|
Public Notice CRTC 2001-115
|
|
Ottawa, 6 November 2001
|
|
The distribution of the proceedings of the House
of Commons on CPAC
|
|
The Commission recognizes the importance of ensuring access by
all Canadians to the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
various committees and has therefore decided that the proceedings
must now be made available in both official languages to most cable
and satellite subscribers across the country, to maximize the
benefit to the public. The Commission acknowledges the cable
distribution industry’s and other broadcasting distribution
undertakings (BDU) voluntary support of CPAC’s carriage of this
programming vital to the public interest.
|
|
Background
|
1. |
The Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) is a satellite-to-cable
programming undertaking owned by members of the Canadian cable
distribution industry. Its programming consists of two main
elements: programming provided by the House of Commons Broadcasting
Service, and public affairs programming produced by CPAC. The House
of Commons programming includes gavel-to-gavel coverage of the
proceedings of the House of Commons, and coverage of its various
parliamentary committees. The proceedings are provided unedited with
no editorial comment. They are available in three audio modes:
English, French and "floor" sound (language of originating
speaker). Under the terms of its agreement with the House of
Commons, when the House is in session, CPAC must carry the
proceedings live, and cannot pre-empt the coverage.
|
2. |
In addition to carriage of the proceedings noted above, CPAC also
offers 30 hours per week of original programming and 46 hours each
week of long-format coverage of committees, conferences, hearings
and special events. Past coverage has included provincial inquiries
such as the Walkerton water inquiry, landmark Supreme Court of
Canada cases, coverage of the APEC, Somalia and Krever inquiries,
the forum organized by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian
communities, and coverage of the World Trade Organization meetings
in Seattle.
|
3. |
CPAC operates on a not-for-profit basis and is funded by its
affiliates, which currently include 84 licensed cable distributors
and two national DTH satellite distributors. The service does not
have a basic rate, therefore subscribers are not charged directly
for it as part of their subscription rate. According to CPAC,
revenues received from its affiliates are reinvested in production,
acquisition of programming and the expenses of distributing the
service by satellite.
|
4. |
Under the current regulationts governing BDUs, neither CPAC nor
the House of Commons proceedings are mandatory, or "must
carry" signals. If Class 1 or Class 2 BDUs elect to distribute
CPAC, they must carry it as part of the basic service, and Class 3
BDUs are not subject to any requirement to carry CPAC. While the
carriage of CPAC is not mandated, it is carried widely across Canada
by a variety of BDUs, including cable distributors, direct-to-home
(DTH) operators and multi-point distribution systems (MDS)
distributors.
|
|
Support for CPAC in the distribution industry
|
5. |
The Commission recognizes the efforts of the BDU industry, in
achieving voluntarily the wide distribution of CPAC throughout
Canada. According to CPAC, its service is provided to 95% of all
cable television subscribers (approximately 7.5 million homes) and
to over one million DTH subscribers across Canada. According to
information provided by MediaStats, CPAC is currently received by
99.6% of all Class 1 system subscribers, and by 89% of all Class 2
system subscribers.
|
6. |
In its Report on French-language broadcasting services in a
minority environment (Public Notice CRTC 2001-25) (the Report),
the Commission noted that when CPAC is distributed, it is very often
available only in the English-language version. In the consultations
leading to the Report, it was noted that many communities with
sizeable official language minorities (most particularly
French-language communities) do not have access to CPAC in their
official language. While CPAC is often available in the other
official language on a secondary audio program (SAP) channel, or as
part of an audio programming service, audiences are often unaware of
these options.
|
7. |
The term SAP channel refers to the second, or secondary, audio
programming signal. SAP signals are receivable in the home using
televisions or VCRs that are equipped with internal SAP decoders.
Stand-alone SAP decoders are also available. A subscriber with the
appropriate equipment can access a SAP channel by routing it to the
television speaker. Although television manufacturers are not
obliged to equip sets with decoders, they have been added to many
televisions since the early 1990’s. (For additional information on
SAP technology, refer to Public Notice CRTC 2001-46).
|
8. |
According to CPAC, 8% of Canadian BDU subscribers receive two
separate video channels of CPAC. A further 37% of subscribers who
receive the video signal in one official language also have access
to an audio feed in the other official language, offered either on a
SAP channel, or on the radio services offered by the distributor.
DTH distributors currently provide CPAC to all of their subscribers,
in both official languages.
|
9. |
In the Report, the Commission stated with respect to CPAC that it
"expects distributors to provide this service in the language
of the majority in any given market, and also to offer the SAP
signal in the language of the minority where the technology being
used makes this possible." At the same time, the Commission
noted that it would "shortly initiate a separate process to
determine whether the distribution status of CPAC should be changed
in light of its importance in making the proceedings of the House of
Commons available to Canadians." That process was initiated by
Public Notice CRTC 2001-46.
|
10. |
Public Notice 2001-46 called for public comment on what changes
to the current rules would be both reasonable and effective in
ensuring the broadest possible distribution of CPAC to BDU
subscribers across Canada, in both official languages. In
particular, the Commission called for comments on the following
questions:
|
|
· What should
be the distribution status of CPAC? For example, should it be
mandatory to carry the service on an analog channel in the official
language of the majority of any given community? |
|
· Should
carriage of the service in the official language of the minority of
any given community also be a regulatory requirement? Alternatively,
is the expectation set out by the Commission in PN 2001-25
sufficient to accomplish the Commission’s objectives? |
|
· If carriage
of CPAC in the official language of the minority is made mandatory,
how should it be distributed? Would carriage of the audio feed on a
SAP channel be sufficient, or should it be given its own, separate
video channel (i.e. should two video channels be dedicated to the
distribution of CPAC)? If carriage on a SAP channel is sufficient,
what onus should be placed on distributors and CPAC to make
subscribers aware of the availability of the service in this mode,
and to educate subscribers concerning how to access the signal? |
|
· If CPAC in
the official language of the minority is to be given its own video
channel, should it be on an analog or on a digital channel? Should
it be distributed as a discretionary service or should it be
accorded a distribution status equivalent to that now generally
given the service when distributed in the official language of the
majority (i.e. on an analog channel of the basic service)? |
|
· Should all
types and classes of BDUs generally be made subject to the same
regulatory requirements with respect to the distribution of CPAC? |
|
Positions of parties
|
11. |
The Commission received six interventions addressing the issues
noted above, including submissions from the Canadian Cable
Television Association (CCTA), the Commissioner of Official
Languages, Global TV and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters
(CAB).
|
|
Distribution of CPAC in the official language of the majority and
of the minority
|
12. |
The CCTA, the CAB and CPAC all observed that CPAC is currently
distributed to more than 7.5 million households, representing over
95% of all cable television subscribers. The interveners argued that
because significant subscriber penetration of CPAC has been achieved
on a voluntary basis, mandatory carriage of the service in the
official language of the majority is unnecessary.
|
13. |
The intervention submitted by the Commissioner of Official
Languages stated that access to the Debates of the House of Commons
is essential to the healthy exercise of democracy, and therefore all
Canadians should enjoy equal access to these debates in Canada’s
two official languages. In the Commissioner’s opinion, when the
House of Commons chooses to disseminate parliamentary debates by one
method or another, it must respect the principle of equal access to
the proceedings of Parliament, and the requirement for bilingualism
which flows from that. The Commissioner further noted that both an
English-language and a French-language version of the proceedings of
the House of Commons and its committees should be distributed in an
equivalent manner, on two separate television channels.
|
14. |
The CAB added in its intervention that it supports "the
Commission’s goal of ensuring that Canadians have access to CPAC,
particularly the proceedings of the House of Commons, in the
language of their choice."
|
15. |
The CCTA also stated that "it supports the principle that
the debates and proceedings of Parliament should be available to the
Canadian public in both official languages." The CCTA does not,
however, advocate mandatory carriage of CPAC at this time, in either
official language.
|
16. |
In addition, both the CCTA and the CAB opposed the idea of a
separate television signal in the official language of the minority.
They believe that such a practice would be an approach that would be
difficult to justify in light of simpler, less expensive
alternatives. According to the CAB, a separate television signal for
the other official language "would likely result in the need to
displace an existing analog service, which would be disruptive to
subscribers and potentially Canadian programming services, if
channel realignment were necessary." The CAB further argued
that such a model could also result in BDUs having to deny carriage
to a number of newly licensed digital specialty services. The CCTA
argued that this would create unnecessary redundancy at a time when
new services are becoming available to subscribers.
|
17. |
CPAC noted that only one video signal is produced by the House of
Commons Broadcasting Service, and made available to CPAC. The video
component of the television signal is identical for all three
language versions of the service (English, French and floor).
|
18. |
The CCTA and CPAC both support an approach in which the
Commission would expect that Class 1 and Class 2 cable systems that
carry CPAC in one language should also carry the audio feed in the
other official language, on a SAP channel. The CCTA and CPAC are of
the opinion that the SAP channel would provide a simple, cost
effective and efficient method to make the audio in the other
official language available.
|
19. |
According to the CCTA, by Fall 2002, SAP technology will be
available on Class 1 cable systems serving more than 80% of Canadian
cable subscribers. The CCTA adds that, although it will be difficult
and costly to invest in this equipment, Class 2 cable systems will
also be making every effort to implement it as quickly as possible.
CPAC further submits that increasing subscriber awareness of the
utility of SAP technology and the strong degree of competition that
now exists between different types of BDUs will ensure the continued
deployment of this technology.
|
20. |
The CAB and Global TV stated that all BDUs using analog
technology should be required to provide a second CPAC audio feed
using the SAP signal, in the official language of the minority, and
that all BDUs using digital technology should be required to offer a
separate video channel of CPAC in the official language of the
minority. In the CAB’s view, the dual analog SAP/digital approach
is the "most reasonable and effective solution" to ensure
that Canadians have access to the proceedings of the House of
Commons and its various committees, in the official language of
their choice.
|
21. |
Both the CCTA and CPAC opposed the CAB’s suggestion. The use of
a separate video channel on digital to carry the service is opposed
by the CCTA for similar reasons as those voiced over the two-video
channel distribution method proposed in Public Notice 2001-46.
|
|
Distribution status and method for Class 3 BDUs
|
22. |
In PN 2001-46, the Commission offered the following question as a
matter for consideration:
|
|
· Should all
types and classes of BDUs generally be made subject to the same
regulatory requirements with respect to the distribution of CPAC? |
23. |
Two opposing positions were expressed on this issue. The CAB and
the Commissioner of Official Languages were both of the opinion that
all BDUs, regardless of size, should be required to distribute the
service of CPAC. The CAB suggested that all BDUs should distribute a
second-language audio feed on an analog basis, using the SAP signal,
while the Commissioner of Official Languages stated that all BDUs
should be distributing the proceedings of the House of Commons on
two separate video channels in both official languages.
|
24. |
In response to whether all BDUs should be subject to the same
regulatory requirements with respect to the distribution of CPAC,
the comments of the Commissioner of Official Languages were limited
to access to the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
committees in the following statement:
|
|
…all Canadians should have access to these debates …equal
access derives from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the
Official Languages Act and should not be subject to subscribers’
place of residence. Undertakings with less than 2,000 subscribers
should accordingly also offer CPAC in both official languages.
|
25. |
In contrast, the CCTA expressed the view that Class 1 and Class 2
systems be expected to carry the audio feed of CPAC in the official
language of the minority, using SAP technology. Class 3 systems
should be expected to do so only where resources permit. The CCTA is
of the view that many Class 3 cable systems, particularly those
serving only a few hundred subscribers, would find it difficult to
justify the expense of installing SAP equipment when only a handful
of subscribers might wish to use it.
|
|
The Commission’s determination
|
|
The commitment of the BDU industry to CPAC
|
26. |
The Commission acknowledges the valuable contribution of the
cable industry and CPAC’s affiliates, in funding and supporting
CPAC. The CCTA reports that the cable industry has invested nearly
$40 million in CPAC since its 1993 launch. This investment has taken
the form of fees paid by distributors, without subscribers being
charged directly.
|
27. |
CPAC’s public affairs programming is regarded by the Commission
as a significant and valuable component which complements the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees. At the same
time, the Commission is of the view that coverage of the proceedings
themselves is primarily what makes CPAC a unique and vital service.
It is this component that is essential to "safeguard, enrich
and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric
of Canada." [The Broadcasting Act, S. 3 (1)(d)(i)].
|
28. |
Therefore, consistent with its recommendation in the Report, the
Commission has determined that its main objective in this matter
should be ensuring that a majority of Canadians have access to the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees, in the
official language of their choice.
|
29. |
In addition to the proposed changes to the regulations, the
Commission therefore strongly encourages the cable industry
and CPAC affiliates to continue to provide funding for the
production and distribution of all of CPAC’s programming. It also
encourages CPAC to continue its valuable role as the distributor
across Canada of both the proceedings of the House of Commons and
its committees, under the agreement with the House of Commons
Broadcasting Service.
|
30. |
The Commission notes that CPAC's current licence term will expire
on 31 August 2002. At that time, CPAC will be able to address its
continued role in providing both its service and the proceedings of
the House of Commons to the Canadian public.
|
|
Ensuring distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons
– Distribution in the official language of the majority
|
31. |
The separate proceeding initiated by Public Notice 2001-46 was
intended not only to address the issue of distribution in the
official language of the minority, but to also examine the status of
the service in the official language of the majority. There is
currently no regulatory requirement that the proceedings be
distributed, in either official language. For this reason, the
Commission is of the view that any measure to ensure distribution in
the official language of the minority should first address
distribution to audiences in the language of the majority.
|
32. |
The cable and DTH industry has demonstrated its strong and
ongoing commitment to the support of CPAC and the proceedings of the
House of Commons by voluntarily making the service widely available.
Notwithstanding this support, the Commission believes that, in order
to achieve the vital goal of making CPAC available in both official
languages, further measures are necessary.
|
33. |
The Commission has concluded that the most appropriate method to
achieve this vital goal is through an amendment to the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations (the regulations), which will codify
existing practices in the industry. These regulatory changes will
result in the enhancement of the level of distribution that has been
achieved voluntarily.
|
34. |
The Commission hereby announces that it intends to amend the
regulations. The amendment will require that all Class
1 and 2 BDUs, including all DTH BDUs, distribute the proceedings of
the House of Commons and its various committees, as part of the
basic service. DTH BDUs must distribute the service in both official
languages. The amended regulations will come into effect on
1 September 2002.
|
|
Distribution in the official language of the minority
|
35. |
Once distribution in the language of the majority is ensured for
most cable and satellite subscribers, measures to ensure
distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons in the
official language of the minority can then be contemplated. A number
of approaches were suggested and considered during this process. The
Commission is of the opinion that the approach it has adopted will
effectively balance the need for access to the proceedings in both
official languages, with concerns related to capacity and the
potential for disruption to subscribers.
|
36. |
Some parties advocated that service to audiences in the official
language of the minority be provided by a separate video channel.
The Commission, however, continues to be of the view set out in the
Report, that the use of SAP technology is appropriate in situations
where the video feed is identical for both official languages.
|
37. |
The Commission has considered several factors in this matter,
including:
|
|
· the
widespread implementation of SAP technology by Class 1 BDUs, |
|
· the
commitment made by many Class 2 BDUs to implement this system, and |
|
· the
accessability of SAP signals through both televisions and VCRs. |
38. |
Taking these factors into account, the vast majority of Canadians
should have access to both audio feeds through this technology. The
Commission notes CPAC’s suggestion for a campaign to make viewers
aware of the easy availability of the second audio feed, and expects
both CPAC and distributors to implement such a campaign.
|
|
Distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
various committees, on Class 1 and 2 BDUs
|
39. |
The Commission has therefore concluded that, for Class 1 and
Class 2 systems, where the proceedings of the House of Commons and
its committees are distributed in the official language of the
majority, the most appropriate method to serve the linguistic
minority will be through the use of a separate audio feed on the SAP
channel. This method will ensure that, using the current analog
technology, audiences will be able to receive the proceedings in
either official language.
|
40. |
The Commission is of the view that the method chosen at this time
to distribute the proceedings in the official language of the
minority should be one that will remain viable and accessible to
subscribers, as digital technology proliferates and more consumers
embrace it.
|
41. |
The Commission also considered the position of small operators.
Most distributors with a digital capacity of less than 750 MHz have
a capacity of only between 30 and 50 channels on digital, although
they are subject to significant distribution requirements. These
include the distribution of 16 new Category 1 services, as well as
the distribution of between six and eight French-language services
in English-language markets. Given the issue of capacity
constraints, the Commission is of the view that a requirement for
systems with a digital capacity of less than 750 MHz to provide the
proceedings in the language of the minority on a second video
channel would be onerous.
|
42. |
In the Report, the Commission acknowledged that all levels of
digital technology were not identical. In recognition of the
differences, it imposed varying distribution requirements, based on
the technology employed. For example, high capacity systems (those
with over 750 MHz capacity) are required to distribute all French-
and English-language Canadian specialty services. In the
Commission's view, these systems have the resources to provide all
Canadian services. Consistent with this approach, the Commission has
concluded that all Class 1 and Class 2 distributors with high
capacity digital systems (750 MHz or more) should be required to
provide a separate video version of CPAC, in the official language
of the minority.
|
43. |
For all the reasons set out above, the Commission has determined
that the proceedings of the House of Commons and its various
committees, where distributed in the language of the minority,
should be distributed in the following manner:
|
|
a) All Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs
employing digital technology with a capacity of 750 MHz or
more, will be required to make available a separate video
channel of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
committees, in the official language of the minority, on either
a digital or an analog basis. |
|
b) All Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs,
including those referred to in a) above will be required
to make available a second audio feed of the proceedings of the
House of Commons and its committees, in the official language of the
minority, using SAP technology. |
44. |
The requirements set out above will take effect 1 September 2002,
and will be implemented through amendments to the regulations.
|
|
Distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons
and its various committees, on Class 3 BDUs
|
45. |
As noted above, the technical capacity of distributors was
considered by the Commission in determining how services should be
distributed. Consistent with the conclusions of the Report, and
given the importance of the proceedings of the House of Commons to
Canadians, the Commission is of the view that Class 3 BDUs with
capacity more than 550 MHz and employing digital technology should
be subject to the same requirements as Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs.
|
46. |
At the same time, the Commission has determined that Class 3 BDUs
with less than 550 MHz capacity, whether or not they employ
digital technology, should not be required to carry CPAC in
either official language. Such a requirement could be onerous at a
time when the Commission prefers to reduce the regulatory burden for
small systems. In addition, the issue of channel capacity is a
serious one for systems that offer only 24 or 30 channels.
|
47. |
At the same time, the Commission reiterates the existing
widespread distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons
and its committees, on smaller distribution undertakings.
|
48. |
Recognizing the importance of the proceedings of the House of
Commons to Canadians, and, at the same time responding to the unique
circumstances of small distributors, the Commission has developed
the following model for the distribution of the proceedings of the
House of Commons and its committees on Class 3 BDUs:
|
|
a) Class 3 BDUs employing digital distribution (with 550
MHz or more capacity), will be required to provide the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees, in both
official languages.
|
|
Fully interconnected Class 3 systems must distribute the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees with the
same distribution status in both official languages as the system
to which it is interconnected, unless the Class 3 system does not
have the channel capacity to do so.
|
|
b) Class 3 BDUs employing analog
distribution are strongly encouraged to distribute the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees on an
analog channel.
|
|
All Class 3 systems presently distributing the House of Commons
proceedings, and that are not fully interconnected, but owned by
one of the four largest multiple system operators (affiliated
Class 3 systems), will be required to continue the
distribution of the proceedings, and to make available a second
audio feed of the proceedings, in the official language of the
minority, using SAP technology. All affiliated Class 3 systems
that are not currently distributing the proceedings will be
strongly expected to distribute the proceedings, including the use
of SAP technology.
|
49. |
The digital distribution requirements set out above are proposed
to take effect 1 September 2002, and will be implemented
through amendments to the regulations and to the proposed exemption
order for Class 3 systems (Public Notice 2001-59).
|
50. |
The Commission will issue proposed amendments to the regulations,
in the near future, to give effect to the conclusions set out above.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternate format upon request and
may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
|