issue as a passthrough or that type of issue.
 10  5517                 It is funded by the cable industry,
 11       but it is a different structure in the U.S.  There are
 12       actually programming service ownership issues.  There
 13       is much more integration on cable services and cable
 14       delivery in the United States.
 15  5518                 It is financed entirely by the cable
 16       industry, but there are two considerations.  The first
 17       is that they are deregulated, and the second issue is
 18       they do not make contributions to production funds.
 19  5519                 MS WATSON:  As an operator, if I
 20       could add one --
 21  5520                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Before you do,
 22       Ms Watson, I want to pursue this for a second.
 23  5521                 I take your point that the cable
 24       industry feels that it is making contributions to the
 25       broadcasting system through the 5 per cent of revenues


  1       that it pays to program production funds.
  2  5522                 You are saying that on the funding of
  3       C-SPAN, this is something funded by the cable industry. 
  4       Are the DTH providers involved in the funding of it, as
  5       far as you know?
  6  5523                 MR. STEIN:  No.
  7  5524                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  They are not?  So
  8       it is entirely the cable industry and no passthrough.
  9  5525                 MR. STEIN:  There is no such thing as
 10       a passthrough in the U.S.
 11  5526                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  There is no
 12       regulation governing that.
 13  5527                 MR. STEIN:  There is no passthrough,
 14       or anything.  It is all free.
 15  5528                 MS WATSON:  The cost of creating a
 16       station with bricks and mortar, cameras, master
 17       controls, is pretty much the same once you have created
 18       that.  So if they lose an MSO or a distributor, one or
 19       two, their revenue base is so much larger -- it is ten
 20       times what ours is with respect to the number of
 21       subscribers.  So it probably allows them a lot more
 22       flexibility with respect to being able to continue to
 23       operate in that way.
 24  5529                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  They
 25       amortize the cost over -- what is the number of


  1       subscribers in the States?
  2  5530                 MS WATSON:  I am saying the cost of
  3       creating CPAC would be about the same cost as creating
  4       C-SPAN, but they get ten times the revenue.  So if one
  5       drops off, it doesn't kill it.
  6  5531                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You say they get
  7       ten times the revenue.
  8  5532                 MS WATSON:  They have ten times the
  9       amount of subscribers.
 10  5533                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What is the number
 11       of cable subscribers in the United States currently?
 12  5534                 MR. LIND:  Sixty-five, sixty-eight,
 13       something like that.
 14  5535                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Million.  And in
 15       Canada?
 16  5536                 MS WATSON:  Nine million.
 17  5537                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So seven times more
 18       subs.
 19  5538                 MS WATSON:  There are 7 million cable
 20       subscribers, and then the rest are DTH.
 21  5539                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see.  Who
 22       contribute in Canada.
 23  5540                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 24  5541                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 25  5542                 I am going to move to a number of


  1       questions on programming, if I may.
  2  5543                 The program schedule that you have
  3       included with the application, and that we were
  4       referring to briefly yesterday, is the schedule for
  5       when the House is sitting.
  6  5544                 Have you filed a copy with us of your
  7       existing schedule when the House is not sitting?
  8  5545                 MS WATSON:  I don't believe we have. 
  9       Everything that you see in red as House of Commons
 10       would be public record.  It is long-form programming.
 11  5546                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So it would be long
 12       form.
 13  5547                 MS WATSON:  It would be committees,
 14       conventions.
 15  5548                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So substitute for
 16       the red bits the long form --
 17  5549                 MS WATSON:  Everything that is blue.
 18  5550                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Everything that is?
 19  5551                 MS WATSON:  Blue.
 20  5552                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  There are two
 21       shades of blue, but we will let that go.
 22  5553                 MS WATSON:  The nice bright royal
 23       blue.
 24  5554                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What about your
 25       proposed programming line-up, assuming this is all


  1       approved?
  2  5555                 MS WATSON:  It is relatively
  3       identical.
  4  5556                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Relatively
  5       identical?
  6  5557                 MS WATSON:  We would add one hour of
  7       French original programming between 6:00 and midnight,
  8       and the long form would stay the same.
  9  5558                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is really the
 10       schedule you would submit if you were asked to --
 11  5559                 MS WATSON:  With the addition of
 12       French programming.
 13  5560                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  With the addition
 14       of French programming.  Where would that go?
 15  5561                 MS WATSON:  We are in discussions
 16       with the House Leader right now to see -- the fall
 17       session of parliament was an anomalous year due to
 18       September 11th.  Normally, they rise around 5:30-6:00
 19       o'clock.  Lately, since September 11th, they have been
 20       going to 7:00, 7:05.  Tonight they are going to
 21       midnight.  It has been an abnormal type of year.
 22  5562                 One assumes we will return to some
 23       sort of normality by next fall, and we will be able to
 24       introduce a 6:00 p.m. hour where "Revue politique"
 25       would go.


  1  5563                 The House Leader promises to give me
  2       a better idea of it over the summer, in which case if
  3       he doesn't then we would shorten the "Prime Time
  4       Politics" and look at how we would try to find the hour
  5       for "Revue politique".
  6  5564                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  At page 15 of your
  7       application you describe the Parliamentary coverage
  8       obligations as including House proceedings, the daily
  9       repeat of Question Period, plus a minimum of eight
 10       hours of coverage of House of Commons committees, as
 11       well as unspecific coverage of Senate committees.
 12  5565                 How many hours a week does that
 13       represent?
 14  5566                 MS WATSON:  Well, it depends.  We
 15       have an undertaking that we will air all committees
 16       that are provided to us from the House and the Senate. 
 17       It just varies from week to week on that number.
 18  5567                 When we put it in in all the public
 19       record slots, if the product doesn't come in, then we
 20       fill with a convention or a conference or a symposium
 21       of some sort.
 22  5568                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Or, Heaven forbid,
 23       a CRTC hearing.
 24  5569                 MS WATSON:  Absolutely.
 25  5570                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Of your


  1       non-Parliamentary programming, how many hours of
  2       in-depth public affairs and long-format programming do
  3       you currently air each week?
  4  5571                 MS WATSON:  In-depth is three hours a
  5       day, four days a week.  So that would be 12 hours.  The
  6       rest is all long format, public record, gavel-to-gavel
  7       programming.
  8  5572                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Does that obtain,
  9       as well, when the House is not sitting?
 10  5573                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 11  5574                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  The same numbers?
 12  5575                 MS WATSON:  When the House is not
 13       sitting, everything that is House is gavel-to-gavel
 14       long-form programming.
 15  5576                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In response to
 16       deficiencies, you indicated that during the new term
 17       you intend to air approximately 90.5 hours a week of
 18       original programming, 32.5 in-depth and 58 hours of
 19       long form.
 20  5577                 MS WATSON:  Right.
 21  5578                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  When the House is
 22       not sitting, is there a difference in that?
 23  5579                 MS WATSON:  The in-depth continues at
 24       the same level.  Long form we define as -- the numbers
 25       should not change, because it is the content of long


  1       form that changes.  It would either be gavel-to-gavel
  2       House or gavel-to-gavel CRTC hearings.
  3  5580                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  From your answers
  4       yesterday, I gather you haven't got your contingency
  5       plans made yet for those hours should you not get the
  6       entire rate that you are seeking.
  7  5581                 Is that correct?
  8  5582                 MS WATSON:  That is correct.
  9  5583                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Turning to
 10       French-language programming, it is one of your
 11       principles that programming must reflect Canada's dual
 12       linguistic nature.
 13  5584                 I would ask you to comment on how you
 14       accomplish that specifically.  When choosing events to
 15       cover, how do you take that into consideration?
 16  5585                 Then I will ask you some quantitative
 17       questions.
 18  5586                 How do you select events to give
 19       effect to that point?
 20  5587                 MS WATSON:  It's very similar to how
 21       community television works with respect to the
 22       logistics of it.  How much in advance do we get the
 23       request?  Do we have the resources?  Is it something
 24       that will -- basically, it is how much advance notice
 25       we have and the resources.


  1  5588                 It doesn't come across my desk.  It
  2       goes to a group of producers who have the mandate to
  3       ensure regional coverage and long-form voice
  4       distinctiveness.  Does this provide a counter balance
  5       to something else that has been widely covered by other
  6       media?
  7  5589                 Then there is the whole issue of
  8       sourcing things from Quebec or other originating French
  9       language programming.  We can tell you that everything
 10       that has come across us that originates in French, we
 11       go get because there isn't that much.
 12  5590                 From that perspective, other than
 13       creating some, we are kind of left with what comes
 14       across as a request.
 15  5591                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Could you give me
 16       the number of hours of French programming --
 17  5592                 MS WATSON:  We do one original hour
 18       per week, plus repeats.
 19  5593                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm sorry, my
 20       microphone was off.  I think you heard me, but I will
 21       repeat it.
 22  5594                 I asked how many hours of French
 23       programming you currently originate.
 24  5595                 MS WATSON:  We do one hour of "Revue
 25       politique" per week with repeats.  "World Showcase" on


  1       occasion, we have an agreement with Publique Sinat in
  2       France to take some of their programming.
  3  5596                 For example, on the weekend we had
  4       gavel-to-gavel of the French election speeches.  That
  5       was about five hours of original French programming on
  6       Sunday.
  7  5597                 Normally, we try to take at least
  8       twice a month two to three hours from Public Sinat.  So
  9       that would be additional.
 10  5598                 That is what CPAC produces.  All
 11       Senate, House and House proceedings are in both
 12       official languages.
 13  5599                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I guess as a
 14       proportion of your non-Parliamentary programming it is
 15       kind of small.
 16  5600                 MS WATSON:  It is very small, yes. 
 17       As a francophone, that is something I wanted to change.
 18  5601                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  How many hours will
 19       you originate under your new proposal?
 20  5602                 MS WATSON:  It would go up to five
 21       per week with repeats on the strip programming, and
 22       then on the weekends we would look for an increase of
 23       about 10 to 15 per cent in long form and then continue
 24       the partnership with France.
 25  5603                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What proportion of


  1       the non-Parliamentary hours would that represent?
  2  5604                 MS WATSON:  I am hoping to reach
  3       between 15 and 20 per cent, to reflect the population
  4       break.
  5  5605                 I may not be able to do it in the
  6       first year, because there just are not that many
  7       long-form events originating in French.
  8  5606                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Five of the
  9       non-Parliamentary hours would probably not be anywhere
 10       near.
 11  5607                 MS WATSON:  That is in the strip
 12       programming.  What we produce is three hours a day,
 13       four days a week.  So we would be producing four hours
 14       a day, because you would add a fourth hour.  That is 25
 15       per cent right there.
 16  5608                 Monday to Thursday right now is three
 17       hours a week that CPAC produces of in-depth
 18       programming.  We would increase that to four hours a
 19       day, one being French.
 20  5609                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would you think it
 21       appropriate to add to your nature of service definition
 22       the bilingual mandate as part of the condition of
 23       licence?
 24  5610                 MS WATSON:  I believe we already have
 25       that.


  1  5611                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You do?
  2  5612                 MS WATSON:  Operate as a bilingual
  3       service?
  4  5613                 MR. FORTUNE:  That would probably be
  5       appropriate.  Currently, CPAC is licensed under two
  6       licences; one in English and one is for French. 
  7       Presumably, as a bilingual service, it would make sense
  8       to add it to the nature of service.
  9  5614                 I suppose if a single licence were
 10       issued, then it would bilingual, I guess.
 11  5615                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I will let you
 12       discuss that with counsel later.  I have had enough of
 13       a legal exercise this morning.
 14  5616                 Given your proposed wholesale fee and
 15       your request for dual status, do you think your
 16       commitments to original French language programming are
 17       sufficient to justify requiring subscribers in French
 18       language markets to pay for the service?
 19  5617                 MS WATSON:  We propose to originate
 20       what CPAC creates, what we feel is a 20 to 25 per cent
 21       ratio.  Then everything, the entire channel, would be
 22       offered in French or English.  So the answer is yes.
 23  5618                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I will get to this
 24       question in a moment.  I wanted to go through your list
 25       of additional programs that you outline for us again in


  1       your opening statement, but I want for a moment to talk
  2       about regional representation.
  3  5619                 I have a similar question to the one
  4       I asked you regarding the French programming.  How do
  5       you take into consideration the different regions of
  6       the country and their need to be reflected?
  7  5620                 MS WATSON:  We take that role very
  8       seriously, actually.  We have a contract freelancer, or
  9       stringer if you will, who covers the west for us.  We
 10       have one in Vancouver, one in Calgary, and then we try
 11       to cover the maritimes with staff inside.  We have one
 12       in Montreal.  We also have a little office in the
 13       Assemblée nationale in Québec City.
 14  5621                 When you look at the list we have
 15       provided, we have actually done a fair representation
 16       across the country, but we would like to be a little
 17       more disciplined about it in the future and create a
 18       quota so that the staff have direction.  When these
 19       things come across their desk, they know that I need to
 20       hit all ten provinces in the next 12 months.
 21  5622                 It provides for better balance and
 22       discipline.
 23  5623                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Have you tallied up
 24       the events that you have covered across the country say
 25       over the past year?


  1  5624                 MS WATSON:  Year?
  2  5625                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.
  3  5626                 MS WATSON:  Probably someone has; I
  4       haven't.
  5  5627                 I could get you that answer.
  6  5628                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You commit in your
  7       application that you will provide at least one event in
  8       each province and territory each year of the renewal
  9       term.
 10  5629                 MS WATSON:  But an incremental.  In
 11       my view, that is incremental to what we do now.
 12  5630                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  So I was
 13       asking.  The previous question was:  What do you do
 14       now?
 15  5631                 MS WATSON:  Right.  I will get you
 16       that answer.
 17  5632                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  All right.  I
 18       remember once seeing a CBC item on an interview with a
 19       chap outside a bar in New Brunswick, who said he had
 20       identified UFOs.  I happened to be speaking to the
 21       producer shortly after that, and his answer was, "We
 22       needed a New Brunswick story."
 23  5633                 I hope that that isn't going to be
 24       CPAC's direction.
 25  5634                 MS WATSON:  We have partnerships with


  1       provincial legislatures.  We would cover the New
  2       Brunswick budget as opposed to UFOs.
  3  5635                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
  4  5636                 MR. STEIN:  Could you just give us a
  5       moment, please.
  6  5637                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  It may
  7       explain the problem with your ratings.
  8  5638                 MS WATSON:  Yes.  We also expect,
  9       barring any change in constitutional charters, that
 10       there will be two federal elections in the next seven
 11       years.  That allows us to go across the country and
 12       provide regional perspectives, quite interesting
 13       regional perspectives.
 14  5639                 MR. STEIN:  Could I make the point,
 15       as well, that with provincial legislatures we do cover
 16       the budgets, and we also cover provincial elections. 
 17       We put that on a national basis.
 18  5640                 That has been quite popular, because
 19       for the most part most legislatures are covered just
 20       within their own province.  So the ability to take
 21       specific events in that province and broadcast them
 22       nationally has been something -- for example, I have
 23       two premiers who both thanked us for doing that.  They
 24       thought it was quite a good initiative.
 25  5641                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have proposed


  1       the addition of several new program categories.  How
  2       different would the service be if these new categories
  3       were approved?
  4  5642                 MS WATSON:  The categories we have
  5       asked for would allow us to program a very small amount
  6       of what we believe is educational public affairs
  7       related programming when the House is not in session.
  8  5643                 This is a personal passion of mine. 
  9       I have two children in the public school system, and I
 10       am usually amazed and dismayed at the lack of resources
 11       available to teachers in the public system -- it may be
 12       different in the private system -- that are available
 13       to them with respect to our own Parliamentary and
 14       political system here in Canada.
 15  5644                 That part of me would like to help
 16       change that in some way by creating a resource base
 17       with the fact that it would be nice for my son to want
 18       to aspire to be prime minister and not the governor. 
 19       It would be nice for my daughter to know that there are
 20       ten provincial assemblies and not just a White House.
 21  5645                 It is something that we could fill a
 22       void.  I have been trained by Phil Lind in the school
 23       of programming, and that mantra is "you find a need and
 24       fill a void".
 25  5646                 There is a void, and CPAC can fill a


  1       need here.  It is a public service I believe we need to
  2       fill.
  3  5647                 MR. STEIN:  Mr. Chairman, we did
  4       undertake a number of years ago an initiative with YTV
  5       to do a number of specific programs like that.  It was
  6       very, very successful, both in terms of their members
  7       and in terms of distributing it through pay cable in
  8       the classroom.
  9  5648                 It is along that nature of
 10       programming that we would very much like to do.
 11  5649                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  The types of
 12       programs that you propose to air that would fall under
 13       Category 5(b), which is informal education, recreation
 14       and leisure.
 15  5650                 What are those?
 16  5651                 MS WATSON:  For example, the Speaker
 17       of the House has approached us to do a video on how a
 18       bill is passed.  So we would produce that video.  We
 19       would air it on the channel, and then we would make it
 20       available through our CPAC in the Classroom
 21       programming.
 22  5652                 It is a bit different from a
 23       documentary, say, on the politics versus science of
 24       stem cell research or what is the role of the Senate in
 25       Canada's Parliamentary system; or, for example, a


  1       documentary on the official residences in Ottawa.
  2  5653                 These are things Canadians might need
  3       or want.
  4  5654                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This wouldn't be
  5       the Speaker of the House giving gardening instructions
  6       in his garden.
  7  5655                 MS WATSON:  No.  He may like to
  8       garden.  I am unaware of that.  It would be about how a
  9       bill gets through, what the role of the Speaker is.
 10  5656                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you feel you
 11       need the informal part in formal education.  You are
 12       not, I take it, that interested in recreation and
 13       leisure.
 14  5657                 MS WATSON:  That is correct.
 15  5658                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have any
 16       plans in that area?
 17  5659                 MS WATSON:  No.  I personally do, but
 18       not for the channel.
 19  5660                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In your long format
 20       coverage of committees, hearings and conferences, and
 21       so on, to what extent will your new programming cut
 22       into long format gavel-to-gavel coverage?
 23  5661                 MS WATSON:  Not in any way, shape or
 24       form.
 25  5662                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That is the base


  1       programming and will remain that.
  2  5663                 MS WATSON:  It is the most expensive
  3       thing we do.  It is the bulk of what we do.  It
  4       comprises the bulk of the programming schedule.
  5  5664                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have a
  6       comment on the possibility again of including long-form
  7       coverage in your nature of service definition, which I
  8       take it is not there currently?
  9  5665                 MS WATSON:  I would have to confer
 10       with my counsel on that.
 11  5666                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  All right.  Maybe I
 12       should, too.
 13       --- Pause
 14  5667                 MS WATSON:  They tell me I would have
 15       no problem with that.
 16  5668                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 17  5669                 If the Commission felt it was
 18       important to ensure that a proportion of your
 19       non-Parliamentary programming remained focused on
 20       non-editorial long-format gavel-to-gavel coverage,
 21       could I ask you not perhaps now but to come back at a
 22       way of formatting that wording that might, further to
 23       my last question, be suitable?
 24  5670                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 25  5671                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.


  1  5672                 I want to ask you a question about
  2       the competitiveness of what you are proposing with
  3       other specialty services.  We touched on it briefly
  4       yesterday.
  5  5673                 Internally, in an effort to
  6       understand the services that are licensed currently, we
  7       have clustered services that are fairly similar by
  8       program category.  When I superimpose your new request
  9       for Categories 2(a), 2(b), 3, 5(b) and 12 over that
 10       list, I do get -- and I think we alluded to this
 11       yesterday -- a sense of similarity, for example, with
 12       program services like "ROBTv" for one that have those
 13       categories, and a few more.  I get a similar result,
 14       even "Newsworld" with a few more categories.
 15  5674                 I am wondering what your response to
 16       that is.  If one plotted your service, as proposed,
 17       against those, it would be really hard to
 18       differentiate.
 19  5675                 That is, if you like, question one.
 20  5676                 Question two is simply in terms of
 21       taking up the discussion we had yesterday.  It is hard
 22       to see, if one named a given program, how what you
 23       would be carrying would not likely equally be carried
 24       on "ROBTv" or "Newsworld" or "CP24", or one of the
 25       other news services that are licensed.


  1  5677                 Perhaps you could help me with that.
  2  5678                 MS WATSON:  My first answer would be
  3       we were here first.  So they are copying our format.
  4  5679                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Actually, they have
  5       their licences first for those categories.
  6  5680                 MS WATSON:  For those categories,
  7       right.
  8  5681                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are now asking
  9       to do categories that --
 10  5682                 MS WATSON:  But we have been covering
 11       public affairs for ten years.
 12  5683                 Where we see the fact that we are
 13       complementary and not competitive is in the fact that
 14       public affairs have been covered on the main networks
 15       forever.  There has always been the Sunday morning
 16       political wrap-up show, the Mike Duffey shows, the CBC
 17       show.  Now Global has one.
 18  5684                 Public affairs is kind of a Canadian
 19       staple, if you will.  So having more public affairs
 20       programming is not a bad thing.  We are happy to be
 21       part of that medium or that genre, is you will.
 22  5685                 What is different is the way in which
 23       we provide it.  It is balanced; it is neutral; and it
 24       is in-depth.  It is usually from beginning to end.
 25  5686                 These networks have commercial


  1       constraints.  They have time constraints, and sometimes
  2       they have perspective.  We choose to not present a
  3       perspective.  We choose to present you with all of the
  4       sides of a particular issue and leave it at that.
  5  5687                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  I think one
  6       of the intervenors has raised the point.
  7  5688                 To the extent that these new
  8       categories constitute a wider programming permissive
  9       mandate for you, one intervenor at least has argued
 10       that if the Commission is willing to license a service
 11       that offers the categories that CPAC is now putting
 12       forward as distinct from what it has already been
 13       doing, this should be thrown open to a public
 14       proceeding where others who might want to do the same
 15       can apply.  Then the Commission can get the best of
 16       those competing applications and license such a service
 17       rather than what might be considered incrementalism,
 18       creeping incrementalism, from your current position.
 19  5689                 I would like you to comment on that,
 20       please.
 21  5690                 MS WATSON:  I would wonder, were they
 22       to apply, if they would still come up with a service
 23       that is commercial-free, bilingual and on a
 24       not-for-profit basis.
 25  5691                 What we are doing is trying to do a


  1       better job of being the place where Canadians can find
  2       a balanced neutral platform for civil discussion of
  3       issues in our country not influenced by other
  4       newsrooms, not influenced by corporate direction and
  5       not influenced by advertisers.
  6  5692                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We don't know
  7       whether that would be the case, is what you are saying.
  8  5693                 My question is:  How can we be
  9       certain unless we have a proceeding that tries to find
 10       that out?
 11       --- Pause
 12  5694                 MS WATSON:  I guess my reply would be
 13       we have been, since 1995, doing the programming we are
 14       doing now.  I guess what has come to the attention has
 15       been how we do it, in terms of it is packaged
 16       differently.  It maybe looks a little slicker than it
 17       did in 1995.
 18  5695                 The content is the same.  It is just
 19       how it is produced with respect to production values
 20       that has changed and improved.
 21  5696                 We are seeking to continue what we
 22       have been doing since 1995.
 23  5697                 With respect to Category 2(a), I go
 24       back to my horse with respect to there's a need for
 25       this type of public affairs documentary educational


  1       product that is not there.
  2  5698                 We have proposed what we find is a
  3       small amount, and we would be happy to live with a cap
  4       on amounts of those in order to allow the Commission to
  5       have a safeguard, if you will.
  6  5699                 It is for Category 2(b), pardon me.
  7  5700                 MR. STEIN:  Mr. Chairman --
  8  5701                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have put
  9       forward 5 per cent limits in Categories 2(b) and 5(b).
 10  5702                 MS WATSON:  Right.
 11  5703                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Stein?
 12  5704                 MR. STEIN:  Mr. Chairman, in terms of
 13       Colette's remark about looking at more public affairs
 14       programming, in the research that we did file, on
 15       viewing it what was striking in that research is that
 16       the amount of public affairs programming viewed by
 17       Canadians has increased from 6 per cent in 1984 to 12
 18       per cent in 1989.  So it has doubled.
 19  5705                 In 1984, 38 per cent was foreign and
 20       62 per cent was Canadian.
 21  5706                 In 1999, 64 per cent was foreign and
 22       36 per cent was Canadian.
 23  5707                 So I would suggest to the people who
 24       intervened that maybe they should look at what they are
 25       doing in terms of improving the public affairs


  1       programming that we have in this country.  What we are
  2       trying to do with the service and what Colette has been
  3       trying to do, is to make it more attractive for people
  4       to watch it but totally consistent with our mandate:
  5       the gavel-to-gavel, the long form, not the clips, not
  6       editorial view, but just putting it straight up.
  7  5708                 I have to say that when I went around
  8       and talked to the House of Commons individuals, all of
  9       them, and in some discussions we have had with the
 10       Senate, I think there is a renewed interest in
 11       participating in that kind of programming because they
 12       see it as a way of reaching out to Canadians rather
 13       than just having American senators and congressional
 14       hearings reaching out to Canadians.
 15  5709                 We have to have our means of getting
 16       that across, and that is exactly what we are trying to
 17       do.
 18  5710                 It may well be that this programming
 19       format changes.  Maybe some things work, some things
 20       don't.  But we do want to experiment, and we do want to
 21       make sure we make it attractive to Canadians so that
 22       they will watch it and we get the kind of ratings you
 23       talked about yesterday.
 24  5711                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We may want to come
 25       back to that issue, which I guess is one of -- is there


  1       a procedural fairness issue here?  That is really the
  2       question.
  3  5712                 You can comment on it now and/or
  4       later.
  5  5713                 MR. STEIN:  I understand that
  6       comment.  I think we just want flexibility to do things
  7       within the mandate.  We are not trying to expand the
  8       mandate, and we are not trying to compete with these
  9       services.  We are just trying to experiment with things
 10       within that mandate and try to make that kind of
 11       programming attractive to people.
 12  5714                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 13  5715                 I would like to turn briefly to
 14       your -- and we can do it via your opening remarks,
 15       which were helpful in this regard, or in regard to the
 16       programming improvements that you put forward in your
 17       application.
 18  5716                 I am trying to relate the programming
 19       to the expenses that you will incur in connection with
 20       it.
 21  5717                 In your opening remarks you referred
 22       to a service that was going to be entirely bilingual.
 23  5718                 Madame Watson, je pense que c'est
 24       vous qui avez mentionné que les services en français
 25       coûteront environ 12,5 millions de dollars pour la


  1       période.  Est-ce que c'est vrai?  Et 300 000 pour aider
  2       les systèmes de Classe 3 à se doter des modulateurs,
  3       sept millions -- spent over the licence term on the
  4       regional initiatives.  And then $4.6 million over the
  5       licence term on closed captioning.
  6  5719                 That comes to a total of $24.4
  7       million.
  8  5720                 You didn't cost out les initiatives
  9       éducatives et les recours aux nouvelles technologies.
 10  5721                 Do you have a cost for that?
 11  5722                 MS WATSON:  It's a capital cost,
 12       probably in the neighbourhood of -- I would say an
 13       approximate number would be $2 million to get capital
 14       improvements.
 15  5723                 Then there would be an ongoing, what
 16       we estimate to be between 70 and $100,000 a year of
 17       bandwidth costs.  It all depends on how people would
 18       use it.  It is difficult to estimate the take, but if
 19       50 people download a clip from the House of Commons the
 20       bandwidth requirement would be different than if 500
 21       did.
 22  5724                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see.  It is
 23       harder to cost out on that basis.
 24  5725                 MS WATSON:  We have budgeted between
 25       70 and $100,000 for bandwidth.


  1  5726                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  How much was that?
  2  5727                 MS WATSON:  Between 70 and $100,000
  3       per year for bandwidth.
  4  5728                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  When we try to
  5       relate it to the overall total new spending
  6       initiatives, where are we?
  7  5729                 We are pretty well at 24 out of the
  8       $30 million on those initiatives alone?
  9  5730                 MS WATSON:  Of operating costs.  Then
 10       there would be capital costs.
 11  5731                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  Going on
 12       the operating budget alone.
 13  5732                 MS WATSON:  Right.  All the revenues
 14       pay for operating and capital.
 15  5733                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am looking at
 16       your new programming initiatives again, and as I say we
 17       have a number of them priced in.
 18  5734                 Long form coverage of committees will
 19       be maintained; right?
 20  5735                 Increase the range and depth of
 21       public affairs through the addition of documentary
 22       programming.  What is the price tag associated with
 23       that one in operating cost terms?
 24  5736                 MS WATSON:  Simultaneous or
 25       documentary?


  1  5737                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  These are new
  2       initiatives; right?
  3  5738                 MS WATSON:  Right.
  4  5739                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Increase the range
  5       and depth of public affairs programming, for example,
  6       through the addition of documentary programming.
  7  5740                 MS WATSON:  We have budgeted $250,000
  8       per year of licence fees for independent productions. 
  9       Then we have budgeted $400,000 per year -- is it still
 10       $400,000 per year?
 11       --- Pause
 12  5741                 MS WATSON:  It is down to $100,000
 13       per year for a staff person to do a documentary.
 14  5742                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What would be the
 15       total for that?
 16  5743                 MS WATSON:  It would be --
 17  5744                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Somebody had the
 18       foresight to bring a calculator.
 19       --- Pause
 20  5745                 MS WATSON:  It would be $2.4 million.
 21  5746                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And the full
 22       simultaneous translation for 100 per cent of all
 23       programming, is that the $12.5 million?
 24  5747                 MS WATSON:  No.  That would be the
 25       cost of "Revue politique", sourcing some original


  1       long-form programming, and translation.
  2  5748                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Combined.
  3  5749                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  4  5750                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That would be
  5       $12.5 million for those two, achieving the full
  6       simultaneous translation and increasing original French
  7       language programming by relaunching "Revue politique"?
  8  5751                 Is that the $12.5 million you refer
  9       to in your opening statement?
 10  5752                 MS WATSON:  Plus 20 per cent of our
 11       long-form initiatives.
 12  5753                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Enhancing regional
 13       coverage by delivery of at least one public affairs
 14       program annually from the ten provinces and three
 15       territories.
 16  5754                 MS WATSON:  Right.  It is $7 million. 
 17       It is about $1 million a year.
 18  5755                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So that is the
 19       $7 million.
 20  5756                 MS WATSON:  Right.
 21  5757                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  The educational
 22       initiatives, adding interactive components for
 23       university students, more original educational
 24       programming for "Cable in the Classroom".
 25  5758                 MS WATSON:  That is the capital cost


  1       and then $100,000 a year in bandwidth.
  2  5759                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So that would be
  3       $700,000 over the period.
  4  5760                 MS WATSON:  Plus capital.
  5  5761                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  But on the
  6       operating line.
  7  5762                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  8  5763                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Building upon its
  9       use of new technologies to webcast additional live
 10       programming, for example, public affairs events when
 11       the House is in session.
 12  5764                 MS WATSON:  That is a capital cost.
 13  5765                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That is just a
 14       capital cost.
 15  5766                 In your answer to Deficiency 18 you
 16       provided some of these numbers, and you have broken
 17       them down, for year one at least, by salaries and
 18       benefits and production of regional conferences.
 19  5767                 We will see how that reconciles.  I
 20       wouldn't dare try to reconcile it here at this point.
 21  5768                 MS WATSON:  I'm sorry?
 22  5769                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am looking at the
 23       answer to Deficiency 18.  You were asked to provide,
 24       for years one and three, and you did so, but it was a
 25       different cut than the cut we are looking at it today.


  1  5770                 Unless at the break I am told by our
  2       staff that we don't have information on this, I think
  3       we may have enough at this point.
  4  5771                 MS WATSON:  The question for years
  5       one and three.  There was a bump in spending, so we
  6       provided the answer for that.
  7  5772                 Your question is -- what are you
  8       looking for?
  9  5773                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was trying to
 10       reconcile these with the block price tag, so to speak,
 11       in operating costs that we have just been discussing. 
 12       We will analyze that, and if we have further questions
 13       on that we will come back to it.
 14  5774                 MS WATSON:  Thank you.
 15  5775                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I would like to
 16       turn now to the question of your request for dual
 17       status.
 18  5776                 My basic question is:  What problem
 19       are you trying to fix by this request?
 20  5777                 MR. STEIN:  I will turn to Yves
 21       Mayrand for this question.
 22  5778                 MR. MAYRAND:  Mr. Chairman, what we
 23       are saying is we are just trying to clarify things.  It
 24       seems to us that out of a set of historical
 25       circumstances, in fact this licence service has been


  1       operating very close to dual status with the
  2       requirements that were put in the regulations and the
  3       fact that it is indeed carried on basic -- and I am
  4       told that it is 100 per cent basic distribution by all
  5       our distributors.
  6  5779                 Looking forward to the next seven
  7       years, and of course to the Notice that the Commission
  8       issued last fall, Notice 115, it seemed to us that the
  9       most logical and clear and simple way of looking at our
 10       status vis-à-vis not only the Commission but vis-à-vis
 11       the various distributors that distribute us, is to have
 12       official dual status.
 13  5780                 In that connection it is interesting
 14       to note that the dual status was coined in 1993 and
 15       contemporaneously with the pending application for the
 16       then experimental licence of CPAC.  So it is a bit of a
 17       blip.
 18  5781                 It seems to us that it really makes
 19       perfect sense for this service.  Given the recent
 20       announcement that you published in the fall on the
 21       House of Commons proceeding and the actual de facto
 22       carriage, analog basic, that the service is enjoying
 23       across the land, it really is the best status and the
 24       clearest one.
 25  5782                 That is why we have applied for it.


  1  5783                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see.  Without
  2       wanting to go back to the discussion I had with
  3       Mr. Buchan earlier, the side of that that raises the
  4       fairness issue I raised earlier is that that
  5       effectively makes you very similar to a specialty
  6       service that enjoys that status as distinct from the
  7       build-up status that you enjoy by virtue of carrying
  8       the House of Commons, together with the new regs.
  9  5784                 MR. MAYRAND:  Maybe we can deal with
 10       the fairness issue.  To some extent questions about
 11       fairness can be raised whenever there is a change,
 12       however minute, in the composition of the programming
 13       schedule, if there is a change in a particular
 14       descriptor of a licence.
 15  5785                 I would submit, though, that the
 16       Commission ought to be concerned with what are really
 17       substantive changes.  Our view is that this service has
 18       been in operation on analog to basic for ten years now. 
 19       We are not asking for a reshuffling of the situation.
 20       We are just asking in fact for clarity and a
 21       confirmation of what is the de facto status.
 22  5786                 Looking at the list of specialty
 23       services that do at this point have dual status, based
 24       on a recent update that you probably have,
 25       Mr. Chairman, on the Canadian television programming


  1       services, there are 13, if my memory serves me right. 
  2       It seems to us that it is just as justified to have
  3       CPAC officially licensed for this term on a dual status
  4       basis as it is for sports services, for weather
  5       services, for any other of the analog services that are
  6       widely carried on basic and were essentially
  7       contemporaneous to the coming in to place of CPAC.
  8  5787                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I hear you,
  9       Mr. Mayrand, but I am on the theory of:  If it ain't
 10       broke, don't fix it.  From a strategic point of view, I
 11       wonder why you would be seeking this at this point.
 12  5788                 Your answer is on the table, and you
 13       can add to it if you like.
 14  5789                 MR. MAYRAND:  Two things,
 15       Mr. Chairman.
 16  5790                 First of all, in the view of CPAC's
 17       board, there is a very specific situation created by
 18       the requirement the Commission has placed on the
 19       distribution of the House of Commons proceedings and
 20       that component of our overall service.  So we have to
 21       take that into account.
 22  5791                 Second, I think we have had a few
 23       discussions yesterday and today --
 24  5792                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sorry, I am not
 25       understanding the point.


  1  5793                 MR. MAYRAND:  The point is that the
  2       Commission has come up with very specific requirements
  3       for the carriage of that part of the program.  So it
  4       seems to us we are here on our renewal application, and
  5       we are saying:  What status best reflects the need to
  6       accommodate that requirement as part of our programming
  7       schedule and service and the current situation?
  8  5794                 Clearly, our view is that it is dual
  9       status.
 10  5795                 Looking forward as well, and going
 11       back to your question of "if it ain't broke, why fix
 12       it", going forward for the next seven years, and given
 13       the fact that following your licence renewal decision
 14       we will be facing all our distributors to renew
 15       affiliation agreements, we have discussed on a few
 16       occasions already at this hearing the importance of
 17       ensuring that this public interest service, whose only
 18       source of revenue is its affiliate fees, has the
 19       ability to renew and conclude affiliation agreements
 20       that support the service and the business plan that we
 21       have put forward.
 22  5796                 The concern is that if there is some
 23       ambiguity in the status or the need to carry the
 24       service as we propose it to you, we will end up in a
 25       variety of discussions with any distributor that you


  1       can think of saying:  Well, we like this and that part
  2       of the service.  We like maybe a lower rate.  We don't
  3       want this; we don't want that.
  4  5797                 I think it gets into a very litigious
  5       area.  That is clearly the concern of this board, of
  6       ensuring that going forward we have the tool to make
  7       sure that this transition operates smoothly.
  8  5798                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  I think
  9       I have your answer.
 10  5799                 Before turning the floor over to
 11       Commissioner Cardozo, I think we will take a 15-minute
 12       break.
 13  5800                 We are going to be ending the morning
 14       session today at 12:00, so we will break now for 15
 15       minutes.
 16       --- Upon recessing at 1045 / Suspension à 1045
 17       --- Upon resuming at 1110 / Reprend à 1110
 18  5801                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 19       Grauer.
 20  5802                 COMMISSIONER GRAUER:  Thank you.
 21  5803                 I have just one question.  I want to
 22       explore with you a little further the area on regional
 23       coverage.  Unless I missed it, I think you talked about
 24       covering issues in the various parts of the country.
 25  5804                 What I would like to hear a bit about


  1       is how you treat the different perspectives on an issue
  2       here in some of your programming.
  3  5805                 In other words, from my own
  4       experience I often find that there are national issues
  5       in which there are distinct regional cleavages and
  6       regional perspectives.
  7  5806                 I was interested in when you are
  8       having a discipline imposed, which I think sounds like
  9       a very intelligent way to go about it, if you do the
 10       same discipline in ensuring you are getting that
 11       perspective here in your coverage of events.
 12  5807                 MS WATSON:  Thank you, Commissioner.
 13  5808                 When I first arrived at CPAC about 14
 14       months ago, that is exactly what I asked in terms of
 15       having worked at a cable company with operations in
 16       Ontario and British Columbia, I was well aware that the
 17       interpretation of something that happens in central
 18       Canada is very different to people in Toronto than it
 19       is to people in Vancouver.
 20  5809                 The question was:  How do you bring
 21       the regions into what does the Kyoto Agreement mean to
 22       someone in Vancouver, someone in Cape Breton and
 23       someone in Montreal or Toronto?
 24  5810                 MR. STEIN:  Alberta.
 25  5811                 MS WATSON:  And Alberta.


  1  5812                 COMMISSIONER GRAUER:  Oh, all right.
  2       --- Laughter / Rires
  3  5813                 MS WATSON:  To do it right, we
  4       couldn't afford it.  It is very difficult.
  5  5814                 You have to have someone on the
  6       ground in each province.  It then becomes to treat that
  7       particular issue on a nightly basis, it was almost like
  8       getting the resources of a news operation.
  9  5815                 What we opted for was to try and
 10       present the perspectives of the Members of Parliament
 11       from those regions.  It is always useful to get the
 12       western Caucus representative on an issue to talk about
 13       softwood lumber, to talk about Kyoto, to talk about
 14       whatever is happening in the House.
 15  5816                 We have endeavoured to do it that
 16       way, because it was just too expensive to put a
 17       stringer or a bureau in each of the provinces to get
 18       the VoxPop perspective of it.
 19  5817                 We try to balance that with regional
 20       long-form coverage that allows those voices to get
 21       heard.
 22  5818                 Bottom line, there just isn't enough
 23       money to do it the way I thought we could, so we try to
 24       use the elected representatives to bring those
 25       perspectives on behalf of their constituents.


  1  5819                 COMMISSIONER GRAUER:  I could go on
  2       about this subject, but in the interests of
  3       disciplining myself, I won't.
  4  5820                 Thank you very much.
  5  5821                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
  6  5822                 Commissioner Langford.
  7  5823                 MR. STEIN:  Could I make another
  8       point about that?
  9  5824                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Go ahead,
 10       Mr. Stein.
 11  5825                 MR. STEIN:  During national elections
 12       a couple of elections ago we did something that was
 13       really quite innovative.  We sent out Winnebegos in
 14       western Canada and eastern Canada to cover the local MP
 15       elections.  It was interesting the huge positive
 16       response we got from Members of Parliament, because
 17       most elections, of necessity, in this country are very
 18       difficult to cover and they are usually national. 
 19       Usually they are with the leaders.  That is where the
 20       press gives the coverage.
 21  5826                 I remember in the Hill Times one of
 22       the MPs was asked the question of what he thought the
 23       most significant moment of the election was, and he
 24       said when the CPAC truck showed up.
 25  5827                 I think it was important, because we


  1       were there trying to give people a view of elections
  2       from that kind of a perspective.
  3  5828                 There are a lot of innovative kinds
  4       of things that we have to do.
  5  5829                 COMMISSIONER GRAUER:  Thank you.
  6  5830                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
  7       Langford.
  8  5831                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Thanks very
  9       much.
 10  5832                 My questions are a little scattered,
 11       because when you are not the lead questioner you pick
 12       bits and pieces up.  So this will certainly be a pot
 13       pourri.
 14  5833                 The first one is:  Have you given any
 15       thought to changing the name of this operation?  Will
 16       it be the Canadian Public Affairs Channel, or will it
 17       continue to be the Cable Public Affairs Channel?
 18  5834                 MR. STEIN:  Absolutely it will be the
 19       Cable Public Affairs Channel.
 20  5835                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  But Canadians
 21       will be paying for it.
 22  5836                 MR. STEIN:  They pay for CNN, too,
 23       and it is still called the Cable News Network.
 24  5837                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  That is
 25       interesting; thank you.


  1  5838                 Ask a question and get an answer. 
  2       That's what it is all about.
  3  5839                 I want to touch very quickly on
  4       financials.  Seven or eight cents doesn't really seem
  5       like much of a cost for anything these days.  But at
  6       the same time, if people later think they could have
  7       got it for a nickel or six cents, they get upset.  It
  8       is just the nature of the beast.
  9  5840                 I know we have gone on a little, and
 10       we don't want to drag it on too long, but have you
 11       investigated other sources of revenue?  The other
 12       obvious one is commercials.  I know you don't want to
 13       go down that route, and I understand your position on
 14       that perfectly well.
 15  5841                 Let me give you an example.  I assume
 16       that you have a good relationship at this point with
 17       the House of Commons, with the Speaker, with the
 18       Senate.  There can't be many institutions in this
 19       country better connected with them and on a nice
 20       business relationship than you folks.
 21  5842                 It would seem to me that with a
 22       slight modification you could become the provider
 23       commercially for House of Commons content, if I can
 24       call it that, for Parliamentary comment.
 25  5843                 For example, if CTV wanted some


  1       Question Period, they would buy it from you.  The
  2       payback to Parliament would be that they would still
  3       provide it free to anybody who wanted to run it
  4       gavel-to-gavel, so they wouldn't be cutting out the
  5       public interest in that way.  But the payback to
  6       Parliament would be that there might be a source of
  7       income that would legitimate.
  8  5844                 MS WATSON:  Yesterday the Chair
  9       referred to us as middle men, and we are actually not.
 10       The feed from the House of Commons is non-exclusive. 
 11       Anyone can go today and pick up the feed from the House
 12       of Commons and manage to backhaul an uplink and
 13       distribute it to their customers.
 14  5845                 Such a scenario would put us in a
 15       position of being a middle man.
 16  5846                 It is a difficult arrangement for a
 17       couple of reasons.  One is technical in terms of uplink
 18       and decoders and modulators.  How do you ensure they
 19       turn it off when the wrap-around programming comes on?
 20  5847                 Right now the House feeds into the
 21       Parliamentary press gallery.  CTV gets everything it
 22       wants from the House of Commons for free.  I can't see
 23       them coming and graciously handing us money for
 24       something they get for free today.
 25  5848                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Well, we pay


  1       taxes once a year, some less graciously than others. 
  2       But in the public interest people do hand over money
  3       back and forth.
  4  5849                 I think what I am hearing you say is
  5       that it may be more costly and complicated underlying
  6       it all --
  7  5850                 MS WATSON:  It would be.
  8  5851                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  -- never mind
  9       the philosophy of it, than you would possibly generate
 10       in terms of revenue.
 11  5852                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 12  5853                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  That was just
 13       one idea.  Were there any other sources of revenue that
 14       you kicked around but in the end went with simplicity?
 15  5854                 MS WATSON:  At the risk of being
 16       blasphemous, we did look at the 5 per cent formula and
 17       whether there was a way to reorganize that percentage
 18       split.
 19  5855                 We felt that it wasn't going to go
 20       very far in terms of opposition from CFPTA, Screen
 21       Actors Guild, Directors Guild, all of those.  That was
 22       the only other formula we looked at.
 23  5856                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Yes.  When
 24       you take from Peter to pay Paul, you only get the
 25       support of Paul in the end, don't you.


  1  5857                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  2  5858                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Thank you for
  3       that.
  4  5859                 Moving along to another area -- and I
  5       think you may have answered this in a sense.  You put a
  6       new flavour on it in your answers to Commissioner
  7       Grauer's question, but I want to be sure.
  8  5860                 The question I am going to ask you
  9       may sound a little bizarre, but just go with it for a
 10       second.
 11  5861                 Why in a sense would you cover
 12       federal elections?  Taken in isolation, it is the high
 13       point of the public affairs world.  But a lot of other
 14       services cover elections.
 15  5862                 As I say, the answer may have come
 16       out in your response to Commissioner Grauer, but it
 17       struck me that those are big ticket items in terms of
 18       costs.  They are covered by a lot of other enterprises. 
 19       That might be a way where you could save money.
 20  5863                 MS WATSON:  As with all of our
 21       programming, we cover differently.  We provide a sense
 22       of neutrality, a sense of balance.
 23  5864                 I am not accusing anyone of being
 24       imbalanced, but as Ken mentioned earlier they focus
 25       their coverage on the big names, the leaders.  We go


  1       deeper and more grassroots than that.
  2  5865                 It is a voice for the unheard on our
  3       coverage.
  4  5866                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  As I say, I
  5       think that is the answer you gave Commissioner Grauer,
  6       and it isn't one I thought of when I posed the
  7       question.  But I thought I would put it you anyway.  I
  8       thank you for that.
  9  5867                 I don't think I need to go any deeper
 10       into that.
 11  5868                 I want to go to the other side of it
 12       very quickly.
 13  5869                 As I say, these questions do jump
 14       around a little, because it is not the first crack at
 15       you.
 16  5870                 Barriers to political interference. 
 17       All of you have heard what is sometimes referred to as
 18       the captive theory being applied to all sorts of
 19       institutions -- some of which will remain nameless.
 20  5871                 It is hard.  You are right up there. 
 21       You are up there all the time.  You are rubbing
 22       shoulders with these folks.  You are often asking them
 23       for favours, in the sense of access.  You really are
 24       almost part of the family.  It is very, very close.
 25  5872                 How do you build in barriers to


  1       political interference.
  2  5873                 MS WATSON:  Perhaps I could ask for
  3       clarification.  On the programming content?
  4  5874                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Absolutely. 
  5       I'm sorry.  What sometimes is obvious to the question
  6       poser is not obvious to the poor person receiving it. 
  7       Let me be a little clearer.
  8  5875                 You are going to move much more
  9       heavily in the sense of sophistication and technical
 10       pizazz, if I can put it that way.  You are going to
 11       have much better programming if this comes through. 
 12       You want to have better programming.  You want to have
 13       programming that is attractive.  You want to have
 14       programming that brings the viewers to your service.
 15  5876                 So your wrap-around programming, as
 16       we call it, will become much more attractive as well to
 17       people who want to get their message across, to people
 18       who have a slant on an issue, have their own
 19       perspective on an issue -- and justifiably so.  That is
 20       why they are there.  That is why they were elected.
 21  5877                 Still, it puts an enormous amount of
 22       pressure on you and I would think would put a huge
 23       amount of pressure as the show becomes better and more
 24       sophisticated and more attractive.
 25  5878                 What sort of steps have you taken? 


  1       What kinds of codes have you got?  What kinds of
  2       barriers have you built in to ensure that that doesn't
  3       happen?
  4  5879                 MS WATSON:  The channel is a
  5       combination of House of Commons long form other than
  6       House of Commons and then those in-depth political or
  7       public affairs programs that we produce.
  8  5880                 So when we deal with politicians on
  9       the small portion of the three hours a day, we deal
 10       with five parties, and we deal with special interest
 11       groups.  We have our code, which is balance and
 12       neutrality, on all of them.
 13  5881                 We have what we call a programming
 14       policy for the channel, as well as a programming policy
 15       for the program "Prime Time Politics".  Both of those
 16       value very highly integrity, neutrality and balance.
 17  5882                 We seek to inform rather than
 18       challenge, but we also seek to provide all perspectives
 19       of a particular issue.  No one tries to influence that.
 20  5883                 I must tell you that actually no one
 21       really comes to me for getting a perspective.  I try to
 22       maintain a distance from management and the production
 23       crew to maintain that barrier, if you will.  If I am
 24       the one out there, then there has to be some sort of
 25       door for people to pass through in order to get to the


  1       actual content.
  2  5884                 We try to maintain that separation
  3       within the structure itself of the channel.
  4  5885                 For example, last week or two weeks
  5       ago the Kyoto Agreement seemed to be prime in terms of
  6       coverage out there.  In our programming we aired what
  7       goes on in the House of Commons, either through
  8       Question Period or through Members' Statements related
  9       to Kyoto.  Then there are scrums.  Then there would be
 10       a press conference from the Sierra Club.
 11  5886                 We would then go into the studio with
 12       the host, and you would have a representative from the
 13       Sierra Club, a representative from the government, a
 14       representative from the opposition, and we would debate
 15       the issue.
 16  5887                 You would then open it up to the
 17       phones and Canadians would come in.
 18  5888                 I believe the fact that we have the
 19       opportunity for Canadians, either through the telephone
 20       or the chat system we have on our open line programs,
 21       they are the checks and balances in terms of calling a
 22       spade a spade.  We honour them for that, and we try to
 23       respect that.
 24  5889                 So far, we haven't run into a
 25       problem.


  1  5890                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  That is a
  2       great answer, but I will make a prediction.  If you put
  3       this service into the place you obviously want to put
  4       it, your life will change drastically.  There will be
  5       an enormous amount of pressure.
  6  5891                 I am glad you have the codes in
  7       place, and I am glad you have the structure in place. 
  8       Perhaps I am a little jaded, but I think you will find
  9       that there will be an amazing amount of people on those
 10       phones that have marching orders.
 11  5892                 Good for you to be putting it in
 12       place.
 13  5893                 I have just a couple more, very
 14       quickly.
 15  5894                 On the other side, the down side I
 16       would argue, of having more attractive programming is
 17       that as you build ratings, ratings become the name of
 18       the game rather than content.  Without naming any
 19       names, I would think that we have seen that happen in
 20       some of our more established broadcasters, where
 21       ratings are everything and pizazz to find ratings
 22       becomes everything.
 23  5895                 I don't mind you taking a minute on
 24       this.  You may not have expected questions like this. 
 25       They strike me as very pertinent questions, because you


  1       are moving into another world and into another sphere.
  2  5896                 I am not trying to play your Uncle
  3       Tony here and say be careful.  You know exactly what I
  4       am talking about.  Once you play the ratings game, then
  5       sometimes ratings can become everything.
  6  5897                 I know you have given us an
  7       undertaking that you will continue with the
  8       gavel-to-gavel, but the wrap-around could become quite
  9       another thing.  The set could become another thing. 
 10       Once you have stings and buzzes and all the
 11       technological bells and whistles, and when you buy that
 12       new equipment that you have been dreaming of, you are
 13       going to buy the best and it will be able to do things
 14       you just won't believe.  The temptation to do it will
 15       be very, very hard to resist.
 16  5898                 How do you build into that a plan to
 17       stay the kind of -- I don't want to build a personality
 18       for you but the more staid voice of public affairs, if
 19       I can put it this way?
 20  5899                 MR. STEIN:  Could you give us a
 21       minute?
 22  5900                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Sure.
 23       --- Pause
 24  5901                 MS WATSON:  When I first arrived at 
 25       CPAC on March 8, 2001 there was a meeting in the


  1       kitchen at CPAC with all the staff.
  2  5902                 I will reply to your "staid" comment
  3       first, and then I will go through the rest.
  4  5903                 I said our mission is to be hip and
  5       cool, and we won't be staid.  Politics are not boring. 
  6       Public affairs is not boring.  It is crucial and
  7       critical to the lives, the civic life and democracy of
  8       this country.  Let's get out there and make this thing
  9       interesting and go do our jobs and have fun at it with
 10       respect to delivering balanced, neutral, informative
 11       programming with respect to Canadian democracy.
 12  5904                 That being said, we did a benchmark
 13       measure in terms of we measure reach.  We discussed
 14       share yesterday with the Chair, but we go by reach.
 15  5905                 The reason we do that is not for the
 16       reason another commercial television station would do
 17       it, because the better book you have, the better your
 18       ad rates are with respect to how a television station
 19       operates in a commercial environment.
 20  5906                 We are not-for-profit.  The ratings
 21       are merely a measure or a tool to measure our value
 22       with respect to Canadian society and how Canadians are
 23       viewing public affairs and the public affairs
 24       programming that CPAC delivers.
 25  5907                 So yes, we do measure and we have


  1       measured for the last four years.  Our reach on a
  2       weekly basis is up 38 per cent this year over last.
  3  5908                 The people who work at the channel
  4       are thrilled by that.  It makes them smile.  It makes
  5       them happy.  It gives them purpose.
  6  5909                 I don't think my board knew about
  7       that 38 per cent number until this very minute, because
  8       it is not something that we measure for commercial
  9       purposes or for justification.  It is a measure on how
 10       good a job we are doing at delivering a high-quality,
 11       well-produced product with respect to whether the
 12       lights are on -- yes, we had real debates over sets,
 13       and we spent money on a set.  It is not Star Wars and
 14       it is not technically elaborate, but it is appealing.
 15  5910                 I learned through the repositioning
 16       of community television about seven years ago that you
 17       can take the content and essentially keep it the same,
 18       but if you package it in a way that Canadians are
 19       accustomed to watching television, schedule it at a
 20       regular time.
 21  5911                 In community television we were
 22       running Santa Claus parades at 11 o'clock at night.  It
 23       doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
 24       anyone who believes in Santa Claus is usually in bed by
 25       11 o'clock at night -- well, the majority of them.


  1  5912                 I guess my board believes in Santa
  2       Claus.
  3  5913                 We apply the same principles to CPAC
  4       scheduling.  If you want to provide them with what
  5       happened in the House today, what happened in the
  6       committee rooms today, you do it at times when this
  7       audience is able to watch it.  That is at 11 o'clock at
  8       night.
  9  5914                 We then looked at how to do it with
 10       respect to being more inclusive of all Canadians.  It
 11       was important to us to have western viewers be able to
 12       watch our programming in their prime viewing times as
 13       much as it was for people in Ontario and central
 14       Canada.
 15  5915                 The ratings were used to measure
 16       whether people in Vancouver were being disenfranchised. 
 17       So we look at whether people in B.C. are now watching. 
 18       And they are.
 19  5916                 That, to me, is a measure that
 20       repeating some programming at 11 o'clock so western
 21       viewers can see it was the right move.  We use it to
 22       measure whether we are on the right strategy or not. 
 23       It is a not-for-profit venture, so we won't be guided
 24       by that that way.
 25  5917                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  It is an


  1       extensive answer, and I thank you for it.
  2  5918                 If I may indulge myself a little, I
  3       think it is an answer that is only good today and maybe
  4       for six months.  I don't know how long a shelf life an
  5       answer like that has, which doesn't take away from its
  6       validity today.  I think we have all seen the pressures
  7       on people.  Pressures build appetites, and appetites
  8       lead to "The Antique Roadshow" on "Newsworld", I
  9       suppose -- I don't know -- which seems to be a bit of a
 10       disconnect when you look at it.
 11  5919                 That is the sort of thing that when
 12       you come back before us in seven years certainly I will
 13       be looking at.  I don't know who else will be.
 14  5920                 MS WATSON:  I heard you make a
 15       comment to the previous applicant on 30 years.
 16  5921                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Yes.  But I
 17       am only dealing with your first --
 18  5922                 MS WATSON:  Our first renewal, yes.
 19  5923                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  I will also
 20       be here in 21 years.
 21  5924                 MS WATSON:  I would like to refer to
 22       the fact that our proposed schedule, as we discussed
 23       with the Chair earlier today, is minimally different
 24       from what it is today.  That in and of itself should be
 25       some sort of reassurance.


  1  5925                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  My last
  2       question is very detailed, and again it is a jump
  3       because I am picking and choosing them.
  4  5926                 It may actually -- and I have never
  5       been immune to doing this, as those of you who have sat
  6       around watching me know.  It may do no more than
  7       demonstrate the depth of my ignorance on this matter. 
  8       But that's fine; I can live with that.
  9  5927                 Those who know me best already know
 10       that it is just fathomless, so the rest of the world
 11       might as well know.
 12  5928                 I don't quite understand the way DTH
 13       has bought into this at the 10 cents.  I don't quite
 14       understand how it works since we have forborne from
 15       regulating the rates.
 16  5929                 I understand completely how it works
 17       for cable.  The cable companies throw in three cents;
 18       the folks throw in seven cents, and that moves to eight
 19       later.  But we just get a number of ten cents for DTH.
 20  5930                 I, for one, don't quite understand
 21       how you guarantee that ten cents, how it works, how you
 22       bill them.  It is there, but I don't understand what
 23       the mechanism is.
 24  5931                 MR. STEIN:  Dual status.
 25  5932                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Sorry?


  1  5933                 MR. STEIN:  Dual status.
  2  5934                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Yes, of
  3       course.  The penny drops.  Thanks for that.
  4  5935                 I have made the mistake that I
  5       thought you might make: I was looking at the world
  6       today and trying to figure out.  All I could think of
  7       was agreements or contracts or something.
  8  5936                 Those are my questions -- having
  9       demonstrated the depth of my ignorance.
 10  5937                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 11       Cardozo.
 12  5938                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
 13       Mr. Chair.
 14  5939                 I have some social policy questions
 15       which I will go through, but I have a couple of
 16       follow-up questions from the earlier questioning which
 17       I wanted to clarify.
 18  5940                 I think, Mr. Stein, you were saying
 19       that the partners of CPAC had bought into carrying on
 20       with CPAC on the basis -- or they would continue to
 21       commit to three cents if the wrap-around continued.
 22  5941                 I wanted to clarify whether that
 23       meant the wrap-around with the seven cents.
 24  5942                 MR. STEIN:  I was actually going to
 25       clarify those remarks, so thank you for asking that.


  1  5943                 In terms of the context the Chair put
  2       it, which is "if it's not broke, why fix it", there are
  3       some difficulties that we face at the moment.
  4  5944                 We have two of the distributors who
  5       have raised issues with respect to carriage of the
  6       service and the rate for the service.  So it is really
  7       quite important to us.  This hearing is really
  8       important, and the proposal we have put forward as a
  9       total package and how it is licensed is really
 10       important to ensure that we are able to keep the
 11       distributors onside to carry the service as it is.
 12  5945                 If one distributor falls off -- and
 13       we have been trying to manage to keep that distributor
 14       involved.  If one falls off, maybe there are
 15       adjustments we can make.  But if two fall off, the
 16       whole viability of the service, because it is priced so
 17       low and it is run such a lean way, it won't be viable.
 18  5946                 The pricing of the three cents is a
 19       notional pricing.  It is what we estimate it costs
 20       within our service to do that.  We are convinced that
 21       if you are trying to do it on a separate basis, it
 22       could be double that.
 23  5947                 What we have people onside is that if
 24       we take it as part of -- we have people saying if we
 25       take it as part from you, we will get it for three


  1       cents.  We are saying, no, no, it doesn't work like
  2       that at all.  It costs us three cents to do it as part
  3       of our whole package.  That doesn't mean that is what
  4       the cost of it would be to somebody else in terms of
  5       taking that signal from the House of Commons, putting
  6       it up on the satellite, distributing it to cable
  7       head-ends on their own terms.
  8  5948                 It is really quite important, in
  9       terms of how we look at this as a single service and
 10       the fact that it is not really readily apparent how
 11       that other portion, the House of Commons portion, could
 12       be split off from the service.
 13  5949                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I understand
 14       that.  I am just focusing on whether their interest is
 15       based on their interest in the three cents, or their
 16       commitment of the three cents is based on the other
 17       seven cents coming through; or whether they would
 18       continue.  Do I understand they will continue --
 19  5950                 MR. STEIN:  In some cases, that is
 20       correct, yes.  Their interest is based on the whole
 21       package coming through.
 22  5951                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the matter
 23       of notional -- when you use the word "notional", it
 24       raises a question in my mind -- does that mean the
 25       parties, the MSOs are actually passing on three cents


  1       in cash to CPAC?
  2  5952                 Does Colette Watson get a cheque from
  3       them, or is it their in-kind contribution?
  4  5953                 MR. STEIN:  Colette gets a cheque.
  5  5954                 MS WATSON:  CPAC gets a cheque.
  6  5955                 MR. STEIN:  CPAC gets a cheque.
  7  5956                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the matter
  8       of fairness of the carriage, one of the questions we
  9       have to deal with, I hope you understand, is that there
 10       are other services that come to us for increases in the
 11       wholesale fee.  A year ago we turned down a couple.  In
 12       fact, CCTA was here intervening against those
 13       increases, or some members of CCTA.
 14  5957                 What one could say -- and this is not
 15       what I am saying, necessarily.  Let me put it
 16       differently.
 17  5958                 Another service could come to us and
 18       say this is how you licensed us, but we found there was
 19       a lot of interest in some more stuff, so we got bigger
 20       and expanded more, beyond what was financially viable
 21       for the long term.  So we are back here for an increase
 22       or a rate.  If you, the Commission, don't grant this to
 23       us, Canadians are going to lose this wonderful service
 24       that they have grown to love that we provided to them.
 25  5959                 Part of that answer I think has to be


  1       from the Commission:  Don't you think you have to live
  2       within your means, not just in the present but in the
  3       long term?
  4  5960                 I wonder if you could respond to
  5       that.
  6  5961                 MR. STEIN:  I can make a couple of
  7       comments, and Colette and others may want to make some
  8       comments on it.
  9  5962                 First is that, obviously, we don't do
 10       commercials.  We have a single stream of revenue coming
 11       into the service which is hopefully from this
 12       passthrough, and that's it.  There are no other
 13       opportunities to raise money through advertising or
 14       other commercial kind of activities.
 15  5963                 The second thing is we are trying to
 16       set a rate now.
 17  5964                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I am thinking
 18       from the consumer's perspective.  It means so many
 19       cents more they are going to have to pay.  From your
 20       perspective, it is setting a rate; but from their
 21       perspective, they are just having to shell out so much
 22       more.
 23  5965                 MR. STEIN:  Yes.  I think the reason
 24       we did the research was to basically see how consumers
 25       react to that in terms of the importance of the


  1       service.  What we have to be able to do is convince the
  2       distributors -- and they are going to have to convince
  3       their subscribers -- that this amount is reasonable.
  4  5966                 That is why we spent a lot of time
  5       with the House and all the party leaders to say here is
  6       what we are planning on doing.  They basically said
  7       they understood.  I think it was reflected in the
  8       interventions that were put forward.
  9  5967                 We received positive interventions
 10       for what we are trying to do from people who would be
 11       concerned about that, and there were no negative
 12       interventions from consumers.
 13  5968                 We think what we have done is put
 14       forward a balanced proposal that maintains a very good
 15       service at a rate that is set for that service.
 16  5969                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I think it is
 17       all of those.  I agree with that; that it is a balanced
 18       approach and it is an important approach.
 19  5970                 The question that we have to deal
 20       with at the end of the day is:  Is this a precedent and
 21       can other issues -- the political governmental nature
 22       of the country is one of the most important things,
 23       obviously, but there are other issues which other
 24       people may feel are equally important and that we, the
 25       Commission, should be taking that issue as seriously.


  1  5971                 How do we grant this without setting
  2       a precedent?
  3  5972                 MR. STEIN:  I would like to give one
  4       further comment to answer that question, and Colette
  5       will have something to say, I am sure.
  6  5973                 We are trying to do new things here
  7       that clearly derive from public policy obligations and
  8       objectives that we support.  One is regional coverage.
  9  5974                 Second is -- not second, but most
 10       important probably is French; increasing the ability of
 11       the service to be relevant in the French language.  And
 12       there are other initiatives that we have listed.
 13  5975                 We have laid out very clearly what we
 14       will do with this budget.
 15  5976                 The other thing is that the money
 16       that comes in is going into a not-for-profit
 17       corporation, or a corporation that is run on a
 18       not-for-profit basis.
 19  5977                 It is not that this is going to help
 20       the bottom line of the cable industry or of the
 21       satellite industry.  This is going towards
 22       strengthening this service.
 23  5978                 MS WATSON:  Perhaps I could address
 24       your fairness issue.
 25  5979                 The published rate that CPAC has with


  1       affiliates today is 11 cents.  We are proposing a
  2       decrease in the rate.
  3  5980                 I would like to clarify your
  4       assumption that we are going to add bells and whistles
  5       and do all these new things, and we would like
  6       consumers to pay for them.  We are coming with a very
  7       lean, efficient operation that is a penny cheaper for
  8       the next two years than it is today.
  9  5981                 What we are looking for is
 10       flexibility on how that money is collected.  That is
 11       the new part.
 12  5982                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Are you saying
 13       it is something like what the GST was before it was the
 14       GST; that it was a hidden tax?
 15  5983                 Are you saying the current thing is
 16       hidden because it is not felt directly by the consumer,
 17       because it comes from the MSO?
 18  5984                 MS WATSON:  No.  I am saying it is
 19       the published rate.  I take issue with your assumption
 20       that we have increased the rate and are looking for
 21       customers to pay for it.  The rate has decreased.
 22  5985                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  From the
 23       perspective of the consumer you are saying their rate,
 24       what they have to pay, is not increasing?
 25  5986                 MS WATSON:  What I am saying is, for


  1       example, DTH customers, if I can apply your fairness
  2       principle -- with DTH distributors, we have no way of
  3       knowing whether consumers pay for CPAC or not.  They
  4       are not rate regulated.
  5  5987                 So there is a disparity between how
  6       cable is allowed to fund this versus DTH distributors.
  7  5988                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In cable the
  8       cable customer will still have to pay the seven cents
  9       more.
 10  5989                 MS WATSON:  Which is why we conducted
 11       the market research which shows that there isn't a
 12       whole lot.
 13  5990                 MR. MAYRAND:  Commissioner Cardozo,
 14       on the answer to the question specifically from the
 15       consumer's perspective, I think it is important to
 16       realize here that we have put forward a plan that was
 17       fully laid out.  There has been a clear indication of
 18       how we viewed the funding going forward for the next
 19       seven years.
 20  5991                 I don't recall, of memory, any
 21       proposal being made for a particular charge on account
 22       of programming service not raising any comment from any
 23       consumer association or any individual consumer.
 24  5992                 As Colette was saying, additionally,
 25       of course, we conducted extensive research to ensure


  1       that our reading was the right one.
  2  5993                 That is why we feel quite confident,
  3       as we said in our opening remarks, that this proposal
  4       is reasonable and balanced.  We can say that, I think,
  5       with as much confidence as we can possibly get that it
  6       is the case from the consumer's perspective, as well.
  7  5994                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't
  8       disagree with that.
  9  5995                 MR. STEIN:  I would also like to say,
 10       going back to Colette's point, that as we move into a
 11       deregulated environment it is important that the
 12       service have a rate that reflects the cost of providing
 13       the service as it exists now and as it has to be
 14       relevant in the next number of years.
 15  5996                 That is going to be very important,
 16       because we are going to find as more and more services
 17       become deregulated, as Colette said, who knows how DTH
 18       is paying for it because it is a deregulated rate.
 19  5997                 What is important for the CPAC
 20       service is, as the board agreed, to have a rate that
 21       was set out that would keep it as a viable service over
 22       the next seven years was very important.
 23  5998                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the matter
 24       of the carriage, the dual status, have you had any
 25       thoughts?  Is this sort of heading towards a kind of


  1       green space foundation tiered kind of idea?
  2  5999                 MR. STEIN:  No.  We just want the
  3       same rates as TSN.
  4  6000                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I would think
  5       you would consider yourselves to be more valuable in
  6       some way to society than TSN.
  7  6001                 MS WATSON:  I was asked this question
  8       by the Heritage Committee last week.  We feel that with
  9       basic carriage we wouldn't require such a commitment.
 10  6002                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't want
 11       to advocate this, but had you considered approaching
 12       this application asking for the use of 9(1)(h) of the
 13       Broadcasting Act?
 14  6003                 Are you familiar with that?
 15  6004                 MR. MAYRAND:  Commissioner Cardozo, I
 16       think the board's view was that, again looking forward
 17       for this next seven-year term, all the purposes were
 18       sufficiently achieved with dual status; and in fact
 19       dual status was the closest to the de facto situation
 20       in the field with respect to the carriage of CPAC.
 21  6005                 Going one step further and declaring
 22       the service mandatory, we don't think is required as
 23       long as we do get dual status.
 24  6006                 What in practice that means is that
 25       with dual status we can approach all distributors,


  1       whether cable, DTH or microwave, with the same uniform
  2       rate for distribution on basic for the language of the
  3       majority.  We can look at arrangements dealing with the
  4       minority language components, and in particular
  5       distribution requirements that may arise with respect
  6       to one or another small system.
  7  6007                 We think that flexibility is
  8       important, as well.
  9  6008                 There are two advantages to dual
 10       status.  First of all, it is the signalling to all
 11       distributors that this is the service.  You can take
 12       parts of it à la carte.  You can always go and strike
 13       your own arrangements with the House of Commons, but
 14       you can take the CPAC service à la carte with parts of
 15       it.
 16  6009                 The rate is the published rate.  Here
 17       is what it is.  It has been reviewed extensively.  This
 18       is part of a public hearing.  Then all the signalling
 19       and all the arrangements are clear, and we can look
 20       confidently to striking our new affiliation agreements
 21       for the next seven-year term.
 22  6010                 I think that is really the thinking
 23       of the board.  It is the best possible way of
 24       approaching this.
 25  6011                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You are not


  1       invoking the kind of national importance that one would
  2       using the 9(1)(h) approach.
  3  6012                 MR. MAYRAND:  I don't think that we
  4       need necessarily to base it on the relative level of
  5       national importance.  As I indicated in my earlier
  6       answer, it is really a reflection of the particular
  7       circumstances of CPAC, your Notice 115 last fall, and
  8       what we need, or we think we need as a board of
  9       directors, for this non-profit public interest service
 10       to carry forward for the next seven years.
 11  6013                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks for
 12       that.
 13  6014                 I am about to start my social policy
 14       questions.  Maybe what I will do is tell you what they
 15       are, and this would be a good time to break for lunch
 16       and we will come back after.
 17  6015                 What I will be covering is:  You have
 18       discussed to some extent service to youth, but I had a
 19       couple more questions on that; closed captioning;
 20       service to the visually impaired; employment equity;
 21       cultural diversity; and diversity in programming.
 22  6016                 Thank you for that so far.
 23  6017                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are going to
 24       break in a moment, but since we were on the topic of
 25       dual status and what you are seeking, maybe we could


  1       finish that topic off since it is fresh in my mind.
  2  6018                 As I understand it, your asking for
  3       dual status will require basic carriage on anybody who
  4       wants to carry the CPAC service unless CPAC agrees
  5       otherwise.
  6  6019                 The House of Commons will become a
  7       mandatory service as a result of the new regs that are
  8       coming into force.  If a party wanted to carry only the
  9       House of Commons and not the CPAC service, then, as you
 10       said, Mr. Mayrand, they would make their own
 11       arrangement with the House of Commons and carry it and
 12       not carry you.
 13  6020                 I am wondering how you move ahead
 14       from the current situation with that dual status.  I am
 15       not clear on what it gets you that would be that
 16       different from the current situation, without having
 17       the mandatory carriage.
 18  6021                 MR. MAYRAND:  If I may, I think it
 19       does, first of all, achieve greater clarity.  Certainly
 20       when one looks at the present situation under the
 21       regulations and related policies, the transfer carriage
 22       of CPAC are somewhat unclear and a bit an oddity.
 23  6022                 I think that achieving dual status
 24       really clarifies the situation and allows us to go
 25       forward for the next seven years, as I mentioned, being


  1       able to strike arrangements on a strong footing yet
  2       still have some flexibility to deal with specific
  3       situations.
  4  6023                 How is it different than the current
  5       situation?  The key difference is that, at this point
  6       in time, you have addressed certainly in Notice 115
  7       last fall the lack of clear distribution requirement
  8       for the House of Commons programming --
  9  6024                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just to interrupt
 10       you there, I thought that what the change means is that
 11       it extends to DTH, for one; and second, it takes the
 12       word "if" out of the current 20(2).  It makes it
 13       mandatory is what I think the impact of the Notice 115
 14       changes are.
 15  6025                 Is that not your understanding?
 16  6026                 MR. MAYRAND:  With respect to the
 17       House of Commons, yes.
 18  6027                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.
 19  6028                 MR. MAYRAND:  What we are saying is
 20       that in so far as this service CPAC is concerned, this
 21       licensee is concerned, there still is a very crucial
 22       issue of access to distribution.
 23  6029                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are saying that
 24       whereas now when you come to a distributor and you say
 25       we are not going to consent to discretionary service,


  1       you just say that now as a negotiating point, whereas
  2       if you had dual status you would say that you must get
  3       our agreement.
  4  6030                 They need your agreement anyway, so I
  5       am not understanding.  Right now you control it by
  6       having to agree.  I can understand that with a
  7       wholesale price perhaps tagged to that, you might be in
  8       a slightly better position.  I am just not sure how it
  9       carries you forward.
 10  6031                 MR. MAYRAND:  I am trying to be
 11       helpful, Mr. Chairman.  I think maybe we should make
 12       sure that we discuss this answer --
 13  6032                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Why don't you come
 14       back after lunch.
 15  6033                 I know Commissioner Wylie may want to
 16       ask you another one that you may want to come back
 17       with.
 18  6034                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  It would have
 19       appeared to me that the first threshold is to make
 20       yourself mandatory, and then dual status kicks in.
 21  6035                 That status, as far as I know,
 22       attaches to services that must be carried analog,
 23       either basic or discretionary.
 24  6036                 Maybe you can come back and tell us
 25       in your plan asking for satellite to cable -- and dual


  1       status, as far as I know, has not been given to a
  2       satellite to cable; it has been given to specialties --
  3       where the threshold of mandatory carriage is covered,
  4       which is the first question, it would seem, after which
  5       you say:  Well, dual status, the viewer must carry me
  6       on basic and here is my agreed fee.
  7  6037                 I haven't seen how the first block,
  8       so to speak, has been covered.  I may be missing
  9       something, and surely you will tell us when you come
 10       back.
 11  6038                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I suggest, also,
 12       that perhaps you have a word with counsel to focus in
 13       on the sections of the BDU regs that you might care to
 14       address in your response.
 15  6039                 I think you see what the question is,
 16       which is:  How is your cause advanced by dual status
 17       when you would remain a "may carry" after all is said
 18       and done?
 19  6040                 MR. BUCHAN:  Mr. Chairman, if you
 20       have two minutes, my partner Mr. Fortune I think has
 21       the answer.
 22  6041                 MR. FORTUNE:  In Mr. Mayrand's
 23       discussion he was starting with the assumption that
 24       dual status assumes, as Commissioner Wylie correctly
 25       pointed out, licensing as a specialty service.  It is


  1       true; it is an assumption.
  2  6042                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  That is not in
  3       your application, is it?
  4  6043                 MR. FORTUNE:  It is in response to a
  5       question asked by the Commission:
  6                              "Would it be appropriate to
  7                              license CPAC as a specialty
  8                              service?"
  9  6044                 And the response was we believe it
 10       would be appropriate, and it would assist us in our
 11       objectives.
 12  6045                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 13  6046                 We will break and resume at 2:15.
 14       --- Upon recessing at 1200 / Suspension à 1200
 15       --- Upon resuming at 1415 / Reprend à 1415
 16  6047                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Welcome back.
 17  6048                 Commissioner Cardozo.
 18  6049                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
 19       Mr. Chair.
 20  6050                 What I will do is go through the
 21       questions I had talked about earlier in terms of the
 22       topic areas.  There were just a couple of questions in
 23       each area.
 24  6051                 Essentially, we are looking for more
 25       information on each of these, and it becomes a bit more


  1       important as you are applying to expand the kind of
  2       status that you currently have.
  3  6052                 On service to youth, you are a member
  4       of "Cable in the Classroom", and earlier today you
  5       talked about providing more programming for children.
  6  6053                 You plan to carry on "Cable in the
  7       Classroom", I take it.
  8  6054                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  9  6055                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Are there any
 10       other examples of what you can give us in terms of
 11       other programming for children?  Are you looking at
 12       certain age groups?
 13  6056                 You had mentioned the example of how
 14       a bill is passed in the House of Commons.  I wonder if
 15       you could give us an idea of some of the things you
 16       will do over the course of the licence term.
 17  6057                 MS WATSON:  We have a program, an
 18       initiative that is entitled "CPAC in the Classroom". 
 19       With that, we include lesson plans for teachers.  We
 20       break it down into elementary and secondary levels.
 21  6058                 So teachers in K-to-8 would be able
 22       to take the lesson plan and adapt it to the unit which
 23       they are teaching.
 24  6059                 Then we have one that is a little
 25       more elaborate for secondary school teachers, either in


  1       civics or history.  It is designed or geared towards
  2       those teachers.
  3  6060                 What it does is accompany the
  4       proceedings of the House of Commons.  So that lesson
  5       plan is designed to accompany whether it is Question
  6       Period or other proceedings from the House of Commons.
  7  6061                 We then create one-offs, if you will,
  8       on product.  For example, last fall we underwrote the
  9       publishing of a collection of essays on the prime
 10       ministers of Canada.  These books, one in French and
 11       one in English, go through all 20 prime ministers of
 12       Canada.
 13  6062                 There is a very elaborate lesson plan
 14       for elementary and secondary schools that accompanies
 15       this book, as well as a component on our Web site to
 16       accompany that.
 17  6063                 If I get into older youth, we have
 18       Parliamentary interns.  We have tours and briefings
 19       with Encounters with Canada.  Then we have journalism
 20       students at the university level who do internships
 21       with us for three, four weeks, depending on the school.
 22  6064                 In terms of programming, when we go
 23       out on long-form programming, the political programming
 24       is really geared to university students.  We will
 25       interview the youth party wing of whatever party we are


  1       at, and they are typically first, second year
  2       university students.  We don't often run in to
  3       secondary students on those.
  4  6065                 We are working with the Justice
  5       Department in creating what we call a Youth Justice
  6       Series.  Those are done with high school students.
  7  6066                 We then did an initiative about a
  8       year ago, May-June, ready for July, where we went into
  9       six schools, French and English, in Canada to talk to
 10       them about their perspectives of Canada.
 11  6067                 Essentially, the camera went in and
 12       the session was led by a teacher in that school.  So
 13       the teacher was the host of the program, and the
 14       students then did a free flow of information on what it
 15       means to be Canadian, what they think is wrong with the
 16       country and how they would change it if they were in
 17       charge.
 18  6068                 There are student conferences that we
 19       cover, as well.  We could provide you with a list of
 20       those.
 21  6069                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That's good.
 22  6070                 You talked about interactivity on the
 23       Web site, building that up.  Are you looking at
 24       interactivity on the main service?
 25  6071                 MS WATSON:  We feel we are


  1       interactive now, as far as we are.  We stream live 24
  2       hours a day in two languages.  Just to be clear, we
  3       stream the signal that is on the air.  It is not always
  4       easy to stream a second feed from what is on the
  5       channel.
  6  6072                 Our call-in programs use the phone
  7       and the Web site.  We have special e-mail and chat
  8       rooms for the different programs that we have.
  9  6073                 So there are viewer participation
 10       opportunities that way.
 11  6074                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Closed
 12       captioning, can you clarify that you -- I would assume
 13       that you caption 100 per cent of the House of Commons
 14       coverage.
 15  6075                 MS WATSON:  No.  Everything that
 16       comes from the House of Commons is supplied.  So the
 17       only thing captioned supplied to us is Question Period.
 18  6076                 It is captioned in English and uses
 19       sign language for French.
 20  6077                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Do you have
 21       any plans to expand that?
 22  6078                 MS WATSON:  We caption the original
 23       programming that CPAC does.  So the three-hour prime
 24       time block is real time captioned.
 25  6079                 We caption about -- what is the


  1       percentage of captioning?
  2  6080                 We caption about 40 per cent of our
  3       long form and other programs, as well.
  4  6081                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So the rest of
  5       the House of Commons is not captioned.
  6  6082                 MS WATSON:  No.
  7  6083                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And there is
  8       no sign language, either.
  9  6084                 MS WATSON:  No.
 10  6085                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Have you had
 11       requests for sign language in English or captioning in
 12       French from viewers?
 13  6086                 MS WATSON:  No/yes; no requests for
 14       sign language in English but requests for captioning in
 15       French.
 16  6087                 There was a technological barrier to
 17       it.  With the help of our colleagues at Rogers
 18       Television in Ottawa, we have just launched a pilot
 19       test with the Senate to caption in French and English.
 20  6088                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you will
 21       have two feeds.
 22  6089                 MS WATSON:  There are two boxes, if
 23       you will, in the VBI.  Well, there are four or five
 24       boxes in the VBI, so there is room to include a
 25       different language or a second language in the VBI.


  1  6090                 Technologically, we are ready.  It is
  2       just a matter of who creates the product with the
  3       House.
  4  6091                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Your
  5       commitment for the next term is 90 per cent original
  6       and acquired in English.
  7  6092                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  8  6093                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And 50 per
  9       cent French, if the wholesale fee is accepted.
 10  6094                 MS WATSON:  Right.
 11  6095                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  If it is not
 12       approved -- I had a few of these "if it is not
 13       approved" questions, and I just don't know whether to
 14       keep asking them or not.
 15  6096                 MS WATSON:  When we wrote the
 16       application --
 17  6097                 MR. STEIN:  You could put them in a
 18       positive way.
 19  6098                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Which would
 20       be?
 21  6099                 I just need to ask the questions.  I
 22       need to have the record on it.
 23  6100                 MS WATSON:  When we wrote the
 24       application, we had examined the Commission's track
 25       record with respect to captioning, and we noticed that


  1       most of the licence renewals include increased
  2       expectations on captioning.
  3  6101                 So we expected an increased
  4       expectation on captioning for ourselves, which is why
  5       we developed the business plan with respect to that.
  6  6102                 Captioning is expensive.  We would
  7       try to do the best we could; but it is very expensive.
  8  6103                 On the French side, it is not a
  9       matter of willingness or funding; it is a matter of
 10       supply.  There is a very limited supply of real-time
 11       French captioning.  In fact, I think --
 12  6104                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Most of the
 13       programming you are putting out is unique original
 14       programming, wouldn't it be?  There is some like if you
 15       have a feed from France or a C-SPAN, but for the rest
 16       of it, most of it is your own product.
 17  6105                 MS WATSON:  But it is done daily and
 18       live.
 19  6106                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  My point is
 20       more the issue of the supply isn't really relevant. 
 21       You have to do it all.
 22  6107                 Isn't that right?
 23  6108                 MS WATSON:  Right.  But on the supply
 24       side in French, because it is live -- we can do French
 25       closed captioning on a taped program, because you have


  1       a week turnaround.  I have the privilege of having
  2       launched captioning suites in community channels over
  3       the 1990s, so there is French captioning.  But there is
  4       no French real-time captioning.
  5  6109                 On the supply side, the French
  6       election on the weekend, there is no one who can do it
  7       live.  We don't tape the election and then air it seven
  8       days from now.
  9  6110                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In English
 10       your programming will be captioned live?
 11  6111                 MS WATSON:  If approved, yes.  Most
 12       of our captioning is live now.
 13  6112                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You are
 14       willing to accept a condition of licence for the 90 per
 15       cent for English but not for the 50 per cent French.
 16  6113                 Is that correct?
 17  6114                 MS WATSON:  It is a supply issue.
 18  6115                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Have you
 19       looked at sponsorship for closed captioning as a
 20       revenue source to fund the way you do it?
 21  6116                 MS WATSON:  We have left ourselves --
 22       we would like to explore it, but we haven't explored it
 23       yet.  We are not equipped for seeking sponsorships at
 24       CPAC.  There is no sales department.  There is no
 25       marketing department.


  1  6117                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So if I asked
  2       my question, would you still do it if the wholesale fee
  3       was not approved?
  4  6118                 MS WATSON:  The answer would be no.
  5  6119                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Can I ask
  6       about service to the visually impaired, described
  7       video.
  8  6120                 To a large extent, I suppose
  9       described video isn't necessary because you are not
 10       dealing with --
 11  6121                 MS WATSON:  Drama.
 12  6122                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I was going to
 13       say you are not dealing with mysteries and drama, but I
 14       am sure that would not be fair to your programming.
 15  6123                 You are dealing with talking heads to
 16       a large extent, so you are not doing described video.
 17  6124                 How about for the documentaries that
 18       you are planning to do?
 19  6125                 MS WATSON:  I guess we could accept a
 20       condition of licence that we would endeavour to include
 21       audio descriptors in those.
 22  6126                 What is at issue is how we uplink it. 
 23       Right now the secondary audio channel is used with the
 24       other official language.  So we would have to explore
 25       the technology, whether there is a third box there to


  1       put in that audio descriptor.
  2  6127                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I am not sure
  3       how much time you are going to have between now and
  4       your closing comments, but I wonder if you could give
  5       us a sense of a precise commitment that you could make
  6       in terms of the documentaries; and if we talk about a
  7       condition of licence of 100 per cent, described video
  8       for documentaries, whether that would kick in in year
  9       one or at a later time.
 10  6128                 MS WATSON:  Right.  I would have to
 11       check to see whether we could uplink it that way
 12       without compromising the minority language decision.
 13  6129                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Right.
 14  6130                 What is your approach to audio
 15       description?  That is just providing the audio for
 16       alphanumeric stuff that is up on the screen, like phone
 17       numbers.
 18  6131                 MS WATSON:  We do that now.
 19  6132                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  How is that
 20       done?
 21  6133                 MS WATSON:  We voice it over.
 22  6134                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Everything or
 23       pretty well everything?
 24  6135                 MS WATSON:  Pretty well everything. 
 25       But we could endeavour to do everything.


  1  6136                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And that is a
  2       matter of I guess staff training, and that kind of
  3       stuff, just knowing to do that.
  4  6137                 MS WATSON:  Policies and procedures.
  5  6138                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Exactly. 
  6       Speaking about which, the next topic is employment
  7       equity.
  8  6139                 You have filed a plan on employment
  9       equity which we have looked at, and that is helpful.
 10  6140                 Since you are a broadcaster of under
 11       100 employees -- around 40, I understand?
 12  6141                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 13  6142                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The Commission
 14       would be responsible for monitoring the employment
 15       equity of CPAC.
 16  6143                 You haven't filed with us any of your
 17       employment equity reports to date.
 18  6144                 MS WATSON:  We file them how often?
 19  6145                 MS HUTTON:  If you are talking about
 20       the ones that go with the annual return, yes, we do.
 21  6146                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It wasn't
 22       filed with the application, but we would have had the
 23       most recent --
 24  6147                 MS WATSON:  It was filed in November
 25       with the annual returns.


  1  6148                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That's fine.
  2  6149                 Have you found any particular
  3       challenges in employment equity to attaining results?
  4  6150                 MS WATSON:  No.  I am a believer in
  5       employment equity.  We have, I think, over 50 per cent
  6       women at CPAC.  We have about 10 per cent visible
  7       minorities.  It can work.
  8  6151                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Are there any
  9       aboriginal people?
 10  6152                 MS WATSON:  None.
 11  6153                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Can I talk
 12       about cultural diversity, which is in a sense not
 13       dissimilar, but employment equity being sort of part of
 14       a larger cultural diversity approach which we have
 15       talked about recently in the past few years with
 16       broadcasters: a reflection of the multicultural,
 17       multiracial and aboriginal nature of the country.
 18  6154                 I noticed you have talked about it in
 19       various parts.  You have not filed a plan, but would
 20       you be willing to file a cultural diversity plan with
 21       us within, say, something like three months of a
 22       licensing decision?
 23  6155                 What we would be looking for there is
 24       a sense of what your plans are and to some extent maybe
 25       codifying what you are doing; where you look at


  1       on-screen, off-screen plans that you have to ensure
  2       that you have a diversity of people reflected both in
  3       the topics that you are covering as well as the people
  4       that you have as experts and talking heads and so
  5       forth?
  6  6156                 MS WATSON:  Yes, we would be happy
  7       to.
  8  6157                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I notice, for
  9       example, last night you had the interview with people
 10       from the Innu Healing Foundation.  That is the sort of
 11       thing that we want to encourage so that a diversity of
 12       issues is portrayed on the air.
 13  6158                 Would you be willing to report on
 14       that annually?
 15  6159                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 16  6160                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I have just a
 17       couple of follow-up questions on regional programming.
 18  6161                 You said you would be doing at least
 19       one event per province and territory a year.
 20  6162                 Does that mean you actually take
 21       people out there, or you were saying earlier you have
 22       people on contract.
 23  6163                 MS WATSON:  It depends on where and
 24       how long we have to be there.  If it is a three or
 25       four-day conference, it is sometimes less expensive for


  1       us to rent facilities from a provider in that location.
  2  6164                 There is always a core group of
  3       people who go to all of these.  A core of three
  4       people -- the director, overseeing producer and
  5       technical person -- that group travels.  Either we send
  6       crew or we rent crew when we are there.  It varies.
  7  6165                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  If you are out
  8       for a convention in, say, Regina, would you have other
  9       things around, or is it just going to be that one event
 10       that you cover?  Would you have an interview with the
 11       Premier or talk to people from the Saskatchewan Wheat
 12       Pool, or other types of things?
 13  6166                 MS WATSON:  We would invite those
 14       people -- depending on what the nature of the
 15       conference is.  If it is a youth conference, we would
 16       approach different people on that.
 17  6167                 We have done that in the past, but I
 18       don't think we do it regularly.
 19  6168                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What is your
 20       sense about the degree to which people from different
 21       regions are included in the talk shows that you do from
 22       here?
 23  6169                 If I use the example of the Innu
 24       Healing Foundation, you had people from Labrador and
 25       Newfoundland.


  1  6170                 MS WATSON:  Right.
  2  6171                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So in a sense
  3       you are getting a regional issue on the air.  It is
  4       being taped here, which is fine.
  5  6172                 MS WATSON:  As much as possible --
  6       most of the time when there is a federal or national
  7       issue that is being debated, these groups will come in
  8       to make a representation to Parliament.  So they are in
  9       town.
 10  6173                 We don't have a big travel budget to
 11       fly these people in to be interviewed.  If they are
 12       around, we invite them and encourage them to come on. 
 13       If we are travelling and there is an issue that we are
 14       following, we will go look for them.
 15  6174                 What we do is try to make the best of
 16       when they are all in town.
 17  6175                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  To what extent
 18       are you able to plan some of these things, like
 19       conferences or whatever, a year in advance?  Are you
 20       doing it on a month-by-month basis?
 21  6176                 MS WATSON:  I would say it is
 22       probably a six-month look-ahead.  The reports I get go
 23       about six months out.
 24  6177                 There are some conferences like
 25       Couchiching, for example, which is an annual event. 


  1       They expect that we will be there.
  2  6178                 For the most part, it is a six-month
  3       window, I would expect.
  4  6179                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On bilingual
  5       services, you talked with the Chair about what you are
  6       planning now.  If I read the intervention from the
  7       Commissioner of Official Languages, she was talking
  8       about supporting your application because you would be
  9       increasing the amount of original French programming.
 10  6180                 "Revue politique" is a program you
 11       have currently or have had in the past?
 12  6181                 MS WATSON:  It is a weekly week in
 13       review wrap-up program.  We propose to launch that as a
 14       daily, which gives a more current reflection.
 15  6182                 The biggest reason for its existence
 16       is so that we provide our francophone viewers with
 17       something in a francophone perspective as opposed to a
 18       translation of something.
 19  6183                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  With regard to
 20       increasing French programming, or original
 21       French-language programming, that is your main event,
 22       is it?  That is the main show?
 23  6184                 MS WATSON:  As I mentioned to the
 24       Chair this morning, we will also endeavour to commit 20
 25       per cent of our long form to conferences and inquiries


  1       that originate in French.
  2  6185                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Would that
  3       include documentaries?
  4  6186                 MS WATSON:  In the application we
  5       state 25 per cent of the licence fees would go to
  6       French original documentaries.
  7  6187                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  When you say
  8       it is hard to find events, I wasn't clear.  I would
  9       think there were tons of events you could use.  You
 10       might not find them across the country, but certainly
 11       in Québec you would find them and, to some extent, in
 12       Ottawa, conferences and lectures and stuff like that
 13       that are in French that you could run that would be of
 14       interest to people.
 15  6188                 MS WATSON:  When we find them, we
 16       endeavour to put them on.
 17  6189                 I have a relatively decent list.  I
 18       guess I am going by when you compare what we get out of
 19       English Canada it is not as big a number.
 20  6190                 For example, in the last 12 months we
 21       had 15 long-form events from there out of a total of
 22       155.  So it is 10 per cent.
 23  6191                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  If you are
 24       proposing this fee across the country, it would
 25       certainly be important that there be a lot more than a


  1       token amount of original French programming.
  2  6192                 MS WATSON:  Well, 10 per cent isn't
  3       token, but it could be improved on.  We agree with you
  4       there.
  5  6193                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Those are
  6       basically my questions.
  7  6194                 I just had one comment in terms of
  8       the diversity of voices and perspectives that I want to
  9       give you as feedback.
 10  6195                 Having read the transcript, I was
 11       quite impressed by the range of people who have written
 12       letters and who have been involved in and been on CPAC,
 13       including premiers of all parties.  I found you
 14       strategically were able to find them, and they are
 15       available across the country; but other organizations,
 16       like the Council of Canadians, Heritage Canada, CLC,
 17       Canadian Health Coalition, Rights and Democracy.
 18  6196                 I have heard over the years people
 19       from these organizations who have appreciated the
 20       coverage that you have provided them.
 21  6197                 On your board essentially it is
 22       representatives of the stakeholders.
 23  6198                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
 24  6199                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You don't have
 25       representatives outside the cable industry.  Have you


  1       thought about public interest, academics, or other
  2       people interested in public policy?
  3  6200                 MR. STEIN:  What we have tried to do
  4       at the board, Commissioner, is to make it very clear
  5       that the board sets standards and performance and deals
  6       with agreements and financials.  But we felt that in
  7       order to give the right kind of freedom of expression
  8       to the service and to make sure that is focused and
  9       that it has a theme to it, it is best to leave that to
 10       the President and General Manager.
 11  6201                 They have complete editorial and
 12       programming freedom in terms of running of programming
 13       and --
 14  6202                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So the board
 15       doesn't get involved in the programming decisions.
 16  6203                 MR. STEIN:  Absolutely not.
 17  6204                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What are your
 18       sources of community feedback or feedback from the
 19       public?  Have you looked at having a permanent advisory
 20       committee?  Do you have a mechanism whereby people with
 21       various perspectives can provide you with input, leads,
 22       that type of thing?
 23  6205                 MS WATSON:  We have a very active
 24       viewer database where people become members of the CPAC
 25       Viewer's Club.  We have a very active viewer comment,


  1       where people can comment either in writing, through the
  2       Web or through our viewer response line.
  3  6206                 We look at those monthly, and I take
  4       their comments into account.  If I feel there is a
  5       redress needed or an imbalance to be fixed, we look at
  6       it and redress it.
  7  6207                 MR. STEIN:  I think, Commissioner,
  8       that the success of that approach is shown in the
  9       nature of the comments and intervention that you
 10       pointed out.  I think the people do feel that we do try
 11       to represent a diverse set of voices, and we very much
 12       want to be able to do that in the future.  We feel that
 13       this kind of structure we now have in place is the best
 14       to do that.
 15  6208                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Those are my
 16       questions.  Thank you very much.
 17  6209                 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 18  6210                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 19  6211                 Before turning over to counsel -- and
 20       I know you have a response to put on the record -- I
 21       want to take up the point with you, Mr. Stein or
 22       Ms Watson, on the issue of point of view.  I think one
 23       of your answers to how do you differentiate, your
 24       comment was that you don't carry a point of view.
 25  6212                 You are asking for Category 2(b).  If


  1       you read the descriptions of the program categories in
  2       the Commission's Notices -- and I am reading here from
  3       Public Notice 1999-205.
  4  6213                 Category 2(b) long-form documentary
  5       is defined as:
  6                              "Original works of non-fiction,
  7                              primarily designed to inform but
  8                              may also educate and entertain,
  9                              providing an in-depth critical
 10                              analysis of a specific subject
 11                              or point of view over the course
 12                              of at least 30 minutes..."
 13  6214                 I wonder how you reconcile those two
 14       points.
 15  6215                 MS WATSON:  We would not partake of
 16       the "or point of view" part of that definition.  We
 17       would go with the previous three words, which are
 18       in-depth analysis of an issue.
 19  6216                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I won't get into
 20       what ultimately becomes a philosophical debate about
 21       objectivity and no point of view, and so forth.
 22  6217                 You are saying that going in you
 23       would in effect have a Category (b) that was excised of
 24       the point of view criterion.
 25  6218                 MS WATSON:  I guess we are guided


  1       every day by the programming principles which are in
  2       our current licence.  That is how we assemble our
  3       programming.  That is how it is covered.
  4  6219                 We strive to meet that and honour it
  5       every day.
  6  6220                 Documentaries would be no different. 
  7       They would maintain balance, neutrality.  They would
  8       promote diversity, reflect the linguistic duality of
  9       the country, and they would contain no commercial
 10       content.
 11  6221                 Basically, that is what guides us now
 12       and it would guide us in documentaries.
 13  6222                 What we are proposing in the
 14       application are educational things like how a bill gets
 15       passed.  I think it is doable to create something like
 16       that without a point of view perspective on it.  I
 17       think it is doable to do the official residences of
 18       Canada without a point of view.
 19  6223                 I think it is also doable to explore
 20       stem cell research and the politics versus the science
 21       by presenting both sides of an issue and letting the
 22       viewer decide for him or herself.
 23  6224                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I will avoid the
 24       temptation of embarking on a philosophical discussion
 25       with you and ask whether you want to respond to the


  1       questions we were discussing with regard to dual
  2       carriage.
  3  6225                 I know that counsel has a number of
  4       questions on that subject.
  5  6226                 MR. STEIN:  Yes, thank you.
  6  6227                 MR. MAYRAND:  Perhaps, Mr. Chairman,
  7       it would be useful to address our basic views as to the
  8       issue of dual carriage and specialty status before we
  9       get into the detailed questions.
 10  6228                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  By all means.
 11  6229                 MR. MAYRAND:  Hopefully, it won't add
 12       more complexity to the discussion.  It will clarify
 13       things a bit.
 14  6230                 Part of the difficulty we had just
 15       before the lunch break was that in our view -- and we
 16       actually said that in a reply to one of your written
 17       questions, which is on the record -- we feel what is
 18       best to achieve the purposes that are being sought for
 19       this seven-year term for CPAC is to be licensed for
 20       this term on a dual status as a specialty service.
 21  6231                 The uncertainty was the specialty
 22       service connection.
 23  6232                 That certainly adds in that case a
 24       very critical component looking forward for the
 25       accomplishment of our objectives and the sustenance of


  1       the financial plan.  And that is access.
  2  6233                 Without getting into a very detailed
  3       discussion of the various provisions in the
  4       distribution regulations applying to cable on the one
  5       hand and to DTH on the other, clearly you are quite
  6       right in saying dual status all by itself probably does
  7       not meet really what we are after here.
  8  6234                 I hope that clarifies the point of
  9       view.
 10  6235                 In fact, we were pretty well
 11       operating on the assumption that the two more or less
 12       go together.  We thought there was a reflection of that
 13       in your Notice of Public Hearing where you specifically
 14       contemplated the possibility of CPAC for this term
 15       being licensed as a specialty programming service with
 16       dual status.
 17  6236                 Clearly, there can be other ways in
 18       which the objective is achieved, and we could think
 19       mechanically of at least three, one being for this
 20       licence for the next seven years being licensed as a
 21       specialty programming service with dual status.  We
 22       think that that is the simplest one mechanically.
 23  6237                 Another way of looking at it -- and
 24       we have also referred to that in our written answers to
 25       your question -- was that we could contemplate a


  1       specific amendment or a set of specific amendments to
  2       the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to deal
  3       specifically with our service.
  4  6238                 We could also -- and that has been
  5       referred to earlier in the discussion before lunch
  6       time -- envisage a situation where there would be an
  7       order concerning the carriage of the service.
  8  6239                 However, I think this group believes
  9       very much that the simplest cleanest way to achieve the
 10       purpose is to go the specialty dual status route.
 11  6240                 Let me explain what our thinking is
 12       in that regard.
 13  6241                 Obviously, we have put forward our
 14       plans.  There has been a full public process.  There is
 15       a record.  There has been a full discussion of the
 16       issues.  We are facing renewing all our affiliation
 17       agreements this coming August 31st.
 18  6242                 Is it necessary to enter into an
 19       additional process because we are going the route of
 20       specific amendments to the regulations or the route of
 21       an order?
 22  6243                 The other consideration was, I think,
 23       that we think that dual status with the access that
 24       goes with a specialty service licence allows us to deal
 25       effectively with distributors and at the same time deal


  1       with the whole matrix of possibilities or difficulties
  2       that may arise with any particular distribution
  3       component with any particular distributor, particularly
  4       the smaller ones.
  5  6244                 The Commission may feel that it is
  6       better, for any number of reasons, to spell all that
  7       out in detailed regulations or a detailed order.  That
  8       is entirely your privilege.
  9  6245                 We feel that the simplest way to do
 10       it is really dual status as a specialty service.  It
 11       fits very nicely with the distribution and linkage
 12       notice that you have.
 13  6246                 Maybe I am going out on a limb here,
 14       but I don't think you even need to amend that.  There
 15       is a basket provision that allows you to designate a
 16       service as dual status once you have decided to license
 17       us as a specialty.
 18  6247                 So it fits in, I think, very well.
 19  6248                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Basically, leaving
 20       aside whether there has or has not been enough notice
 21       to actually make a licensing decision to transform you
 22       into a specialty service, your point is that if the
 23       CPAC service were licensed on a "must carry" basis
 24       essentially, then you would have clout in negotiating
 25       with other distributors, DTH systems, perhaps members


  1       of the industry who were not willing to continue on as
  2       CPAC members.
  3  6249                 They would then, if they wanted to
  4       carry the House of Commons, in effect have to carry the
  5       whole service.
  6  6250                 MR. MAYRAND:  As I mentioned, there
  7       are at least three ways that we can ensure that we
  8       don't run into a scenario whereby any one major
  9       distributor, for instance, would create a difficulty
 10       with the overall plan, and others would probably have
 11       the same difficulty and say, "I am not going to agree
 12       to less favourable carriage terms to me."
 13  6251                 That leads to an intractable
 14       situation.  We have commitments to the House of Commons
 15       we have to carry forward in the next seven years.  That
 16       is really the fundamental concern.
 17  6252                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Perhaps you could
 18       discuss a point that is raised in ExpressVu, a
 19       non-appearing intervenor's written intervention.
 20  6253                 If you want to get it, it is
 21       paragraph 9 of that intervention, where ExpressVu notes
 22       that:
 23                              "The Commission had intended to
 24                              require all BDUs to distribute
 25                              the House of Commons but not


  1                              necessarily the entire service. 
  2                              However, as long as CPAC
  3                              included that component,
  4                              ExpressVu submits that CPAC
  5                              should not be licensed in such a
  6                              manner that the entire CPAC
  7                              service achieves mandatory must
  8                              carry status as part of the
  9                              basic service.  To do so would
 10                              preclude a BDU from accessing
 11                              only the House of Common feeds
 12                              or another programming licensee
 13                              from incorporating the House of
 14                              Commons' feeds inside its
 15                              format."  (As read)
 16  6254                 Would you comment on that?  I
 17       appreciate you will have a chance at reply to do so,
 18       but since it is pertinent to our discussion I thought I
 19       would give you the opportunity now.
 20  6255                 MR. MAYRAND:  Yes, certainly.  I
 21       think the key words there are "mandatory must carry
 22       status".  Precisely that is what we tried to avoid here
 23       by saying all we are asking for is being recognized as
 24       a specialty service.
 25  6256                 Certainly I think if out there in the


  1       public there really isn't very much of a view that CPAC
  2       is not one of the special purpose services that are
  3       being offered on basic.  So I think it is very
  4       consistent.  It really comes short of going the
  5       mandatory route.  All it says is we have specialty
  6       status.  We have access subject to channel capacity,
  7       the usual rules, the same way as any other dual status
  8       specialty service.  But it is not then a service that
  9       is absolutely mandated in all circumstances.
 10  6257                 That, we thought, made a lot of
 11       sense.
 12  6258                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Although the House
 13       of Commons portion is.
 14  6259                 MR. MAYRAND:  Although the House of
 15       Commons is.  As we have said, it remains possible in
 16       the scenario we have put forward to you for any BDU
 17       potentially to think it is somewhat advantageous to
 18       strike a separate arrangement with the House of Commons
 19       and uplink the feed and process the signal, et cetera.
 20  6260                 We don't think it makes much sense in
 21       this setting and the size of market we have here in
 22       Canada to have multiple distribution arrangements and
 23       uplinking of essentially the same component.  But I
 24       guess the possibility is there.
 25  6261                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you saying that


  1       you don't think they would be precluded, other BDUs or
  2       other programming licensees, from carrying the House of
  3       Commons?
  4  6262                 MR. STEIN:  Our House of Commons
  5       agreement specifically states that.
  6  6263                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So that is your
  7       response to that point; thank you.
  8  6264                 Counsel.
  9  6265                 MS BENNETT:  I would like to follow
 10       up a little bit on this issue, and I have a couple of
 11       other clean-up questions.
 12  6266                 First of all, with respect to the
 13       possibility of an order pursuant to 9(1)(h) of the
 14       Broadcasting Act, would it be your view that such an
 15       order would apply to all distributors, for example
 16       including DTH?
 17  6267                 MR. BUCHAN:  Yes, it would.
 18  6268                 MS BENNETT:  For example, in the case
 19       of DTH, while under the regulations the passthrough
 20       portion wouldn't apply in the way it applies to cable,
 21       a 9(1)(h) order could apply to DTH in the sense of
 22       limiting the amount of the fee that could be passed
 23       through to subscribers?
 24  6269                 MR. BUCHAN:  We have discussed that a
 25       bit, counsel, and we think that it would certainly be


  1       within the competence and the imagination of the
  2       Commission to come up with an order that would be
  3       appropriate for both cable BDUs and BTH BDUs and MMDS
  4       BDUs, as well.
  5  6270                 MS BENNETT:  In response to
  6       deficiency questions with respect to the mechanism for
  7       implementing your carriage request, you made a note
  8       that if CPAC was approved to carry these additional
  9       program categories, it would be appropriate to amend
 10       the definition of public affairs programming in the
 11       Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.
 12  6271                 Could you comment on how the
 13       definition should be amended in light of the additional
 14       categories that you are requesting, and could you
 15       comment on how the definition could be amended in a way
 16       that preserves CPAC's distinctiveness as a service and
 17       the expectation that CPAC will be complimentary to the
 18       public affairs programming provided by other Canadian
 19       broadcasters.
 20  6272                 MR. FORTUNE;  I think the purpose of
 21       the amendment to the definition would be -- you have
 22       asked for quite a lot there, obviously.
 23  6273                 The problem with the definition now,
 24       of course, is that it is limited to a category of
 25       programming, a single category of programming


  1       essentially.  There are also interstitials, but those
  2       are interstitials.
  3  6274                 I suppose the definition could be
  4       broadened to say a service designated as a public
  5       affairs programming service that also distributes
  6       proceedings of the House of Commons, for example.  It
  7       would be within the Commission's authority to decide
  8       which public affairs programming services were also
  9       able to distribute proceedings of the House of Commons.
 10  6275                 Essentially, it would be in the
 11       Commission's court as to who would become a designated
 12       public affairs programming service that also
 13       distributes proceedings of the House of Commons.  That
 14       would be one method to do it.
 15  6276                 Just to fill out a little bit on
 16       Yves' comments, which were I thought very
 17       comprehensive, if the regulatory route were chosen, one
 18       of the difficulties is how does one take that
 19       definition of public affairs programming service and
 20       reflect it in the various sections of the regulations
 21       that would be affected by a regulatory approach as
 22       opposed to a dual status specialty service approach.
 23  6277                 Essentially our suggestion is that an
 24       appropriate definition for a public affairs programming
 25       service be devised that would capture CPAC's status and


  1       then have that definition reflected in the appropriate
  2       sections of the regulations.
  3  6278                 MS BENNETT:  Could you comment on
  4       what that appropriate definition would be?
  5  6279                 Where we are coming from is you have
  6       requested these additional program categories -- for
  7       example, 2(a), 2(b) and 5(b), I think it was -- and
  8       CPAC currently has recognition in the regs because of
  9       its distinctiveness as a public affairs programming
 10       service.
 11  6280                 So if the Commission was going to add
 12       those categories and amend the meaning of public
 13       affairs programming in the regs, could you comment on
 14       what an appropriate definition would be?
 15  6281                 MR. FORTUNE:  If the purpose of the
 16       regulation was to capture the regulatory status to be
 17       accorded CPAC, I guess there are two ways to go:  one
 18       could attempt to devise a general regulation; or one
 19       could specify CPAC, where appropriate.
 20  6282                 We are talking about the first idea,
 21       which is to devise a general definition for a public
 22       affairs programming service.
 23  6283                 What I am trying to suggest is that
 24       the category of programming is not what makes it a
 25       public affairs program.  It is the nature of the


  1       service.  It is whether it is focused on public
  2       affairs.
  3  6284                 There is no shortage of documentaries
  4       that are not focused on public affairs.  For ten years
  5       now CPAC has prospered under a nature of service
  6       definition which says:  Provide Parliamentary
  7       proceedings and public affairs programming.
  8  6285                 I would say CPAC is a public affairs
  9       programming service.
 10  6286                 Is that helpful?  I don't mean to be
 11       obtuse.  I think a definition could be devised that
 12       captured CPAC's nature as a public affairs service.
 13  6287                 MR. BUCHAN:  Counsel, could I just
 14       add we don't have that definition with us today, but it
 15       was CPAC's response, and it remains CPAC's response, to
 16       the deficiency question 23.
 17  6288                 The answer was that CPAC believes the
 18       simplest means to accord CPAC's service dual status
 19       would be, as the Commission suggested in paragraph (a)
 20       of its own question, to license it as a specialty
 21       service and to amend the distribution and linkage rules
 22       to include CPAC in the list of services with dual
 23       status.
 24  6289                 I want to deal with the idea of
 25       procedural fairness, because I don't want to leave


  1       hanging on the table.  We don't really understand where
  2       the issue of procedural fairness comes up.  We applied
  3       to have the licence amended, and that was in February. 
  4       That is why we are here today in May.
  5  6290                 It has been a somewhat iterative
  6       process that has gone through deficiency questions and
  7       responses to deficiency questions and a Notice of
  8       Public Hearing and written interventions and replies to
  9       those interventions and then this public hearing.
 10  6291                 One of the issues that we responded
 11       to was:  What was our preferred way to see this
 12       implemented, the easiest way to have it implemented. 
 13       It was, as Mr. Mayrand suggested, to have CPAC
 14       classified as a specialty service.
 15  6292                 We think that the power exists
 16       clearly under section 9 of the Act to renew the licence
 17       and change the category.  It is a different class of
 18       licence.  We didn't use specialty service application
 19       forms.  We applied for the renewal of the licence.
 20  6293                 We have had the licence since 1995,
 21       and we have applied to have the licence renewed for
 22       another seven years.  We, through this process with the
 23       Commission -- and it is all on the public record, and
 24       it is flagged in the Notice of Public Hearing for
 25       discussion at this hearing -- have suggested that


  1       CPAC's position is that the easiest way to do it is
  2       specialty service and dual status.
  3  6294                 We believe there is no question of
  4       denial of procedural fairness.  Anybody else had an
  5       opportunity to intervene and to comment, and that is
  6       why we are having this discussion today.
  7  6295                 It remains our preferred option, and
  8       we don't think there is a procedural fairness issue.
  9  6296                 MS BENNETT:  Thank you.
 10  6297                 My next question relates to the issue
 11       of the fee and what the appropriate mechanism would be
 12       for implementing a passthrough for CPAC if CPAC was not
 13       a specialty service, particularly with reference to the
 14       specific references to specialty service and sections
 15       52 and 54 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.
 16  6298                 I wonder if you could comment on,
 17       again:  If CPAC was not a specialty service, what would
 18       be the mechanism for authorizing a passthrough?
 19  6299                 Would it flow through the BDU regs or
 20       would some other mechanism be necessary?
 21  6300                 MR. FORTUNE:  We discussed that at
 22       lunch to some extent, and the third proposal I think
 23       Yves had identified today was to achieve the same
 24       effect as granting CPAC dual status licensed as a
 25       specialty service through amendments to the BDU


  1       regulations where appropriate.
  2  6301                 Part of the passthrough mechanism in
  3       the regulation speaks of a passthrough fee authorized
  4       by the Commission and payable to a broadcasting
  5       undertaking.
  6  6302                 So, clearly, CPAC is a broadcasting
  7       undertaking and that portion is fine.
  8  6303                 The second portion of the regulation
  9       speaks specifically of specialty services, I think. 
 10       Assuming that a fair definition for public affairs
 11       programming service or an explicit reference to CPAC
 12       were deemed to be appropriate, then the regulation
 13       could be amended accordingly.
 14  6304                 Yves Mayrand also reminded me
 15       recently that there is the -- this provision I am
 16       speaking of deals with the notice essentially of the
 17       rate to be charged.  Yves had reminded me that there is
 18       an industry commitment to give notice of any such rate
 19       increase that would come into effect, in any event.
 20  6305                 We think the mechanism could be found
 21       to accord CPAC virtually the same status through
 22       appropriate regulatory amendments where necessary.
 23  6306                 MS BENNETT:  Thank you.  I just have
 24       one last question about your French-language
 25       programming commitments.  It is sort of a


  1       clarification.
  2  6307                 You have indicated that 25 per cent
  3       of the licence fees for documentary programming would
  4       be dedicated to French-language productions.
  5  6308                 Could you comment on the possibility
  6       of turning that into a condition of licence?
  7  6309                 MS WATSON:  We would be prepared to
  8       accept that as a condition of licence.
  9  6310                 MS BENNETT:  Thank you.
 10  6311                 Those are all of my questions.
 11  6312                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Gentlemen, I am
 12       going to have you earn your money today, the lawyers,
 13       because I am going to ask you to take me through it.  I
 14       am trying to figure out what I am missing in some of
 15       this.
 16  6313                 First of all, let me see if I
 17       understand the way the BDU rules would operate under
 18       your proposal.
 19  6314                 If you were designated a specialty
 20       service, assuming we accepted your argument that notice
 21       had been given and that fairness wasn't an issue, and
 22       we said okay, you are a specialty service, would there
 23       be any more need for the definition of public affairs
 24       programming service and the references to it in the BDU
 25       regs?


  1  6315                 MR. FORTUNE:  I don't know if there
  2       are any other public affairs programming services.  I
  3       don't know.  But as it relates to CPAC, no.
  4  6316                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  As far as you are
  5       concerned, it would not.  All right, that's clear.
  6  6317                 If we took a different route and we
  7       simply looked at section 18(5) of the BDU regs and we
  8       added another category -- and this would be you would
  9       not be designated as a specialty service, Plan B --
 10       then presumably that carriage regulation would be
 11       subsections (a) and (b) could be amended to make
 12       reference to a public affairs programming service, and
 13       you get that same carriage.
 14  6318                 Is that correct?
 15  6319                 MR. FORTUNE:  That's correct.
 16  6320                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good.  So I am
 17       clear on that.
 18  6321                 MR. MAYRAND:  Just with a couple of
 19       additions, Mr. Chairman.
 20  6322                 Then automatically there would be
 21       some slight change required to the definition of the
 22       public affairs programming service at the beginning of
 23       the regulations and also --
 24  6323                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you mean to
 25       incorporate the new program categories?


  1  6324                 MR. MAYRAND:  Yes.  And also you
  2       would have to remove the reference in section 19, which
  3       is the services that may be distributed.
  4  6325                 So presumably if there is access,
  5       then that is where they ought to be.  Of course, you
  6       would have to do that both with respect to cable
  7       licensees and also to DTH licensees.  So amendments
  8       would be required on the DTH part, as well.
  9  6326                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So section 39, is
 10       it?
 11  6327                 MR. MAYRAND:  That is correct.
 12  6328                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  All right.  I think
 13       we are on the same wavelength as to the mechanics.
 14  6329                 Now help me out with the final
 15       question, which is -- I am still not quite certain. 
 16       You are on basic service, you said, and 100 per cent of
 17       systems.  You control the service.  It is a scrambled
 18       egg, as you said, the House of Commons and the rest of
 19       CPAC fully integrated.
 20  6330                 You also said, and correctly, that
 21       the House of Commons agreement provides for
 22       non-exclusive distribution.
 23  6331                 I am still hard pressed to understand
 24       what this gains you.
 25  6332                 I am assuming the passthrough item is


  1       resolved to your satisfaction, from your point of view. 
  2       I am still not sure what you gain by the request for
  3       "must carry" -- or for dual status, let's call it.
  4  6333                 MS WATSON:  If I could just clarify
  5       one thing.
  6  6334                 We have basic distribution on 100 per
  7       cent of our affiliates.  That's different from 100 per
  8       cent of subscribers.
  9  6335                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I take the point. 
 10       But the House of Commons will become a mandatory
 11       carriage, must carry, so anybody who wants to carry the
 12       House of Commons, I mean, yes, can try to unscramble
 13       the air, get their own feed, and so forth, but which
 14       they will continue to be able to do, whether this
 15       proposal goes forward or not.
 16  6336                 So I am still trying to -- there is
 17       something missing in the logic of the request here.
 18  6337                 MR. MAYRAND:  Let me try and answer
 19       your question, Mr. Chairman.
 20  6338                 I guess, as we mentioned, it's very
 21       critical that this service, no matter how it's
 22       specifically tagged or categorized, has to have at
 23       least access for its entirety to all major BDUs, and
 24       that's what dual status provides with the specialty
 25       categorization.


  1  6339                 Now, specifically the dual status, I
  2       don't think we are contemplating, and certainly that is
  3       the source, I think, of the confusion.  In our view the
  4       best way of approaching this is us having a specialty
  5       designation with dual status.  That's what fits most
  6       nicely and elegantly with the whole framework of the
  7       BDU regs as they are and the distribution and linkage
  8       requirements and the policies of the Commission.
  9  6340                 As well, we submit to you that it is
 10       entirely consistent with the actual carriage situation. 
 11       It does not create an upheaval, and fourthly and
 12       lastly, it's consistent with your notice last fall in
 13       115.
 14  6341                 Now, if we have specialty status with
 15       no dual status being confirmed, we are concerned that
 16       we are dealing with distributors as a standalone public
 17       interest service that has no leverage to go through its
 18       very critical stage of renewing all its affiliation
 19       agreements.
 20  6342                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think I
 21       understand that point, but I guess a distributor who
 22       wanted to just carry the House of Commons -- so under
 23       that scenario, a distributor who wanted to carry just
 24       the House of Commons and get the feed separately would
 25       be required to carry your service?


  1  6343                 MR. MAYRAND:  Well, if a distributor
  2       wanted to carry only the House of Commons and decided
  3       to strike an agreement, a separate agreement with the
  4       House -- as we said our agreement with the House is not
  5       exclusive --  certainly a distributor could attempt to
  6       do that.
  7  6344                 Now, certainly we would not want that
  8       to mean that as a licensed service CPAC has the
  9       obligation to fulfil its own agreement with the House,
 10       make these commitments to enhance programming, take all
 11       the obligations and be  required to piece off part of
 12       the service and give it to any distributor under
 13       different arrangements.  That's the central issue.
 14  6345                 This perhaps to emphasize the point. 
 15       I don't think that whether it's the satellite, the
 16       cable, or specialty service, I don't think that any
 17       service licensed by the Commission has been imposed any
 18       requirement to offer part of its schedule à la carte.
 19  6346                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner Wylie?
 20  6347                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  Mr. Mayrand,
 21       would it be your view that if we limited ourselves to
 22       amending a 185 by adding this service, CPAC as however
 23       defined, and taking it out of Section 19, would bind
 24       DTH to carry it?
 25  6348                 MR. MAYRAND:  Well, I think that --


  1  6349                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  To carry the
  2       whole wrap around as well?
  3  6350                 MR. MAYRAND:  You would need also an
  4       amendment to the appropriate section in the part that
  5       applies to DTH.  Section 18 would not be sufficient.
  6  6351                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  I hear your
  7       argument, Mr. Buchan, and obviously there is a good one
  8       to be made that proper notice has been given, but this
  9       is getting a little more complicated than what we put
 10       out because it's a combination of the creation of a
 11       specialty service which, as Commissioner Langford
 12       discussed this morning, could morph -- and we hear your
 13       intentions -- could morph into something else at which
 14       point you would get into the argument of IDTH who now
 15       have half the cables subscribers  have to carry this
 16       service over which I have -- it's not my service, it's
 17       a specialty service.  I have a service on my own now
 18       that I could integrate in instead.
 19  6352                 So it would bind everybody and it
 20       would also, I suppose, raise the question of why this
 21       service should be getting this status at this time as a
 22       wrap around and as upgraded or defined to be closer to
 23       something other than what it was before potentially. 
 24       That is we are giving a new specialty licence to a new
 25       service for mandatory carriage on basic with a fee.


  1  6353                 Dual status is fine, but if it's
  2       owned by the cable operators, they are hardly going to
  3       be put it on discretionary and not get the fee.  So
  4       it's mandatory carriage on basic basically, on cable
  5       that you get.
  6  6354                 So maybe, Mr. Buchan, you have more
  7       to add about whether this is getting more complicated
  8       than was envisaged by -- well, it was envisaged by, for
  9       example the Chair just read from the Bell ExpressVu
 10       intervention.
 11  6355                 MR. BUCHAN:  The only thing that I
 12       could say to that, Madam Wylie, is that obviously Bell
 13       ExpressVu read the Notice of Public Hearing and Bell
 14       ExpressVu filed an intervention.  We replied to the
 15       intervention and they certainly have the lawyers to
 16       understand the regulations and to deal with the
 17       regulations as well as anyone else.
 18  6356                 The regulations are very complex. 
 19       There is no question they are very complex, but I was
 20       only speaking on the question of procedural fairness as
 21       to whether or not the power under Section 9 in amending
 22       a licence could also be the power to amend the licence
 23       to put it into a different class of licence and whether
 24       sufficient notice had been given to the public and the
 25       public had been given an opportunity to comment and to


  1       participate in the proceeding.
  2  6357                 When it has been flagged, as it has
  3       been, in the Notice of Public Hearing, and when there
  4       is a specific deficiency and response and CPAC's
  5       position is clear as to what it asked for, what it
  6       preferred, and the reason that we prefer it is because,
  7       I have to say this, but the regulations are so complex
  8       that this is the easiest way to get there.
  9  6358                 It's like finding your way through
 10       the Briar patch and we thought this is the only way to
 11       get out at the other end short of an order, and the
 12       order looks simple, but then when you start to think
 13       about doing the order, then you start to have to amend
 14       the regulations.  Then when you have to amend the
 15       regulations and change the definition of public affairs
 16       programming, then we get back to my friend's question
 17       to my partner over here and it gets very complicated.
 18  6359                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  I think
 19       we have the points.
 20  6360                 Thank you very much, ladies and
 21       gentlemen.
 22  6361                 MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
 23  6362                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Those are our
 24       questions.
 25  6363                 Mr. Secretary?


  1  6364                 MR. LEBEL:  Mr. Chairman, the
  2       appearing intervention on this application will be
  3       presented by the Senate of Canada and Mr. Gary O'Brien
  4       will introduce the Senate's panel.
  5  6365                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. O'Brien?
  6  6366                 MR. LEBEL:  Mr. O'Brien, you have ten
  7       minutes to make your presentation.
  9  6367                 MR. O'BRIEN:  Thank you very much.
 10  6368                 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.  My name
 11       is Gary O'Brien, and I am the Deputy Clerk of the
 12       Senate.
 13  6369                 On behalf of the Senate of Canada, I
 14       would like to thank you for providing us with this
 15       opportunity to appear before you today.
 16  6370                 I would like to begin by introducing
 17       the members of the Senate panel.  They are, to my
 18       immediate left, Mark Audcent, Senate Law Clerk and
 19       Parliamentary Counsel.  To his left is Mme Diane
 20       Boucher, the Director of Communications for the Senate,
 21       and to my right is Gilles Daigle from the firm of
 22       Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Counsel to the Senate of
 23       Canada.
 24  6371                 Mr. Chairman, the Senate is involved
 25       in this proceeding for one fundamental reason.  We want


  1       to make sure Canadians in all  regions of the country
  2       have the opportunity, in reasonable television viewing
  3       periods, to scrutinize the work of the Senate.
  4  6372                 We believe that this should be part
  5       of the mandate of CPAC and its coverage of
  6       parliamentary proceedings.  The Senate firmly believes
  7       Canadians have the right to be provided with a fair,
  8       full and balanced coverage of Parliament, composed as
  9       it is of two different, but complementary Houses.
 10  6373                 A lot has changed since the Senate
 11       was awarded its current licence.  Changes in technology
 12       have introduced the efficiencies of digital
 13       broadcasting.  In the past seven years, the Commons has
 14       also started coverage of Committee proceedings.
 15  6374                 There have been changes in the Senate
 16       as well, reflected in an agreement we first signed with
 17       CPAC in 1997.  That was when the Senate formally turned
 18       the cameras on, and we began learning the implications
 19       of television coverage.
 20  6375                 We have been working with the House
 21       of Commons Broadcasting Service to develop the
 22       infrastructure and to produce quality broadcast
 23       products, yet CPAC has failed to broadcast all of the
 24       programming that the Senate has provided to it or
 25       scheduled that programming in most unfavourable


  1       time-slots.
  2  6376                 Commissioners, it is most important
  3       that you understand that the Senate programming, as
  4       well as that of the House of Commons, comes to CPAC at
  5       no charge to them.  the Senate pays entirely for the
  6       cost of its committees' broadcast.
  7  6377                 Throughout this process the Senate of
  8       Canada has tried to negotiate with CPAC, only to be
  9       told by CPAC management that the Senate is not part of
 10       the channel's mandate.  This is why the Senate is here
 11       today seeking inclusion in CPAC's licence renewal.
 12  6378                 On a parliamentary channel, Canadians
 13       should get to see the entire parliamentary system at
 14       work.
 15  6379                 MR. AUDCENT:  Mr. Chair,
 16       Commissioners, why is it important that the Senate have
 17       its rightful place in the television coverage of
 18       Parliament?  Because Canada has a bicameral Parliament.
 19  6380                 In the Quebec Secession Reference
 20       case in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada identified
 21       four fundamental principles of the Canadian
 22       Constitution.  Those four principles are democracy,
 23       federalism, the rule of law, and the protection of
 24       minorities.
 25  6381                 The Parliament of Canada embodies


  1       these four principles.  Parliament assembled is the
  2       primary source of federal law.  The elected House of
  3       Commons embodies the democratic principle.  The two
  4       remaining principles are manifested in the Senate,
  5       which is the federative house of the regions and the
  6       House that represents and serves minorities.
  7  6382                 In the 1979 Senate Reference
  8       decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:
  9                              "The Senate has a vital role as
 10                              an institution forming part of
 11                              the federal system created by
 12                              the Act."
 13  6383                 Referring to the Constitution Act of
 14       1867.
 15  6384                 Consider federalism.  Today, under
 16       the democratic principle, 60 per cent of seats in the
 17       House of Commons are from Ontario and Quebec, 55 per
 18       cent of seats in the Senate are from regions other than
 19       Ontario and Quebec.
 20  6385                 Consider diversity.  Senate
 21       appointments through the years have given a face to
 22       Canadian diversity by ensuring additional
 23       representation in Parliament for the English-speaking
 24       minority in Quebec; the Acadian minority in the
 25       Maritimes; the Black population of Canada; Aboriginal


  1       people.  Six of today's 97 Senators are Aboriginals.
  2  6386                 The Senate also has the highest
  3       percentage of women of all the legislative assemblies
  4       in Canada, and one of the highest percentages of women
  5       in legislative assemblies throughout the world.
  6  6387                 There are 31 women in today's Senate,
  7       representing 32 per cent of our members, a percentage
  8       higher than that of virtually all western democracies.
  9  6388                 Showing Senators at work to Canadians
 10       will allow all Canadians to judge for themselves the
 11       worth of the Senate.  We invite the scrutiny.  The
 12       Senate asks you, the Commission, to give Canadians the
 13       opportunity to see not one, but both Houses at work.
 14  6389                 The House of Commons has been called
 15       the living room of the nation.  Placing the emphasis on
 16       this central role, the House has chosen -- with good
 17       reason -- to showcase Chamber proceedings, in
 18       particular Question Period.
 19  6390                 For the Senate, the choice to be made
 20       is between showing the Chamber, where Senators talk to
 21       Senators, or showing committees, where Senators talk to
 22       Canadians.  Why this positive choice, in the interests
 23       of Canadians, should entail reduced scheduled coverage,
 24       to their detriment, is not obvious to us.
 25  6391                 Constitutionally, the Houses of


  1       Parliament are autonomous and equal. Using equality as
  2       the yardstick, the Senate would be entitled to the same
  3       45 to 50 hours of guaranteed coverage that CPAC
  4       provides to the House of Commons every sitting week.
  5  6392                 The Senate's requests are founded on
  6       three base premises.  First is the core principle that
  7       we encourage and expect CPAC to honour its agreement
  8       with the House of Commons.  That agreement commits most
  9       of CPAC's weekday, daytime broadcast hours in sitting
 10       weeks.
 11  6393                 Secondly, we recognized a need to
 12       strike a balance between CPAC's obligation to carry
 13       parliamentary programming, including Senate
 14       programming, we think, at prime times and its need to
 15       respect its other programming goals.
 16  6394                 Finally, we took into account our
 17       past track record on production and our plans to double
 18       production capacity.
 19  6395                 From these premises, we developed a
 20       request that starts with a modest increase of
 21       programming hours and continues with incremental
 22       increases over the years.
 23  6396                 Since our product is relatively
 24       evergreen, we propose to accept that our hours be
 25       spread evenly throughout the year, over both sitting


  1       and non-sitting weeks, including the summer.  However,
  2       we need guaranteed, fixed broadcast hours in time
  3       periods that make coverage available to the greatest
  4       number of Canadians.
  5  6397                 These are the principles that
  6       underlie the terms that we request you to make a
  7       Condition of Licence for CPAC.
  8  6398                 Will Canadians watch Senate
  9       Committees on TV?  Based on our broadcasting experience
 10       to date, we believe the answer is yes.  Auditor-General
 11       Sheila Fraser is quoted in the Hill Times of Monday,
 12       April 29, 2002 as saying:
 13                              "I must admit I always find
 14                              Senate committees very
 15                              interesting.  People are very
 16                              well informed.  They tend to
 17                              have followed an issue for many
 18                              years -- as you can see some of
 19                              the Senators have been following
 20                              this for 10, 15 or even 20
 21                              years.  They are very
 22                              knowledgeable and very
 23                              interested in the issues and I
 24                              always enjoy the hearings before
 25                              the Senate."


  1  6399                 l would like to close with some
  2       Western commentary, through the words of Barbara Yaffe,
  3       published in the Vancouver Sun and Victoria Times
  4       Columnist on March 5th of this year:
  5                              "A just-released report on
  6                              Canadian security and military
  7                              preparedness is an  absolute
  8                              mind-boggler.  It's noteworthy
  9                              that it took a Senate committee
 10                              ... to reveal this stuff."
 11  6400                 Given the chance, Canadians will take
 12       note. 
 13  6401                 Mme BOUCHER:  Monsieur le Président,
 14       Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers.
 15  6402                 Comme vous le mentionnait notre
 16       légiste parlementaire dans sa présentation, nos comités
 17       sont à la base des travaux du Sénat.
 18  6403                 Qu'il s'agisse d'avortement,
 19       d'euthanasie, de drogues illégales, de sécurité dans
 20       nos ports, de pauvreté, d'immigration ou de problèmes
 21       reliés à la santé, nos comités sont au coeur des débats
 22       qui affectent la vie quotidienne des Canadiennes et des
 23       Canadiens.
 24  6404                 L'expérience et les connaissances que
 25       possèdent nos sénateurs leur permettent de débattre des


  1       questions de l'heure dans un esprit moins partisan.
  2  6405                 Ces faits sont en grande partie
  3       corroborés par la couverture médiatique reçue par nos
  4       comités au cours de la dernière année.  La question se
  5       pose donc :  Est-ce-que CPAC est consciente de ce rôle
  6       important du Sénat, et a-t-elle su donner accès
  7       raisonnable à la population canadienne des grandes
  8       questions traites par notre institution au cours des
  9       dernières années?  Parfois oui, mais souvent non.
 10  6406                 La réponse de CPAC à l'intervention
 11       déposée par le Sénat nous laisse perplexes.  Entre
 12       autres, CPAC affirme que le Sénat siège moins de
 13       semaines que la Chambre des communes.  C'est faux.
 14  6407                 Par exemple, lors de la dernière
 15       année financière 2001-2002, le Sénat a siégé 26
 16       semaines comparativement à 25 semaines pour la Chambre
 17       des communes.
 18  6408                 CPAC affirme aussi qu'au cours des
 19       derniers mois le Sénat n'a pas produit sur une base
 20       mensuelle un minimum de huit heures par semaine de
 21       séances.  C'est faux.  Dans la dernière année
 22       financière, la moyenne mensuelle d'heures produites
 23       dans les semaines où le Sénat siégeait a été de huit à
 24       24 heures par semaine.
 25  6409                 D'ailleurs, la moyenne d'heures


  1       totales d'enregistrement produit durant les semaines de
  2       séances aura été de 14 heures par semaine dans la
  3       dernière année.
  4  6410                 CPAC affirme de plus que toutes les
  5       séances des comités transmises par le Sénat à  CPAC ont
  6       été télédiffusées.  C'est faux.  Cent-onze  heures
  7       d'enregistrement n'ont jamais été mises en ondes. 
  8       D'ailleurs, ses propres rapports démontrent que des
  9       dizaines de séances n'ont jamais été télédiffusées.
 10  6411                 La suggestion de CPAC à l'effet
 11       qu'une partie des 111 heures non télédiffusées serait
 12       due à de l'édition par CPAC ou à des problèmes
 13       techniques avec le matériel soumis par les Services de
 14       radiotélédiffusion de la Chambre des communes est sans
 15       fondement.
 16  6412                 CPAC maintient-elle vraiment que ces
 17       facteurs ont causés la perte de près de 30 pour cent de
 18       la programmation produite par le Sénat?  CPAC n'a
 19       certainement jamais été en mesure d'identifier le
 20       matériel qu'elle allègue inapte  être télédiffusé.
 21  6413                 CPAC continue de soulever
 22       l'importance d'un horaire fixe pour permettre
 23       l'accessibilité des téléspectateurs à sa propre
 24       programmation.  Or, jusqu'à ce jour, les comités du
 25       Sénat ont été télédiffusés à l'aveuglette pendant des


  1       heures variées qui ne permettent aucunement aux
  2       Canadiens de suivre les travaux du Sénat.
  3  6414                 La proposition du Sénat est juste et
  4       réaliste.  Les Canadiens et les Canadiennes ont le
  5       droit d'être informés et le Sénat a le devoir de leur
  6       être imputable du travail effectué en leur nom.
  7  6415                 Au cours de la dernière année
  8       financière, 24 comités permanents, sous-comités et
  9       comités spéciaux ont tenu 544 réunions, siégé 1 117
 10       heures, déposé 139 rapports et entendu 1 885 témoins.
 11  6416                 Depuis 1998, le Sénat a augmenté sa
 12       production télévisuelle de 143 pour cent, passant de
 13       154 à 375 heures d'enregistrement.  Ces chiffres
 14       augmenteront de façon considérable dès l'année
 15       prochaine lorsque le Sénat doublera sa capacité
 16       technique d'enregistrement par l'installation
 17       d'équipements fixes dans deux salles de comités.
 18  6417                 Comme vous pouvez le constater,
 19       l'entente conclue il y a cinq ans avec la CPAC est
 20       maintenant fort désuète et nécessite un rajustement
 21       censé.
 22  6418                 Nous espérons que vous pourrez
 23       apporter les correctifs nécessaires pour redresser
 24       cette situation d'importance pour l'imputabilité
 25       parlementaire. 


  1  6419                 MR. DAIGLE:  Monsieur le Président,
  2       chers conseillers.  J'aborde brièvement la demande de
  3       CPAC concernant le changement de son statut actuel de
  4       distribution à celui de double statut.
  5  6420                 Dans l'Avis public CRTC 2001-115, en
  6       date du 6 novembre 2001, le Conseil a reconnu
  7       l'importance d'assurer à tous les Canadiens l'accès aux
  8       débats de la Chambre des communes et de ses divers
  9       comités.
 10  6421                 Selon le Sénat, les mêmes
 11       considérations s'imposent à l'égard de sa
 12       programmation.  Ce qui importe pour le Sénat, c'est que
 13       toute programmation parlementaire, y compris celle du
 14       Sénat, soit mise à la disposition du plus grand nombre
 15       possible de Canadiens.
 16  6422                 Dans la mesure où le statut de
 17       distribution double demandé par CPAC permettrait au
 18       service de négocier avec les distributeurs la
 19       possibilité d'offrir le service sur des volets
 20       facultatifs qui, par définition, sont accessibles par
 21       un nombre moindre d'abonnés que le service de base, eh
 22       bien alors le Sénat s'y oppose.
 23  6423                 Mr. Chairman, the Senate's proposal,
 24       as set out in its written intervention, would ensure
 25       that the greatest possible number of Canadians are


  1       given the opportunity to access the Senate's
  2       programming during reasonable viewing periods, in a
  3       manner consistent with their ability to view the
  4       proceedings of the House of Commons as well.
  5  6424                 CPAC is not a typical service.  It is
  6       a unique service, with a unique public service mandate,
  7       that should be subject to whatever regulatory
  8       requirements are necessary to ensure that special role
  9       as broadcaster of parliamentary proceedings is
 10       adequately fulfilled for the benefit of all Canadians.
 11  6425                 Conditions of licence consistent with
 12       the Senate's proposal would ensure the fulfilment of
 13       that mandate.
 14  6426                 Mr. Chairman, the issue of CPAC's
 15       mandate is among the most important issues underlying
 16       this entire proceeding.  CPAC's application suggests
 17       that the service is attempting to transform itself from
 18       a parliamentary broadcasting service to a mainstream
 19       public affairs specialty service.
 20  6427                 In this respect it would appear that
 21       CPAC has no reservations about relegating Senate
 22       programming to the middle of the night while reserving
 23       prime-time hours for its own productions, including
 24       long-form documentaries.  There is something wrong with
 25       that picture, Mr. Chairman.


  1  6428                 CPAC has a fundamental decision to
  2       make.  If it wishes to continue as the country's
  3       parliamentary channel, it should be made to come to
  4       grips with the fact that Canada's Parliament consists
  5       of two Houses and that Canadians have the right to
  6       scrutinize the work of all parliamentarians, not just
  7       those of the House of Commons.
  8  6429                 If, on the other hand, CPAC prefers
  9       to operate a specialty service that would broadcast
 10       mainstream public affairs or documentary programming,
 11       then it should surrender its current licence and apply
 12       for a specialty service licence in accordance with the
 13       Commission's established procedures.
 14  6430                 The Commission should not allow CPAC
 15       to use its current licence as a springboard to
 16       transform itself into something it was never intended
 17       to be, at the expense in particular of the ability of
 18       Canadians to access and scrutinize the important
 19       activities that take place in their country's
 20       Parliament.
 21  6431                 MR. O'BRIEN:  It is the view of the
 22       Senate that only specific conditions of licence will
 23       ensure that the Senate's proposals are fully respected
 24       by CPAC.
 25  6432                 The use of words such as "encourages"


  1       or "expects" in the licence decision will ultimately
  2       leave the implementation of the Senate's objectives to
  3       the discretion of CPAC.
  4  6433                 We are concerned that CPAC is
  5       striving to limit its parliamentary obligations, rather
  6       than seeing the opportunities that parliamentary
  7       television coverage provides Canadians.
  8  6434                 Given the Senate's prior experience
  9       with the service and CPAC's expressed opinion that its
 10       mandate does not include the Senate, we are not at all
 11       confident the service would implement the Senate's
 12       requests without conditions of licence.
 13  6435                 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 14  6436                 We now welcome your questions.
 15  6437                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much
 16       for that presentation.
 17  6438                 I notice that in -- dans les
 18       commentaires de Mme Boucher vous avez mentionné qu'il y
 19       a certains aspects de la réplique de CPAC avec lesquels
 20       vous n'êtes pas d'accord.
 21  6439                 C'est assez clair, mais je vous
 22       demande si à la page 1, paragraphe 2 de la réplique,
 23       est-ce que vous êtes d'accord avec eux en ce qui
 24       concerne les sujets qui sont différents aux débats --
 25       overview of issues?


  1  6440                 Mme BOUCHER:  A la page 1?
  2  6441                 LE PRÉSIDENT:  A la page 1, oui, le
  3       deuxième paragraphe.  Quant à eux il y a deux sujets
  4       qui ne sont pas résolus entre vous autres et eux
  5       autres.
  6       --- Pause
  7  6442                 MR. DAIGLE:  Perhaps I could be of
  8       assistance on that question, Mr. Chairman, in
  9       indicating that those issues are indeed in dispute.
 10  6443                 There is the additional issue of the
 11       contextual programming that forms part of the Senate's
 12       request with respect to the production of a Senate or
 13       Senator profile programming, but ultimately what we are
 14       looking at are four issues:  Minimum number of hours,
 15       fixed time blocks, or fixed schedule, prime time and
 16       this contextual programming that I have just referred
 17       to.
 18  6444                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you are taking
 19       time blocks as separate from schedule.
 20  6445                 MR. DAIGLE:  I guess what needs to
 21       be -- time blocks and schedule would be the same.  It's
 22       in the prime time aspect, when should those time blocks
 23       fit.
 24  6446                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right, fair enough. 
 25       They didn't mention the point about the profiling


  1       programs, 26 one-hour programs.  You are correct.  They
  2       haven't agreed to that.
  3  6447                 MR. DAIGLE:  I believe it is referred
  4       to later on in their reply to our intervention, but
  5       admittedly not in this introductory section.
  6  6448                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  And that is
  7       an unresolved issue?
  8  6449                 MR. DAIGLE:  That's correct.
  9  6450                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.
 10  6451                 Do you have any other comments than
 11       the ones Mme Boucher made on the reply of CPAC, just to
 12       sort of focus the debate for their comments and reply. 
 13       This is an iterative process now where we have had the
 14       application, the intervention, the reply, your comments
 15       and will conclude with their reply, their oral reply.
 16  6452                 MR. AUDCENT:  Perhaps we could
 17       characterize the reply as the "trust us" response.  If
 18       we look at paragraph 4, they indicate that they will
 19       carry all Senate programming, and if we look at
 20       paragraph 19, CPAC indicates that it has offered six
 21       hours scheduled minimum -- minimum.
 22  6453                 If we look at paragraph 21, you will
 23       note that they intend to address the issue of
 24       operations of the Senate which is the wrap around
 25       programming issue.


  1  6454                 So that's the "trust us" response. 
  2       It's all coming, but the problem is the House of
  3       Commons has an agreement and the Senate doesn't have an
  4       agreement.  So an agreement to be negotiated.  Well,
  5       what will be the basis of the negotiations?
  6  6455                 If you go to paragraph 14 of their
  7       reply, you will find the statement that the current
  8       eight hours is reasonable and appropriate.  We had
  9       eight hours in 1998.  By the time we get to the
 10       extension you are looking at 2007.
 11  6456                 If you look at paragraph 18 of their
 12       reply, the current scheduling is reasonable and
 13       balanced.  So that is the position from which the
 14       negotiations will take place.
 15  6457                 Finally, if we come back to the
 16       question of broadcasting all of the Senate material,
 17       the undertaking was already there to broadcast all of
 18       the Senate material.  You heard Mme Boucher.  The
 19       Senate position is:  We get out numbers from the House
 20       of Commons, the House of Commons tells us to televise
 21       this much.  We get our numbers from CPAC.  CPAC
 22       televises -- we televise this much and there is a gap
 23       of 111 hours, I think the number is.
 24  6458                 So they are not broadcasting all the
 25       hours.  So I think that that sort of the Senate's


  1       analysis of the response that we got.
  2  6459                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  So those are
  3       your comments on their reply.
  4  6460                 Have you canvassed other countries in
  5       regard to the carriage of let's call it the
  6       non-elected, usually Upper, I suppose, Chambers and by
  7       camera legislatures elsewhere as to the practice?
  8  6461                 MR. AUDCENT:  No, we haven't.
  9  6462                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.  So you
 10       can't inform us as to, for example, whether the House
 11       of Lords in the U.K. is televised.  Does Australia
 12       still have an Upper House?  Australia's Upper House is
 13       elected.
 14  6463                 MR. AUDCENT:  Australia's Upper House
 15       is elected.  The American Upper House is elected and
 16       the House of Lords we haven't looked.
 17  6464                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right, you haven't
 18       looked at it.
 19  6465                 I think your position is pretty
 20       clear.  We have a difference here and I think your
 21       intervention was very fulsome and helpful as were these
 23  6466                 You are leaving us with an important
 24       question to try to grapple with.
 25  6467                 Do you have anything else to add?


  1  6468                 MR. DAIGLE:  If I might just make a
  2       couple of concluding remarks, Mr. Chairman?
  3  6469                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  By all means.
  4  6470                 MR. DAIGLE:  There are a number of
  5       issues that I think are of primary importance.  I
  6       think, for instance, that Mme Watson hit the nail on
  7       the head during CPAC's presentation when she talked
  8       about the importance of fixed scheduling.  I think the
  9       words she used were:  If you want to build an audience
 10       you need a fixed schedule.
 11  6471                 On some days the Senate's programs
 12       are on at seven in the morning.  On some days they are
 13       on at two in the morning and sometimes they are on at
 14       three in the afternoon.
 15  6472                 If you were to ask the members of
 16       this panel when the Senate committee proceedings are on
 17       this week, I am not sure that they would be able to
 18       five you an answer.  I am not sure that CPAC would be
 19       able to give you an answer.
 20  6473                 If that's the case, we certainly
 21       can't expect Canadians to be able to find the
 22       programming during the schedule.  So that's obviously a
 23       key point.
 24  6474                 In terms of what the Senate has
 25       suggested and requested in terms of conditions of


  1       licence, the key there again is:  Number of hours,
  2       fixed scheduling and prime time.  Whether those blocks
  3       are on a daily basis becomes somewhat irrelevant, but
  4       it's the number of fixed hours during prime time that
  5       obviously becomes important if the greatest number,
  6       greatest possible number of Canadians are going to have
  7       access to that Senate programming.
  8  6475                 Perhaps, since it has been the
  9       subject of so much discussion, the dual status issue is
 10       of particular importance to the Senate for this reason: 
 11       There has been much talk about the Commission's
 12       decision on mandatory distribution of the House of
 13       Commons programming that will be leading to an
 14       amendment to the regulations to the extent that the
 15       intention there is that the House of Commons, and only
 16       the House of Commons programming be distributed on a
 17       mandatory basis.  That leaves the Senate programming as
 18       part of the wrap around portion of the CPAC
 19       programming, if I can call it that.
 20  6476                 If CPAC's request for dual status
 21       were to be granted in the circumstances, then indeed it
 22       would open the door to a significant number of
 23       Canadians potentially not having access to that Senate
 24       programming.  So we view that issue as being very
 25       important.


  1  6477                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm having a hard
  2       time understanding your position on that issue.
  3  6478                 Are you saying that if we granted
  4       dual status and hence mandatory carriage --
  5  6479                 MR. DAIGLE:  That the problem is that
  6       the mandatory carriage, as I understand the
  7       Commission's intention, would be limited to the House
  8       of Commons programming as opposed to parliamentary
  9       programming as a whole.
 10  6480                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Oh, I see.
 11  6481                 MR. DAIGLE:  If the intention was to
 12       expand the amendment to the regulation to include
 13       parliamentary programming as a whole, then the issue
 14       indeed goes away.  But in the absence of that
 15       distinction -- and we will have to wait for the draft
 16       regulation to see exactly how it's worded -- the Senate
 17       would obviously be left vulnerable if indeed the
 18       regulation was limited to the House of Commons
 19       proceedings.
 20  6482                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, I think it's
 21       pretty clear from the Public Notice, and this was
 22       before my time, but in reading it the Notice is pretty
 23       clear that the amendment will deal with the
 24       distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons
 25       and its various committees.


  1  6483                 MR. DAIGLE:  That's correct, and if
  2       that turns out to be the case then we reiterate our
  3       concern about the request for dual status.
  4  6484                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Which is?
  5  6485                 MR. DAIGLE:  The fact that in the
  6       absence of any mandatory distribution of Senate
  7       programming, dual status could allow CPAC, as we
  8       understand it, to negotiate distribution on a
  9       discretionary tier.
 10  6486                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't think
 11       that -- you are going to get to a level of
 12       unprecedented conclusion, between you and me, if we
 13       carry this debate on, but I think the point is that
 14       with mandatory carriage of the CPAC service, in
 15       addition to what is already being provided for in
 16       respect of the House of Commons of the entire service,
 17       whatever is in that service, whether your proposal is
 18       accepted or not, will be subject to mandatory carriage
 19       under their proposal.
 20  6487                 MR. DAIGLE:  If it is the CPAC
 21       service as a whole, then the Senate does not have an
 22       issue, Mr. Chairman.
 23  6488                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think that's what
 24       they are requesting.
 25  6489                 MR. DAIGLE:  And if that is --


  1  6490                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You will correct me
  2       if I am wrong.
  3  6491                 MR. DAIGLE:  If that is the case,
  4       then indeed we don't have a problem.
  5  6492                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
  6       Commissioner Langford?
  7  6493                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Thank you.
  8  6494                 There is underlying sort of
  9       fundamental supposition in your whole approach to this
 10       that I want to explore briefly with you, if I may.
 11  6495                 I am reminded of an old Arabian
 12       curse, which most of you will have heard, and
 13       translated it's something like:  May you get what you
 14       wish for.  I wonder if you may not be falling into one
 15       of those horrible "get what you wish for" situations.
 16  6496                 I will tell you what I am thinking. 
 17       I am reading, just taking today's presentation, it's
 18       the freshest in our mind.  You want to be seen in
 19       reasonable television viewing periods you say.
 20  6497                 However, you say on page 5:
 21                              "However, we need guaranteed,
 22                              fixed broadcast hours in time
 23                              periods that make coverage
 24                              available to the greatest number
 25                              of Canadians."


  1  6498                 And then, on page 9, at the bottom,
  2       you speak about reserving prime-time hours for the
  3       Senate.
  4  6499                 I wonder if you have available, if
  5       you have done any studies, you have purchased any
  6       studies, commissioned any studies, which show when the
  7       highest viewing times for CPAC are, the highest
  8       audience numbers, the highest numbers of eyeballs, as
  9       they say in the trade.
 10  6500                 This isn't a trick question, by the
 11       way.  I don't have those studies.
 12  6501                 MR. DAIGLE:  I don't understand the
 13       Senate to have done so.  I think that the Senate would
 14       probably have taken as its lead the fact that CPAC
 15       seemed to consider those prime-time hours very
 16       important for its purposes.
 17  6502                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  Well, it is
 18       conceivable, I would argue, that prime time is the very
 19       time you don't want to be on because you are up against
 20       "Survivors" and "Friends" and "ER" and all of those
 21       other programs and perhaps that's just when you don't
 22       want to be on.
 23  6503                 I mean, have you considered that as a
 24       possibility?
 25  6504                 MR. DAIGLE:  I think that as between


  1       three in the morning or seven to two in the morning and
  2       prime time, the Senate would take its chances with the
  3       prime-time programming.
  4  6505                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  I don't mean
  5       to be patronizing in any way, but you may be wrong on
  6       that -- and I don't know that you are wrong, but you
  7       may be wrong.
  8  6506                 The viewing numbers that we have
  9       overall for CPAC, the audience shares from the last
 10       sweeps are very low, and I am not trying to be
 11       insulting to CPAC.  They have said themselves that they
 12       are very low.  They are trying to get them up and they
 13       have come here with a proposition to make their
 14       programming a little more cosmopolitan, a little more
 15       polished, whatever the word is, so that it will be more
 16       attractive to viewers.
 17  6507                 But they are not high now and it
 18       struck me that -- and I don't mean to tell you how to
 19       put your case -- if I were wording your sentence in the
 20       top paragraph of page 5 which now reads:
 21                              "However, we need guaranteed,
 22                              fixed broadcast hours in time
 23                              periods that make coverage
 24                              available to the greatest number
 25                              of Canadians."


  1  6508                 I might add to that: "who are
  2       watching" or "who will watch" as a concept because, as
  3       I say, without studies, some sort of indication, it may
  4       be that you are giving the best times up.
  5  6509                 One is always surprised to find
  6       out -- I mean, if you think you get bad times, you
  7       ought to see what the CRTC gets, I mean wow!.  Yet
  8       there is always somebody who has seen you and you are
  9       always scratching your ear or spilling coffee down your
 10       front.  That's the scene that somehow every one of your
 11       friends on earth knows.
 12  6510                 So anyway, I leave that with you. 
 13       Your answer is you haven't done the studies.  It
 14       doesn't necessarily deal your request any kind of a
 15       death blow or anything, but I would suggest that things
 16       are not always as they seem in broadcasting.
 17  6511                 MR. O'BRIEN:  If I could,
 18       Mr. Commissioner, just add a caveat that one thing the
 19       Senate does not want to do is to interfere or conflict
 20       with the House of Commons in its broadcasting hours
 21       which is rebroadcast.  I believe QP is rebroadcast at
 22       10:00 p.m. in the evenings.  We do not want to conflict
 23       with that.
 24  6512                 But what we do want to emphasize is
 25       that Canadians know when the House of Commons is being


  1       broadcast.  They know that.  They don't know when the
  2       Senate is being broadcast and that's what we are trying
  3       to achieve.
  4  6513                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  So you are
  5       not necessarily tied to prime time.  You are more
  6       concerned with certainty.
  7  6514                 MR. O'BRIEN:  We are concerned with
  8       certainty and a reach to get to the greatest number of
  9       Canadians possible -- possible.
 10  6515                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  So that may
 11       not be prime time, in fact.
 12  6516                 Would you agree that it may not be
 13       prime time?  I'm not trying to trap you --
 14  6517                 MR. DAIGLE:  I guess what it boils
 15       down to is that certainly it has been the Senate's
 16       understanding that prime time would be the best period.
 17  6518                 If that, as it turns out, is not the
 18       case, then I guess the Senate stands to be corrected on
 19       that issue.  But as between fixed periods in the middle
 20       of the night and fixed periods in prime time, I think
 21       that the position of the Senate stands that the
 22       prime-time period is the one that is most attractive
 23       and the one requested.
 24  6519                 COMMISSIONER LANGFORD:  At least it
 25       would be the basis of negotiations from a different


  1       perspective.  But we will hear from CPAC in reply and
  2       it will be interesting to hear what they say.
  3  6520                 Thank you very much.
  4  6521                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Gentlemen, I am new
  5       to this position, and I am interested in the history of
  6       this.  As I read the notice that the Commission issued
  7       on the 6th of November referring to making the carriage
  8       of the House of Commons mandatory, I am just wondering
  9       whether you participated in that proceeding leading up
 10       to that.
 11  6522                 MR. DAIGLE:  No.  Certainly to my
 12       knowledge, the Senate was not involved, and I suspect
 13       that at the time, this would have been well over a year
 14       ago now, it was probably on the expectation that an
 15       agreement would in fact be reached between the parties. 
 16       Obviously that didn't happen.
 17  6523                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see.  So you were
 18       negotiating at the time?
 19  6524                 MR. DAIGLE:  I'm mot sure if
 20       negotiations would have started that early, but they
 21       have been ongoing for quite a bit of time.
 22  6525                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is just last
 23       November.  And although this channel is called the
 24       Parliamentary Channel, when one reads the history of
 25       the channel as set forth in the last renewal decision,


  1       and so forth, it has always been a House of Commons
  2       carriage channel plus.  I guess over the year the
  3       Senate hasn't been involved until I guess this
  4       proceeding.
  5  6526                 MR. DAIGLE:  That's correct, and if
  6       indeed in the past it so happens that the Senate may
  7       not have been within the mandate of CPAC, the Senate is
  8       here asking you today to change that.
  9  6527                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understand.
 10  6528                 Thank you very much.  We will now
 11       take a break and resume in 15 minutes with the reply
 12       from the applicant.
 13       --- Upon recessing at 1600 / Suspension à 1600
 14       --- Upon resuming at 1615 / Reprise à 1615
 15  6529                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Secretary?
 16  6530                 MR. LEBEL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 17  6531                 We have now reached Phase III in
 18       which CPAC is granted a period of ten minutes to
 19       respond to all interventions submitted to the
 20       applications.
 21       REPLY / RÉPLIQUE
 22  6532                 MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 23  6533                 With me, of course, I have Colette
 24       Watson.  On her left, Joel Fortune and on my right the
 25       Secretary to CPAC, Bob Buchan.


  1  6534                 We want to first express our
  2       appreciation to all of the intervenors who involved
  3       themselves in this process.  We did a comprehensive
  4       reply to those intervenors who made particular comments
  5       and we also did a separate reply in terms of the
  6       comments that were made in writing by the Senate.
  7  6535                 We appreciate very much all of the
  8       support we received for the renewal of our licence and
  9       I want to express that appreciation here.
 10  6536                 In these remarks, we would like to
 11       address the comments made by the senior staff of the
 12       Senate and deal with the particular issues that they
 13       raised.
 14  6537                 The first point I would like to make
 15       is that we agree with very much of what the Senate and
 16       the staff representing the Senate have said.
 17  6538                 On just a few key points of what we
 18       agree with is that, first of all, CPAC will continue
 19       to -- we believe we have, but in any event we will in
 20       the future continue to broadcast throughout the full
 21       term of our renewed licences all programming that is
 22       provided to CPAC by the Senate.  So that's something we
 23       have committed to.
 24  6539                 We have also committed to fulfil the
 25       Senate's request for improved webcasting of Senate


  1       committee proceedings and to make that available
  2       through the service.
  3  6540                 We have also agreed that we should
  4       continue discussions with the Senate to come to an
  5       agreement with the Senate and I think that those in
  6       themselves are significant agreements.
  7  6541                 We have also, in terms of the key
  8       issue of schedule time, have indicated to the Senate
  9       that we would be willing to continue discussions to
 10       come to some balance in terms of having scheduled time
 11       for Senate committees so that people would know or be
 12       informed as to when they are available because we
 13       basically understand and appreciate the importance of
 14       the Senate committee proceedings.
 15  6542                 In terms of the points made with
 16       respect to the comparisons between the House of Commons
 17       and the Senate, I think there are two essential
 18       differences.  The first is that our service has always
 19       had at its core raison d'être the House of Commons and
 20       its committees.  As you pointed out in the discussions
 21       back to 1992, they have always been based with that
 22       cornerstone of the House of Commons and that's
 23       reflected in 115 as well in terms of the CRTC's order.
 24  6543                 In terms of the Senate, there is a
 25       fundamental difference as well in the sense that the


  1       House of Commons has agreed to be televised.  The
  2       Senate Chamber is not televised so that in terms of a
  3       strict comparison between the two Houses there is, from
  4       a television point of view, a very strict difference
  5       and that is the House of Commons proceedings, gavel to
  6       gavel, are live and are televised.  The Senate has
  7       decided that that is not, in their view, the way they
  8       wish to proceed.
  9  6544                 So we then come to the work of the
 10       two Houses of Parliament and that is the committee
 11       work.  We believe that we should obviously provide
 12       equal treatment to the committee work between the House
 13       of Commons and the Senate, but we do have an agreement
 14       with the House of Commons and that agreement is based
 15       on eight hours and it does not have a schedule.
 16  6545                 So in terms of the letter and the
 17       spirit of the House of Commons, which we are required
 18       as a Board to adhere to in our condition of licence, we
 19       have found it difficult to come to a final agreement
 20       with the Senate.  That would offend, in our view, those
 21       principles.
 22  6546                 Now, we are quite willing to continue
 23       these discussions and we would like to come to some
 24       arrangements in terms of having specified times for
 25       Senate committees and we would like to do that, but we


  1       do not believe that the CRTC should impose conditions
  2       that give priority to Senate committees over House
  3       committees and we do not believe that the CRTC should
  4       impose conditions on our fundamental responsibility as
  5       a broadcast licensee to be responsible for the
  6       programming that we do often.
  7  6547                 So I think on those bases, with those
  8       may I say caveats, we are, of course, willing to
  9       continue our discussions with the Senate over the near
 10       term to try to come to some common view as to how to
 11       proceed on this.
 12  6548                 I will now ask Colette Watson to make
 13       a few comments.
 14  6549                 MS WATSON:  We would like to respond
 15       to some of the comments made by the Senate with respect
 16       to CPAC's performance on Senate committee hearings.
 17  6550                 When we read the Senate's
 18       intervention and the claim that 111 hours went missing,
 19       we took that very seriously.  So we looked at whether
 20       it was a process or procedural error on our part in
 21       terms of where these hours went.  It was a very intense
 22       exercise to try and determine where these records came
 23       from.
 24  6551                 In order to be precise, we got
 25       records from the House of Commons broadcasting service


  1       and then we had our own logs to compare them with.  The
  2       times just were not clear.  So we went back to the
  3       transcripts of each of these committees and found that
  4       although the tapes may have been rolling or a committee
  5       was scheduled say from nine in the morning to eleven,
  6       it may not have started until 9:20, 9:40, in which case
  7       when you bill that over the course of 12 months, it
  8       accounted for about 100 of those 111 minutes.
  9  6552                 So we still feel that we were -- we
 10       still stand by our claim that we air everything that
 11       comes to our office with respect to Senate committee
 12       hearings.
 13  6553                 With respect to the times of
 14       broadcast, if I can refer the Commission to the
 15       Senate's intervention and the charts attached to it.
 16  6554                 If I look at their own charts as to
 17       when the Senate airs throughout the year, you will
 18       notice pretty even distribution throughout the
 19       broadcast day.  So their claim that it is either prime
 20       time or 2:00 in the morning is perhaps a little
 21       misleading; that they do air throughout a wide variety
 22       of times.
 23  6555                 I hear them when they say they would
 24       like a specific block of time.  We have endeavoured to
 25       commit a minimum number of hours that are in a


  1       specified block of time.  At issue is the tonnage of
  2       that time.  What we feel we can contribute and what
  3       they feel is the right number is at difference here.  I
  4       believe that is what is at issue.
  5  6556                 We also don't feel that we are a
  6       public affairs mainstream channel.  We feel we are a
  7       unique complementary channel that deals with the work
  8       of Parliament and both houses.  We do treat the Senate
  9       work in our produced original programming, and we do
 10       have senators on to discuss their reports.
 11  6557                 We are dealing with what is called
 12       the Kirby Committee at the moment on their recent
 13       health report, and we have had senators on panel
 14       discussions with medical doctors and other groups
 15       interested in whatever the issue may be.
 16  6558                 With respect to our claim that the
 17       Senate is not part of the mandate, in our discussions
 18       with the Senate we have never said that.  We have said
 19       Senate committee hearings are not part of the mandatory
 20       licence.  Their assumption was that they fell into the
 21       House of Commons definition.
 22  6559                 So we clarified that for them; that
 23       that includes House of Commons gavel-to-gavel
 24       proceedings.  It doesn't even include House of Commons
 25       committees.  Committees from the House of Commons, as


  1       well as Senate committees, are part of CPAC's
  2       wrap-around programming.
  3  6560                 Those are my comments.
  4  6561                 CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE:  Madame Watson,
  5       quand vous avez comme vous l'avez mentionné 111
  6       « minutes », vous vouliez dire 111 « heures »?
  7  6562                 Mme WATSON:  Merci pour la précision.
  8  6563                 MR. BUCHAN:  Could I clarify one
  9       point?
 10  6564                 I was at a meeting where the senior
 11       representatives from the Senate and Ms Watson were
 12       there, and this issue of mandate did come up.  I can't
 13       remember precisely what was said, but certainly we
 14       talked about mandate.  We talked about mandate in the
 15       context of what is in CPAC's licence, what is in the
 16       exemption order, and what is CPAC mandated from the
 17       Commission to do.
 18  6565                 That was the context in which this
 19       thing came up.
 20  6566                 If there is ever a "she said, he
 21       said" kind of discussion, it was pretty clear to me
 22       from that discussion that that is what we were talking
 23       about.  There has never been any suggestion in any of
 24       the discussions that I have been privy to or informed
 25       of that anyone from CPAC has suggested that Senate


  1       programming is not appropriate wrap-around programming
  2       or cognate complementary programming for the CPAC
  3       service.
  4  6567                 I think it hard for Ms Watson to say
  5       "I didn't say that or I did say that".
  6  6568                 I just want to corroborate her
  7       remarks.
  8  6569                 Thank you.
  9  6570                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have just a few
 10       questions.
 11  6571                 On the last point, that the Senate
 12       has requested a condition of licence, what is your
 13       position on that in regard to Senate programming?
 14  6572                 MR. STEIN:  Well, it's a bit
 15       difficult to suggest anything.  With the House of
 16       Commons we came in agreement first, and then we came
 17       forward and that is the way it has proceeded.
 18  6573                 So it is tricky in these
 19       circumstances to say what we would have in that,
 20       because we would want it to reflect the agreement that
 21       we came to with the Senate.
 22  6574                 I think the point we would want to
 23       make is that -- and I think if there were
 24       misinterpretations of things over the past number of
 25       years about all this, we think Senate committees are


  1       important.  We think they are a very important part of
  2       the proceeding and of the proceedings of the Houses of
  3       Parliament, as the representatives from the Senate
  4       pointed out.
  5  6575                 So a recognition of that is not at
  6       issue.  What is at issue is because the Chamber itself
  7       is not covered, then what exactly are we agreeing to
  8       that is parallel with the House of Commons?  It is an
  9       issue.
 10  6576                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I take your point.
 11  6577                 Perhaps this might be helpful, since
 12       we are into a kind of dispute settlement mode on this
 13       point.
 14  6578                 What if you were to put forward in
 15       your nature of service bullets in your description what
 16       you think would be an appropriate reference to Senate
 17       coverage in your service?  The intervenor would then
 18       have an opportunity to comment on it, and the
 19       Commission could then make a decision as to what might
 20       be the appropriate way of enshrining that, short of a
 21       condition of licence, let's say.
 22  6579                 MR. STEIN:  We have a commitment to
 23       do the eight hours of scheduled time.
 24  6580                 Are you reflecting something more
 25       general than that?


  1  6581                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was thinking of
  2       something more general than that in regard to the
  3       service.  It is called the Parliamentary Affairs
  4       Channel, Cable Parliamentary Channel, and so forth.
  5  6582                 You might want to suggest a bullet
  6       again and put that forward, or you might not.  I leave
  7       it to you to decide what to do.  We can then govern
  8       ourselves accordingly.
  9  6583                 MR. STEIN:  I think something that
 10       would indicate that we would be willing to look at or
 11       would be bound by fair and equitable treatment and
 12       coverage of the House and Senate Committees might be
 13       appropriate.
 14  6584                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can submit
 15       something that we would then ask the intervenor to
 16       comment on.
 17  6585                 I appreciate that you might get
 18       agreement with them; but given the track record, you
 19       probably won't.
 20  6586                 MR. STEIN:  We do want to come to an
 21       agreement with them.
 22  6587                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understand.
 23  6588                 Did you want to correct the record,
 24       Madame Watson, sur les autres points que Mme Boucher a
 25       soutenu sont faux dans la présentation qu'ils ont


  1       faite?
  2  6589                 Mme WATSON:  Si on a mal calculé le
  3       nombre de semaines qu'ils ont siégé, c'est une
  4       différence d'une semaine.  Donc ce n'était pas pour
  5       vous cacher quelque chose.  On a probablement mal
  6       calculé.  Je n'ai pas fait le calcul moi-même.
  7  6590                 LE PRÉSIDENT:  Je pense aussi qu'il y
  8       avait une constatation que la moyenne mensuelle
  9       reproduite dans les semaines était de huit à 24 heures
 10       par semaine -- ils ont dit que vous avez affirmé qu'au
 11       cours des derniers mois le Sénat n'a pas produit sur
 12       une base mensuelle un minimum de huit heures par
 13       semaine.
 14  6591                 MS WATSON:  I return to what they say
 15       the tonnage is and what we say the tonnage is.  The
 16       fact that the transcript shows there was a 111-hour
 17       difference probably would translate over to that claim
 18       that we say we get, on average, a lower amount than
 19       they seem to think they are sending us.
 20  6592                 The Senate historically would send
 21       between 20 and 30 hours a month prior to September
 22       11th.  After September 11th the Senate was very active
 23       in committee hearings and was giving, for two months in
 24       October and November, between 40 and 50 hours a month.
 25  6593                 We were not able to air those within


  1       the same week, because at that same time, due to 9/11,
  2       the House was sitting late, and there were many
  3       emergency debates.
  4  6594                 I don't know if any of you recall
  5       what the Parliamentary session was like last fall, but
  6       on average two to three hours a week the House was
  7       sitting until midnight debating C-36 and other bills.
  8  6595                 So we were not able to get caught up,
  9       if you will, with the televising of the Senate
 10       Committee hearings until the end of December and over
 11       the Christmas period.  But in normal times, when the
 12       House isn't sitting in emergency debates -- for example
 13       tonight the House will be sitting until midnight.
 14  6596                 So these things all bump everything
 15       else, including Senate Committees.  There isn't some
 16       machiavellian plan, it is all part of what happens when
 17       the House sits late.
 18  6597                 So we do try to catch up.  It does
 19       get the first priority with respect to catching up.
 20  6598                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 21  6599                 Two final questions I have and I
 22       think counsel has a number of further questions.
 23  6600                 On the issue of mandatory carriage as
 24       distinct from dual status -- your counsel is there,
 25       Mr. Stein, and perhaps they would want to address this.


  1  6601                 I think Mr. Buchan has informed us
  2       earlier that in his view there has been adequate notice
  3       as to specialty service status.
  4  6602                 I wonder whether, Mr. Buchan, you
  5       feel that there has been adequate notice on the issue
  6       of mandatory carriage?
  7  6603                 MR. BUCHAN:  Mr. Chairman, the same
  8       Notice of Public Hearing that contained the issues to
  9       be discussed flagged specifically the specialty
 10       programming service in amending the distribution
 11       linkage roles, as I read out earlier.  It went on to
 12       say:
 13                              "Any other options and/or
 14                              methods for according CPAC
 15                              distribution on a dual status
 16                              basis should the Commission wish
 17                              to grant CPAC's request." 
 18                              (As read)
 19  6604                 It doesn't say "mandatory carriage".
 20  6605                 We weren't seeking mandatory carriage
 21       and I didn't speak to that issue before, but the notice
 22       was given that we were looking at specialty service and
 23       dual status and any other options, but it does say:
 24                              "...for according ...
 25                              distribution on a dual status


  1                              basis..."  (As read)
  2  6606                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right.
  3  6607                 So my discussion with Mr. Mayrand --
  4       and if he wishes -- I'm sure he is in the room -- he
  5       can participate.
  6  6608                 I discussed two options about
  7       mandatory carriage.  One was via specialty service and
  8       the other was via an amendment to section 18(5) of the
  9       regulations that would add the public affairs
 10       programming service to that provision and thereby grant
 11       it mandatory status.
 12  6609                 We agreed, I think, on those two
 13       routes, one of which is implicit in the notice that was
 14       given and my question is:  Is there adequate notice on
 15       proceeding along the second route towards mandatory
 16       carriage?
 17  6610                 MR. BUCHAN:  There are three lawyers
 18       at the table, Mr. Chairman.  I am going to be the
 19       senior counsel and ask my partner, Mr. Fortune, to
 20       start.
 21  6611                 MR. STEIN:  I hope there is one point
 22       of view.
 23       --- Laughter / Rires
 24  6612                 MR. FORTUNE:  I think specifically
 25       with that section of the regulations, 18(5), that is


  1       the section that accords specialty services access to
  2       distribution undertakings, certain categories of
  3       distribution undertakings.
  4  6613                 So I guess I would say if one adopts
  5       the same approach, the same distribution undertakings,
  6       the same section of the regulations where amended,
  7       there is really, as far as the affected parties, I
  8       would think it is virtually the same thing as granting
  9       CPAC a license for a specialty service.  It is not
 10       quite the same as issuing a mandatory order that would
 11       apply, for example, to Class 3 BDUs, just for example.
 12  6614                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 13  6615                 MR. BUCHAN:  C'est tout.
 14  6616                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 15       kindly.
 16  6617                 Counsel.
 17  6618                 MR. BENNETT:  Thank you.
 18  6619                 I just have a couple of questions to
 19       follow up on.
 20  6620                 Firstly, I would like to take another
 21       crack at the issue of the definition of "public affairs
 22       programming".  We talked about it earlier, but just to
 23       try again.
 24  6621                 Right now the definition of "public
 25       affairs programming" in the regs refers to specific


  1       program categories and you have requested approval for
  2       additional program categories.
  3  6622                 In light of the expectation that CPAC
  4       is expected to complement the public affairs
  5       programming of other Canadian broadcasting services, if
  6       the Commission wanted to fence in CPAC's public affairs
  7       programming, whether that be through the nature of the
  8       service definition or through definitions of the
  9       categories particularly for CPAC or some other
 10       mechanism, could you comment on what the appropriate
 11       fencing in would be?
 12  6623                 MR. BUCHAN:  Could we just take a
 13       minute and we will --
 14       --- Pause
 15  6624                 MS WATSON:  Mr. Chairman, while they
 16       deliberate, I owed you an answer from earlier this
 17       morning and the number is 155 public events over the
 18       course of the last 12 months that CPAC carried.
 19  6625                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is from
 20       across --
 21  6626                 MS WATSON:  Across Canada.
 22  6627                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have it
 23       broken down?
 24  6628                 MS WATSON:  Yes, I have, and we would
 25       be happy -- would you like us to table that?


  1  6629                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And every province
  2       and territory is included?
  3  6630                 MS WATSON:  Yes.
  4  6631                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What is the lowest
  5       of any event in any province or territory?
  6       --- Pause
  7  6632                 MR. FORTUNE:  I think that is a
  8       poser -- so essentially the question --
  9  6633                 MS WATSON:  Hang on.
 10  6634                 MR. FORTUNE:  Okay.
 11  6635                 MS WATSON:  Nunavut is 1, Yukon is 2,
 12       and then the second one -- P.E.I. is 2, Saskatchewan
 13       is 6, Quebec is 15, Ontario is 33, Nova Scotia is 7,
 14       Newfoundland is 9, New Brunswick is 4, Manitoba is 4,
 15       B.C. is 8, Alberta is 18.
 16  6636                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was hoping the
 17       B.C. number would be higher.
 18  6637                 MS WATSON:  Me too.
 19       --- Laughter / Rires
 20  6638                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 21  6639                 COMMISSIONER GRAUER:  In more than
 22       one way it is a long way off.  Right?
 23  6640                 MR. STEIN:  I think it depends on the
 24       Chairman.
 25  6641                 MR. FORTUNE:  We have just been


  1       discussing and I guess essentially what it boils down
  2       to is:  What is public affairs?
  3  6642                 That is obviously a difficult
  4       question.  It gets into almost the philosophical
  5       questions that the Chairman was referring to earlier,
  6       but we would like to have an opportunity to reflect on
  7       this and perhaps submit what we would perceive to be an
  8       appropriate, somewhat expanded nature of service
  9       definition for CPAC, if that would be acceptable to the
 10       Commission.
 11  6643                 MS BENNETT:  I think that would be
 12       fine.  Sure.
 13  6644                 MR. BUCHAN:  Counsel, when we submit
 14       that, we can also submit -- or we could submit
 15       something you requested earlier, which was a definition
 16       of "long-form programming".  That we have.  That is a
 17       little easier.
 18  6645                 MS BENNETT:  Okay.  Thank you.
 19  6646                 Another question.  I just want to
 20       follow up on something you said a little earlier.
 21  6647                 Can you explain why you include the
 22       House of Commons committees as part of CPAC service as
 23       opposed to part o the exempt service?  Because the
 24       exemption order does allow for inclusion of the House
 25       of Commons committees.


  1  6648                 MS WATSON:  It says "some" I believe,
  2       and so -- does it say "some parliamentary" and "some
  3       hearings"?
  4  6649                 MS BENNETT:  Paragraph (a) says:
  5                              "...the programming service
  6                              provided by the undertaking
  7                              consists of coverage of the
  8                              proceedings of the House of
  9                              Commons or of the Legislature by
 10                              province or territory of Canada,
 11                              including its various
 12                              committees."  (As read)
 13  6650                 MS WATSON:  Is it attached to the
 14       House of Commons or all of the Legislatures?
 15  6651                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Perhaps one of
 16       your three lawyers can give you a copy of the
 17       exemption order.
 18  6652                 MS WATSON:  Exactly.  No, I guess it
 19       was more of a clarification.
 20  6653                 It is there in writing, but does it
 21       attach to the House of Commons or the provincial
 22       Legislatures and "its various committees".
 23  6654                 So I guess we could think that is
 24       part of the wrap-around -- not the wrap-around but the
 25       exempt portion.


  1  6655                 The point I was making is that the
  2       Senate Committees are not included in that definition
  3       and they are part of the wrap-around.
  4  6656                 MS BENNETT:  So your point was it is
  5       the Senate committees that are part of the wrap-around,
  6       not the House of Commons committees.
  7  6657                 MS WATSON:  Right.  But we would like
  8       to be able to give fair and equitable treatment of the
  9       committees of both Houses.
 10  6658                 MR. BUCHAN:  Counsel, I think too
 11       there is a little bit of history to this.  When CPAC
 12       first got into the business the House of Commons
 13       broadcast service was providing coverage of the House
 14       and not at that time of committees.
 15  6659                 There was discussion about the
 16       possibility of doing committees and whether it would be
 17       CPAC's cameras that would come in or whether the House
 18       of Commons broadcast service would provide committee
 19       coverage.  It grew over time, but I think that at CPAC
 20       the thinking has always been the core was the live
 21       proceedings of the House of Commons plus one repeat of
 22       Question Period a day.  The committees have been
 23       considered to be an add-on which have grown in
 24       importance.
 25  6660                 I think you are quite right in terms


  1       of you are reading from the exemption order.  Right? 
  2       Is that where you are reading?
  3  6661                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's right.
  4  6662                 MR. BUCHAN:  I would take the "and
  5       its committees" to be referable back to the House of
  6       Commons.
  7  6663                 MR. FORTUNE:  I think this is the
  8       bug-bear a bit that we talked about first thing about
  9       the exempt versus the licensed portion.  So when
 10       Ms Watson spoke she referred to the exempt programming.
 11  6664                 I think in fact what she had in mind
 12       was the licence, CPAC's licence, which reads -- there
 13       is English and French, there are two licences, as you
 14       know:
 15                              "CPAC to provide via satellite
 16                              coverage of the proceedings of
 17                              the House of Commons, as well as
 18                              public affairs programming." 
 19                              (As read)
 20  6665                 As you will see, there is no
 21       reference to committees.  It is:
 22                              "...coverage of the proceedings
 23                              of the House of Commons, as well
 24                              as public affairs programming." 
 25                              (As read)


  1  6666                 MS BENNETT:  Thank you.
  2  6667                 One last question and then a
  3       follow-up on the filings that you will make a little
  4       later.
  5  6668                 Could you comment on the implications
  6       for the service if the Commission were to approve a
  7       pass-through portion of half the amount that you have
  8       proposed and grant CPAC the mandatory carriage?
  9  6669                 MR. STEIN:  Are you proposing half
 10       the rate, but mandatory carriage?  Is that what I
 11       understand?
 12  6670                 MS BENNETT:  Half the pass-through
 13       portion.
 14  6671                 MR. STEIN:  No, because that would
 15       not give us the financial numbers to be able to do the
 16       proposals -- the activities we laid out in the
 17       application.  In terms of the actual subscribers it
 18       would not make that much difference.  The revenues
 19       would be reduced according to the rate, not because of
 20       the mandatory carriage.
 21  6672                 MS BENNETT:  Okay.
 22  6673                 Now, just a follow-up on what you are
 23       intending to file.
 24  6674                 I think there was the question of the
 25       condition of license -- or the nature of service


  1       reference to long format coverage.
  2  6675                 I think there was also a question
  3       about a possible COL with respect to the proportion of
  4       non-parliamentary programming focused on non-editorial
  5       long-form gavel-to-gavel coverage.
  6  6676                 Would you like to follow up with that
  7       as well?
  8  6677                 MR. BUCHAN:  Yes.
  9  6678                 MS BENNETT:  Okay.  So there are
 10       those two specific things, and then you mentioned
 11       earlier that you would file an addition to the
 12       programming principles related to the inclusion of the
 13       Senate programming.
 14  6679                 Would you be in a position to file
 15       something within five calendar days?
 16  6680                 MR. BUCHAN:  Yes.
 17  6681                 MS BENNETT:  Thank you.
 18  6682                 Those are all my questions.
 19  6683                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner Wylie.
 20  6684                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  You were asked
 21       by counsel whether half of the fee, or whatever level
 22       of the fee and mandatory carriage.  What if I were to
 23       ask you what if you had a certain portion of the fee
 24       only, carriage as you want, but limited to Category 3,
 25       as you are today?


  1  6685                 In other words, wrap-around, but the
  2       wrap-around we now have and a lower fee and carriage in
  3       whatever way we find to give you the assurances you
  4       want, but not to raise all these issues of fencing and
  5       morphing and 5 per cent of this and 5 per cent of that. 
  6       If you were limited to reporting and actualities, but
  7       with the recognition that a fee is in order and assured
  8       carriage?
  9  6686                 MS WATSON:  Madam Vice-Chair, the
 10       most expensive thing we do as CPAC is long-form
 11       programming.  So what it would do is would be to reduce
 12       the British Columbia long-form coverage to four, in
 13       Alberta to four and New Brunswick to one, because
 14       without budget to travel to those cities to do that,
 15       that is what we can't do.
 16  6687                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  When you answer
 17       this, do you mean that is related to whether you can do
 18       Category 3 or not, or relating to the amount of the
 19       fee?  I was suggesting a fee that somehow would be
 20       arrived at to cover an improvement in Category 3.  What
 21       would hold you to Category 3?
 22  6688                 I may have misunderstood when you say
 23       long-form programming is expensive.
 24       --- Pause
 25  6689                 MS WATSON:  I guess what I thought


  1       you were implying was that those that are not Category
  2       3 are the expensive pieces of our application.
  3  6690                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  And does that
  4       raise concern?
  5  6691                 MS WATSON:  Raise the procedural
  6       error?
  7  6692                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  Well, not only
  8       procedural error.  Not necessarily was this public
  9       notice sufficient notice, but is the entire process
 10       inside the broadcasting system, as it has developed in
 11       the last while -- does that raise a problem?
 12  6693                 Commissioner Langford talked of
 13       morphing.  There are other people who say we may want
 14       to do this type of programming.
 15  6694                 If you read these other categories,
 16       they can be scary to those who have that concern.
 17  6695                 Maybe you can also, if counsel
 18       agrees, give us some idea -- and we will have to look
 19       at all options -- of what would happen if we accepted
 20       the need for a fee, we accepted the usefulness of the
 21       wrap-around and therefore of some type of guaranteed
 22       status but held you to reporting in actualities in
 23       section 3.
 24  6696                 You may not want to answer that right
 25       away, but it will be something that we may look at.  So


  1       you may want to address what would be a reasonable
  2       level of fee under that situation.
  3  6697                 Perhaps we can ask you when you
  4       redefine your nature of service, fencing it in, that
  5       you do it -- you have done it using categories and
  6       fencing with the 5 per cent per semester in some
  7       categories, but whether you would also try to define
  8       public affairs without reference to these categories. 
  9       Do it both ways.
 10  6698                 MS WATSON:  I will make one statement
 11       and then defer to counsel on your other comments.
 12  6699                 What I would like to get across is
 13       that, by and large, for the last seven years the
 14       content hasn't changed that much.  In 1995 CPAC was
 15       doing phone-ins, and in 2002 CPAC is doing phone-ins.
 16  6700                 We, I guess limited to Category 3,
 17       would not have allowed the Innu Healing Foundation come
 18       on last night and give its perspective on whatever the
 19       issue isn't.
 20  6701                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  Maybe you
 21       shouldn't have.
 22  6702                 MS WATSON:  We feel that it falls
 23       right within the six programming principles under which
 24       we operate, and that is to provide a balance and
 25       diversity of points of view and create a platform for


  1       other voices.  They don't get on other channels.
  2  6703                 What happened is the definition of
  3       programming categories changed after our licence was
  4       issued.  What we are trying to do is get with the times
  5       of the changes that were incorporated after our licence
  6       was issued.
  7  6704                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  We have to
  8       explore all options and give you an opportunity to
  9       respond to all options.
 10  6705                 I think those questions are some that
 11       you should respond to:  What would happen if you were
 12       kept to Category 3 type of programming?  What fee would
 13       be necessary, then, to maintain this as a viable
 14       service?
 15  6706                 And define your nature of service by
 16       reference to the categories, public affairs, or without
 17       reference to the categories; to have two ways of doing
 18       it.
 19  6707                 There are concerns raised, obviously,
 20       about this expansion.
 21  6708                 And nature of service, if my
 22       recollection is correct, is defined often by other than
 23       categories of service.  It is used by points of
 24       references as guideposts, but you could attempt perhaps
 25       to define public affairs without those references,


  1       which you yourself have to limit to 5 per cent.
  2  6709                 If you look at 5(b) you are
  3       experienced enough that I don't have to point out to
  4       you all the things that can fall under 5(b).  And even
  5       under 2(b) and under 5(b), where there is a limitation. 
  6       Nevertheless, it is difficult to fence in.
  7  6710                 Perhaps that would help us.  I will
  8       leave it to counsel.
  9  6711                 MS WATSON:  Is this a document
 10       required in five calendar days?
 11  6712                 MS BENNETT:  Is that a possibility?
 12  6713                 MR. BUCHAN:  I think it is always
 13       possible.
 14  6714                 MS BENNETT:  Is it reasonable?
 15  6715                 MR. BUCHAN:  Just to clarify for the
 16       people in the room that don't live in these programming
 17       categories, we are basically talking no documentaries
 18       and no analysis, really.
 19  6716                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  No.  We are
 20       asking you, if I follow counsel, to define a public
 21       affairs wrap-around program.  If I look at your
 22       arguments, I think I could easily extract paragraphs
 23       that lead me to believe that is basically the core of
 24       what you want the wrap-around to be and why it is in
 25       the public interest.


  1  6717                 How do you fence that in or define
  2       it, by reference to categories or perhaps without
  3       reference to categories, as well?  The categories open
  4       all kinds of -- even with my little experience, I can
  5       find cooking shows, travel shows, gardening shows,
  6       hobby shows, sports.
  7  6718                 MS WATSON:  Some sort of assurance
  8       that we won't be doing hobby/travel shows.
  9  6719                 COMMISSIONER WYLIE:  No.  Assurance
 10       that you will be doing a public affairs wrap-around.
 11  6720                 MS WATSON:  Exactly.
 12  6721                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You might actually
 13       try both.  Try a definition and nature of service and
 14       then perhaps suggest ways in which, by condition of
 15       licence or otherwise, you might narrow the descriptions
 16       in the categories to fence in your public affairs
 17       mandate.
 18  6722                 MR. STEIN:  We will do that.
 19  6723                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 20       much.  It has been very informative.
 21  6724                 Counsel, do you have a further
 22       question?
 23  6725                 MS BENNETT:  I should clarify for the
 24       record that CPAC will file these things within five
 25       calendar days, and intervenors will have three days to


  1       provide their comments.
  2  6726                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
  3       much.
  4  6727                 MR. STEIN:  Thank you for your time.
  5  6728                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will take a
  6       brief break of five minutes.  We will come back at 5:05
  7       with the next hearing.
  8  6729                 That closes this hearing, actually.
  9  6730                 MR. LEBEL:  Mr. Chairman --
 10  6731                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm sorry, I always
 11       forget this.
 12  6732                 Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
 13  6733                 MR. LEBEL:  Just before you pull the
 14       plug, sir, I would like to indicate that there are 21
 15       non-appearing applications on the agenda of this public
 16       hearing.  Interventions were received on some of these
 17       applications.
 18  6734                 The interventions, along with the
 19       application, will be considered by the Commission, and
 20       decisions will be rendered at a later date.
 21  6735                 Now this, Mr. Chairman, completes the
 22       agenda of this public hearing.  Thank you.
 23  6736                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This hearing is
 24       adjourned.
 25  6737                 We will reconvene with another


  1       hearing at 5:05.
  2       --- Whereupon the hearing concluded at 1700 /
  3           L'audience se termine à 1700

Date modified: