Vol. 133, No. 7 — February 13, 1999

COMMISSIONS

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

NOTICE NO. HA-98-011

Appeals

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal will hold public hearings to consider the appeals listed hereunder. The hearings will be held beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Tribunal's hearing room, Standard Life Centre, 18th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7. Interested persons planning to attend should contact the Tribunal at (613) 991-5767 for further information and to ensure that the hearings will be held as scheduled.

Excise Tax Act
Appellant v. Respondent (Minister of National Revenue)
March 1999

Date	Appeal Number	Appellant
1	AP-92-222	Les Huiles Idéal Inc. Subsections 23(1) and (2) and 50(1)
25	AP-94-326	Consolidated NBS Inc. Section 45.1 and subsections 2(1) and 50(1)

Customs Act
Appellant v. Respondent (Deputy Minister of National Revenue)
March 1999

Date	Appeal Number	Appellant
3	AP-98-067 Goods in Issue: Date of Entry: At Issue:	The Stevens Company Limited See-through pouches and rolls for sterilization of medical instruments November 19, 1996 Applicability of Code 2516
15	AP-98-061 Goods in Issue: Date of Entry: Tariff Items at Issue Appellant: Respondent:	Xerox Canada Inc. Thermal transfer film rolls January 8, 1997 3920.62.00 and Code 7934, or 8517.90 9612.10.90

February 5, 1999

By Order of the Tribunal

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES

The following notices are abridged versions of the Commission's original notices bearing the same number. The original notices contain a more detailed outline of the applications, including additional locations and addresses where the complete files may be examined. The relevant material, including the notices and applications, is available for viewing during normal business hours at the following offices of the Commission:

— Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Examination Room, 1 Promenade du Portage, Room 201, Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2, (819) 997-2429 (Telephone), (819) 994-0218 (Facsimile), (819) 994-0423 (TDD);

— Bank of Commerce Building, 10th Floor, Suite 1007, 1809 Barrington Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8, (902) 426-7997 (Telephone), (902) 426-2721 (Facsimile), (902) 426-6997 (TDD);

— Place Montréal Trust, Suite 1920, 1800 McGill College Avenue, Montréal, Quebec H3A 3J6, (514) 283-6607 (Telephone), (514) 283-3689 (Facsimile), (514) 283-8316 (TDD);

— The Kensington Building, 1810-275 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3, (204) 983-6306 (Telephone), (204) 983-6317 (Facsimile), (204) 983-8274 (TDD);

— 580 Hornby Street, Suite 530, Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6, (604) 666-2111 (Telephone), (604) 666-8322 (Facsimile), (604) 666-0778 (TDD).

Interventions must be filed with the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, together with proof that a true copy of the intervention has been served upon the applicant, on or before the deadline given in the notice.

LAURA M. TALBOT-ALLAN
Secretary General

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISIONS

The complete texts of the decisions summarized below are available from the offices of the CRTC.

99-32 February 2, 1999

3145069 Canada inc.
Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec

Approved — Increase in the effective radiated power for CFEI-FM Saint-Hyacinthe, from 640 watts to 3 000 watts.

99-33 February 4, 1999

Rawlco Ottawa Ltd.
Ottawa, Ontario

Approved — English-language radio network licence to broadcast the National Hockey League games of the Ottawa Senators. The licence will expire August 31, 2005.

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARING 1999-1-1

The Commission will hold a public hearing commencing on March 26, 1999, at 9 a.m. (Issue No. 2), at the Commission Headquarters, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec, to consider the following:

13. Cornwall, Ontario
Tri-Co Broadcasting Limited

For a broadcasting licence to carry on an English-language FM (radio) programming undertaking at Cornwall, operating on a frequency of 101.9 MHz (channel 270A) with an effective radiated power of 3 000 watts, upon surrender of the current licence issued to CJSS Cornwall.

The Commission hereby advises that the above-mentioned application which was published in Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 1998-3 dated May 14, 1998, is now scheduled for this public hearing. It should be noted that only the interventions already received, accepted and filed on the public file will be considered by the Commission in its study of this application.

February 4, 1999

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-18

Applications for Amendments Concerning Radio Programming Undertakings

In Public Notice CRTC 1998-132, Regulations Amending the Radio Regulations, 1986 — Commercial Radio Programming, the Commission addressed the special case of radio stations whose formats are based on the presentation of older music. The Commission indicated that it would generally be disposed to give favourable consideration to applications requesting flexibility to broadcast a lower level of Canadian popular music than the 35 percent required under subsections 2.2(8) and 2.2(9) of the Regulations Amending the Radio Regulations, 1986, SOR/98-597. This lower level would take into account the relatively limited supply of Canadian music appropriate for the formats of these stations.

Specifically, the Commission indicated, in Public Notice CRTC 1998-132, that it will generally be prepared to approve applications by licensees for conditions of licence permitting them to broadcast a minimum of 30 percent Canadian popular (category 2) musical selections during any broadcast week where at least 90 percent of the music they plan consists of selections released before January 1, 1981. Stations would be required to meet this 30 percent minimum level both over the broadcast week and between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Stations subject to this condition of licence would also be responsible for specifying, on the music lists they provide to the Commission, the year of release for all musical selections they broadcast.

The Commission has received the following applications to amend the broadcasting licence of the following radio programming undertakings by adding a condition of licence incorporating the flexibility outlined above:

Atlantic Region

— Maritime Broadcasting System Limited
Halifax, Nova Scotia (CHNS and CHNX);
Saint John, New Brunswick (CFBC)

— Bras d'Or Broadcasting Limited
Sydney, Nova Scotia (CHER)

Deadline for intervention: March 11, 1999

February 3, 1999

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-19

Call for Comments on a Licensing Framework for New Pay and Specialty Services

Summary

This notice calls for comments on issues relating to the development of an appropriate licensing framework that will be used in the consideration of applications for new pay and specialty services. Comments must be submitted by April 9, 1999.

Issues to be addressed as part of the establishment of any new licensing framework include:

— whether digital or analog licensing would be more appropriate;

— the extent to which the access rules should apply to any new services that may be licensed;

— the appropriate carriage status for any new services that may be licensed; and

— tiering, packaging and linkage rules that might be applied to any new services that may be licensed.

In addition, this notice raises questions about possible licensing criteria that may be appropriate in any consideration of applications for new pay and specialty services. These criteria may relate to the ability of new services to contribute to broadcasting policy objectives, as well as the extent to which financial and competitive factors, distributor equity, other forms of cross ownership, and wholesale rates should form part of the consideration of applications for new pay and specialty services.

Section I — The Context

Background

1. In 1997, the Commission received over 70 applications for new pay and specialty services.

2. In Public Notice CRTC 1998-79 dated July 30, 1998, the Commission announced that it would postpone its consideration of the applications for new English-language pay and specialty television services until it completed a separate process to examine what appropriate licensing framework could be established for such services.

3. This decision was taken, in part, because of the limited number of vacant analog channels available on cable systems outside Quebec. The Commission also noted that the deployment of digital cable technology, which will increase channel capacity, has been slower than expected.

4. Since there were fewer concerns about channel capacity in Quebec, the applications for new French-language specialty services were heard at a public hearing held in Montréal in December of 1998.

5. Some of the English-language specialty services licensed in 1996 have not yet launched. Where digital cable has not been deployed to the extent defined under section 18(3) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations), these services are entitled to access on analog channels as of September 1, 1999.

6. These circumstances, taken together, raise concerns about the ability of major cable systems outside Quebec to provide access to any new pay or specialty services that may be licensed for analog distribution.

7. The Commission considers that the programming provided by pay and specialty services makes an important contribution to the attainment of the objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act (the Act). These services may provide an even wider variety of high quality Canadian programming as we move into a digital world with more channel capacity. Therefore, a licensing framework process should consider the establishment of licensing criteria designed to ensure that pay and specialty services make an appropriate contribution to the exhibition and support of Canadian programming as well as address matters related to the distribution and carriage of such services.

The licensing framework process

8. The Commission is now beginning the process announced in Public Notice CRTC 1998-79. Any new licensing framework that may be developed will not apply to existing pay and specialty services. Further, any new framework that may be developed will not be applied in the Commission's consideration of the French-language specialty service applications heard at the December 7, 1998 public hearing in Montréal. However, the Commission welcomes comments on any new framework for licensing future French-language services.

9. The Commission will place on the public file, and to the extent possible on its Web site as well, detailed financial and ownership information concerning the pay and specialty industry as well as audience and channel capacity data. Interested parties are, therefore, encouraged to monitor the content of the public examination file.

10. The next section of this notice sets out the issues the Commission wishes to explore as part of this process and poses a number of questions related to these issues. Interested parties have until April 9, 1999, to provide their comments.

11. Following consideration of these comments, the Commission will release a public notice announcing its determination on the various issues raised in this notice, including any licensing framework that may be developed.

12. Applicants who have previously submitted applications for new pay and specialty services will then have an opportunity to revise their applications in light of the Commission's determinations, or to withdraw their applications. At the same time, these applicants or any other interested parties may submit new applications for pay and specialty services having regard to any new licensing framework that may be developed.

13. Applications received pursuant to the Commission's directions following the conclusion of this proceeding will be heard at a future public hearing. Details of this public hearing will be announced at a later date.

Section II — Issues and Questions

Licensing framework

14. The Commission wishes to explore a number of issues relating to the overall framework under which new services may be licensed. These issues include questions relating to the environment in which new services would likely be operating as well as to the specific terms and conditions under which any new services may be licensed.

Digital distribution

15. In the past, the Commission has licensed pay and specialty services with a view to increasing the diversity of programming available to Canadians, strengthening the Canadian broadcasting system, and increasing the amount of high-quality Canadian programming available in the system.

16. Canadians now have access to a wide range of Canadian pay and specialty services. Most are available to subscribers of major distribution systems; the remaining unlaunched services are to be made available by September 1, 1999. These services make substantial contributions to the achievement of the objectives of the Act.

17. The Commission recognizes that the capacity of cable systems to carry programming services using analog technology is limited. Further, since most analog cable systems are not fully addressable, this technology restricts the ability of cable operators to offer many different packages of services to satisfy various consumer interests.

18. The use of digital technology permits distributors to offer programming services to consumers on an individual basis. Direct-to-home (DTH) and multipoint distribution systems (MDS), both of which the Commission has already licensed, use digital technology. Further, some cable operators are converting all or part of their systems to digital technology. Overall channel capacity may currently be restricted on some of these distribution undertakings due to satellite capacity or other technical limitations. However, the number of programming services such systems may offer in the near future is expected to be much greater than the number offered on an existing analog basis.

19. New programming content is expected to encourage the deployment of digital distribution and related technology as consumer demand for new services increases. Such programming would also contribute to the building of a strong Canadian presence in a digital world. The Commission considers that high-quality Canadian pay and specialty services may well provide some of the content required to encourage digital distribution and expects that any new pay and specialty services will be licensed primarily on a digital basis. The Commission wishes to explore issues relating to digital licensing and the potential viability of new services that may be licensed for distribution on this basis only.

20. In particular, the Commission seeks comments on the following questions:

(1) Should new pay and specialty services be licensed (a) for digital distribution only? (b) for either analog or digital distribution and if so, at whose option?

(2) Is there sufficient analog channel capacity or demand to warrant licensing any new services for distribution on an analog basis? If so, how many analog services could be licensed?

(3) Would a different business plan be required if new services were licensed for digital distribution only? When would the programming services likely begin operating? What estimates may be made of the number of subscribers who would have access to these services, and in what time frame?

Access rules

21. The Regulations set out access rules governing the carriage of Canadian pay and specialty services. These rules ensure that licensed Canadian pay and specialty television services obtain access to distribution systems, to the extent of available channel capacity.

22. The access rules generally do not make a distinction between analog and digital distribution. Thus, new specialty and pay television services licensed on either a digital or analog basis would be entitled to access to analog cable systems, to the extent of available channel capacity under the access rules. This would apply unless the application of the access rules was specifically modified for certain services, as was done in the case of the deferred-access services licensed in 1996.

23. Some parties may argue that there is no need for formal access rules in an environment characterized by abundant channel capacity. In such an environment, distributors would have an incentive to provide access to new programming services since this might generate increased revenues for the distributor or encourage more consumers to subscribe.

24. Others, however, might argue that even where channel capacity is unlimited, access rules may be necessary to ensure that distributors do not deny access to certain services, particularly where they have ownership interests in other services that may be competitive.

25. As previously noted, although digital technology is developing, channel capacity is expected to remain limited in the short term.

26. The Commission seeks comments on the application of its access rules to new pay and specialty services in majority language markets. The Commission will initiate a separate process shortly to consider the special case of access for new and existing pay and specialty services in bilingual markets:

(4) What changes, if any, to the current access rules would be appropriate for any new programming services that may be licensed?

(5) If the access rules were to apply, should they apply immediately upon licensing? If not, when and under what conditions should they apply? Should this differ depending on whether a distributor has partially or fully deployed digital technology?

Carriage status

27. When a specialty service is licensed, the Commission generally confers on it a status that determines how it may be carried by distributors. A service given "dual status" must be carried as part of a distributor's basic service, unless the programming service agrees to be carried on a discretionary tier. A service given "modified dual status" must be carried on a discretionary tier, unless both the distributor and the specialty service agree to its carriage as part of the basic service. A service given "discretionary-only" status may only be carried on a discretionary tier.

28. Currently, pursuant to sections 52 and 53 of the Regulations, distributors who add a specialty service to their basic service may increase the basic monthly fee by the amount authorized by the Commission. Recently, however, the Commission has indicated that it intends to consider whether to amend these Regulations so that it may suspend or disallow such increases, where appropriate.

29. During the transition to digital technology, when only a portion of a cable system is digitized, the basic service package and some discretionary services are expected to be distributed using analog technology. Other discretionary services would be offered using digital technology.

30. Other cable operators may offer their full range of services, including both basic and discretionary programming services, on a digital basis as well as on an analog basis during the transitional period.

31. Regardless of the technology used, all distributors are subject to the priority carriage rules set out in the Regulations which govern the programming services that each distributor must carry as part of its basic package. Since distinctions will continue to be made between programming services carried as part of the basic service and those carried on a discretionary basis, carriage status will continue to be relevant to specialty services, even if they are licensed on a digital-only basis. The Commission seeks comments on issues relating to carriage status as part of this proceeding.

(7) What carriage status should be given to any new specialty services that may be licensed? Does the need for carriage status, or the kind of status that may be conferred, differ depending on whether services are licensed on a digital-only basis or primarily on a digital basis but with an option for analog distribution?

(8) As an alternative to conferring carriage status on individual services, should all new specialty services that may be licensed on a digital basis be discretionary only, meaning that they may not be added to the basic service, or could only be added with the Commission's approval? What are the advantages and disadvantages of discretionary-only carriage status, from the perspective of programming services, distributors and subscribers?

Tiering, packaging and linkage

32. Traditionally, cable operators have marketed most specialty services in packages. Consumers may choose whether or not to receive certain discretionary packages, but cannot choose the individual programming services that are included as part of each. While some services may be offered on a stand-alone basis, these tend to be expensive in comparison to services included as part of a package.

33. Distributors that use addressable digital technology, such as DTH and MDS systems, generally offer subscribers greater flexibility in the choice of programming services. While individual programming services are not necessarily offered on a stand-alone basis, subscribers may choose from a list of possibilities to create their own packages of services. Such forms of self-selection do not appear to have had an impact on the price of specialty services to date. It is, however, possible that some services would have to increase their wholesale rate if they were no longer packaged as part of a pre-selected tier with a high level of penetration. This may become a greater concern in a digital environment in which some services achieve very low penetration.

34. The Commission regulates the manner in which distributors may carry foreign programming services. Under the Commission's current distribution and linkage rules (set out in Public Notice CRTC 1997-151), certain non-Canadian programming services may be linked with Canadian specialty services on a one-to-one basis, while others may be linked with pay television services on a five-to-one basis. This approach to linkage is based on the idea that popular foreign services may act as effective packaging partners for Canadian pay and specialty services.

35. Recently, however, some parties have questioned the extent to which foreign services support discretionary tiers. They note the relative popularity of Canadian specialty services and consider that discretionary tiers can be successful without including any foreign services. These parties suggest that increasing the incentives for Canadian programming services to develop partnerships with foreign services may be a better alternative to the current linkage rules.

36. Other parties might argue that permitting digital distributors to carry more foreign services could increase distributor competition and encourage cable operators to deploy digital technology.

37. As part of the licensing framework process, the Commission will consider issues relating to the manner in which Canadian pay and specialty services are packaged, marketed and linked with non-Canadian services.

(9) Is it possible for applicants to develop viable business plans based on stand-alone distribution? Would it be appropriate for the Commission to set out guidelines or rules relating to the packaging and marketing of new pay and specialty services? If so, what should these guidelines be?

(10) Are the current linkage rules for foreign programming services appropriate for new services that may be licensed?

(11) Should the moratorium on the addition of new foreign services to the lists of eligible satellite services be lifted? If so, when?

Licensing criteria

38. In addition to the general approach to licensing new services, the Commission must decide on the criteria it will use to assess individual applications.

39. One approach the Commission may wish to take in licensing digital services would be to establish certain minimum criteria or requirements in areas such as support for Canadian content and programming diversity. It would then license all proposed services that meet these criteria without regard to financial viability, competitiveness or other factors. The Commission seeks comments on the appropriateness of such an approach, as well as the minimum criteria that might be established.

(12) In licensing new programming services, would it be appropriate for the Commission to establish minimum criteria and license every potential service that meets them, without regard to other factors?

(13) If so, in what areas should minimum standards be established? How should minimum standards be defined in these areas? Would demand for the service be one consideration?

40. Certain potential licensing criteria are discussed in more detail below.

Contribution to broadcasting policy objectives

41. In assessing applications for new pay and specialty services, the Commission considers the potential contribution of such services to the objectives set out in the Act.

42. Such objectives have generally been met through the exhibition of and expenditures on Canadian programming. Through these mechanisms, the pay and specialty services sector currently makes a substantial contribution to the strength of the Canadian broadcasting system.

43. The Commission notes that services licensed in a digital environment may be unable to achieve the same level of contribution as those licensed on an analog basis. New services distributed on a digital-only basis would have access to a limited subscriber base for at least the first several years, and may have trouble generating sufficient funds to make substantial investments in Canadian programming.

44. These factors may have to be considered in assessing applications for new services that may be licensed on a digital basis only.

(14) How may new pay and specialty services that may be licensed on a digital basis only, and made available to a limited number of subscribers, best contribute to the objectives of the Act? What minimum standards or thresholds for Canadian content should all licensed programming services be required to meet? Should such standards be tied to the level of penetration or revenues achieved by each service? Should any new services be licensed for terms shorter than the maximum allowed by the Act?

Competitive and financial factors

45. To date, the Commission has not licensed services within a specific program genre that are directly competitive. Given limitations on channel capacity, licensing two or more services in the same genre did not appear to be consistent with the objective of increasing programming diversity. Further, licensing two directly competitive services might tend to reduce the financial viability of both services and could drive up the cost of acquiring rights to relevant programming. This could ultimately result in a decrease in programming choice.

46. The Commission has generally licensed only programming services that it considers will have a reasonable opportunity to succeed. Programming services have been licensed with the expectation that they will launch and make significant contributions to the objectives of the Act. Applicants have been expected to provide evidence of financial viability and the Commission has also considered the effect that each proposed service would have on existing services.

47. Concerns about financial viability and direct competition may be mitigated in a digital environment characterized by expanded channel capacity. In such an environment, it may be more appropriate to license all services that meet certain minimum standards, and allow consumers to choose between competitive services.

48. The Commission wishes to explore the extent to which it would be appropriate to continue considering financial viability and competitiveness of potential new services in any future licensing process.

(15) In considering applications for new pay and specialty services that would be licensed on a digital basis, should the Commission be concerned about the potential viability of these services? Does this depend on whether services are licensed on an analog or digital basis?

(16) Should the Commission be concerned about the financial impact, if any, of new services on existing specialty and pay services or existing conventional television services?

(17) Should the Commission maintain its policy of licensing only one service in each program genre, or should it be prepared to license new services that are directly competitive either with each other or with existing services?

Distributor equity

49. In its May 19, 1995 report to the Government Competition and Culture on Canada's Information Highway (the Convergence Report), the Commission stated:

Until there is sufficient capacity on cable networks, and until transparent access rules are in place to prevent undue preference, affiliates of cable licensees should not generally be granted licences to operate, nor should they be permitted to acquire ownership or control of, programming undertakings other than over the air radio and television services.

50. The Commission's access rules, now incorporated in the Regulations, contemplated greater channel capacity — the second requirement noted in the Convergence Report — and a more competitive broadcasting distribution environment. These conditions were expected to mitigate any potential for preference by cable operators toward specialty services in which they held an interest.

51. The Regulations also include an undue preference provision. Section 9 states: "No licensee shall give an undue preference to any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue disadvantage".

52. In 1996, the Commission licensed a number of specialty services in which distributors had some ownership interest. At that time, the Commission expressed the view that the new access rules, in combination with the projected expanded channel capacity of the digital environment, appeared to be sufficient to ensure that distributors would not show an undue preference toward programming services in which they held equity. It also noted that alternative digital distribution systems, such as DTH and MDS, were becoming available.

53. In Decision CRTC 98-226 dated July 21, 1998, an application by Sportscope Television Network Ltd. for authority to transfer a 47.85 percent voting interest in the specialty service known as Sportscope to Shaw Communications Inc. was denied. The decision stated:

In examining the current broadcasting distribution environment, the Commission finds that market conditions with respect to channel capacity and competition have not materialized to the extent previously anticipated. The Commission considers that the current channel capacity and the level of competitiveness are not sufficient to effectively mitigate any potential undue preference that may be conferred by cable operators on undertakings in which they hold an interest.

54. Similarly, in Decision CRTC 98-487 dated October 23, 1998, an application by CTV Sports Net Inc. for authority to transfer a 20 percent voting interest in this programming service to Rogers Broadcasting Limited, increasing Roger's interest to 40 percent, was denied. That decision cited similar concerns.

55. Some parties might argue that the Commission's concerns regarding distributor equity in programming services will be alleviated in a digital distribution environment.

56. Other parties might consider that distributor equity in digital pay and specialty services may continue to raise concerns about the potential for undue preference, particularly in channel placement, carriage fees, marketing and promotion, which may unduly influence the competitive environment.

57. The Commission wishes to explore issues relating to distributor equity in pay or specialty services as part of this proceeding.

(18) Would it be appropriate to license new pay or specialty services with some distributor equity for distribution on a digital-only basis? Does this depend on whether the distributor is a dominant stakeholder? Does it depend on whether new services are licensed on a digital basis with the possibility of analog distribution at the option of the distributor?

(19) Is there a threshold above which distributor equity becomes a concern?

(20) Would it be appropriate to require distributors to carry other pay or specialty services, on similar terms, before carrying any of their own services?

Other forms of cross ownership

58. In the past, the Commission has licensed pay and specialty services owned by larger corporate groups with other broadcasting-related interests such as conventional television stations or program production companies.

59. Common ownership of conventional and specialty services may allow broadcasters to minimize their programming expenses by creating new "windows" for expensive, high quality Canadian programming. At the same time, it may permit them to consolidate some administrative and infrastructure expenses and to counter the effects of audience fragmentation. Other efficiencies may be created by the consolidation of program distribution and production companies with specialty services.

60. At the same time, this kind of cross ownership may give rise to concerns about the need to ensure fairness and equity for independent producers within the broadcasting system, given that large corporate groups with programming and production interests could limit access to programming services created by independent producers.

61. The Commission wishes to explore issues related to ownership structures of new pay and specialty services during this proceeding.

(21) What are the advantages of cross ownership of specialty services and other broadcasting-related interests? What are the disadvantages of such ownership structures? Is there a need to introduce safeguards in situations where the licensee of a new specialty or pay service may hold ownership interests in other broadcasting-related companies? If so, what safeguards may be appropriate?

(22) In situations where program distribution and production cross ownership exists, would it be appropriate to require a pay or specialty service to provide a minimum amount of independently produced programming? If so, what minimum amount would be appropriate?

Wholesale fees

62. Traditionally, the Commission has regulated the wholesale rate that specialty services may charge distributors when they are included as part of the basic service.

63. The Commission does not currently regulate the wholesale rate of programming services when they are offered on a discretionary basis, although such rates are generally included in an applicant's business plan.

64. Given that the number of subscribers to programming services delivered by using digital technology is expected to be limited at first, wholesale fees for services licensed on a digital basis may be appropriately considered as a matter for negotiation between the programming service and the distributor. Such negotiations are likely to balance the need to generate sufficient revenues from a small subscriber base against the need to increase the subscriber base and thus generate more revenues.

65. Services licensed on a digital-with-option-to-analog basis may, however, ultimately be distributed as part of a highpenetration discretionary tier or even on basic.

66. The Commission wishes to address issues relating to wholesale fees during this proceeding.

(23) Should the wholesale rates proposed by applicants be considered in determining which services, if any, may be licensed?

(24) If new specialty services are licensed on a digital basis with an option for analog distribution, should the Commission set out guidelines respecting the wholesale fee that these services may charge distributors when they are carried on a high-penetration tier? What factors should be taken into account in developing such guidelines?

Procedural matters

Consideration of applications

67. Applicants who have previously submitted applications for new pay and specialty services will have an opportunity to revise their applications in light of the Commission's determinations, or to withdraw their applications. At the same time, these applicants or any other interested parties may submit new applications for pay and specialty services having regard to any new licensing framework that may be developed.

68. Applications received pursuant to the Commission's directions following the conclusion of this proceeding will be heard at a future public hearing. Details of this public hearing will be announced at a later date.

Call for comments

69. The Commission invites written comments addressed to the issues and questions set out in this notice. The deadline for filing written comments is April 9, 1999. The Commission will only accept submissions that it receives on or before this date. While submissions will not otherwise be acknowledged, they will be considered by the Commission and will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided the procedures set out herein have been followed.

70. Interested parties are encouraged to monitor the content of the public examination file for information that may be of use in preparing their submissions.

71. Parties filing submissions that are over five pages in length are asked to include a short executive summary.

72. Submissions filed in response to this notice must be addressed to the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2.

73. All submissions must be filed in hard copy format. The Commission, however, also encourages parties to file electronic versions of their submissions (e-mail or diskette). Such submissions should be in the HTML format; as an alternate choice, "Microsoft Word" may be used for text and "Microsoft Excel" for spreadsheets. Each paragraph of the document should be numbered. In addition, as an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission, the line ***End of Document*** should be entered following the last paragraph of each document. The Commission's Internet e-mail address for electronically filed documents is public.broadcasting@crtc.gc.ca.

74. In order to facilitate access by the public, submissions filed in electronic form will be available, in the language and format in which they are submitted, on the Commission's Web site at www.crtc.gc.ca.

February 3, 1999

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-20

1. The Miracle Channel Association
Lethbridge, Alberta

To amend the broadcasting licence of the (television) programming undertaking CJIL-TV Lethbridge, by adding a transmitter at Bow Island, Alberta, and surrounding area operating on channel 39 with an effective radiated power of 3 820 watts.

Deadline for intervention: March 12, 1999

February 4, 1999

[7-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1999-21

Atlantic and Quebec Region

1. Michel Mathieu
Saint-Constant, Quebec

For authority to amend the technical parameters of the (radio) programming undertaking CJMS Saint-Constant, by changing the frequency from 1 320 kHz to 1 040 kHz and by decreasing the authorized night-time transmitter power from 3 000 to 1 100 watts.

Deadline for intervention: March 12, 1999

February 5, 1999

[7-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

COMPLETION OF PANEL REVIEW

Placa en Rollo (Rolled Steel Plate)

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subrule 78(b) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the binational panel review of the final determination made by the Secretaría de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, respecting Importaciones de Placa en Rollo Originarias y Procedentes de Canadá (Rolled Steel Plate Originating in or Exported from Canada) is completed (Secretariat File No. MEX-96-1904-02).

In an Order issued on December 18, 1998, the binational panel affirmed the investigating authority's Determination on Remand respecting Importaciones de Placa en Rollo Originarias y Procedentes de Canadá (Rolled Steel Plate Originating in or Exported from Canada), which was filed on October 29, 1998.

No Request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee has been filed with the responsible Secretary. Therefore, pursuant to subrule 78(b) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, this Notice of Completion of Panel Review is effective on January 29, 1999, the 31st day following the date on which the responsible Secretary issued the Notice of Final Panel Action.

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4800 (Telephone), (819) 994-1498 (Facsimile).

Explanatory Note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to expeditiously review final determinations to determine whether they are in accordance with the anti-dumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, North American Free Trade Agreement, Royal Bank Centre, Suite 705, 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, (613) 992-9388.

CATHY BEEHAN
Canadian Secretary

[7-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

DECISION

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to rule 70 of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the panel established to review the final determination made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada issued its decision on remand on January 20, 1999 (Secretariat File No. USA-97-1904-03).

In the January 20, 1999 decision, the binational panel remanded the investigating authority's determination on remand respecting certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada.

The binational panel instructed the investigating authority to provide its redetermination on remand within 60 days of the panel decision (by March 22, 1999).

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4800 (Telephone), (819) 994-1498 (Facsimile).

Explanatory Note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to expeditiously review final determinations to determine whether they are in accordance with the anti-dumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, North American Free Trade Agreement, Royal Bank Centre, Suite 705, 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, (613) 992-9388.

CATHY BEEHAN
Canadian Secretary

[7-1-o]

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).