Vol. 134, No. 51 — December 16, 2000

COMMISSIONS

CANADIAN ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS TRIBUNAL

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-3

Request for Reconsideration of the Decision Amending the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma's (SARTeC) Certification Order — Tribunal File No. 1350-00-003

On April 6, 2000, the SARTeC requested that the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal clarify the scope of the sector the SARTeC had been granted on January 30, 1996. On July 28, 2000, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the sector definition accordingly (Tribunal File No. 1350-00-002).

On September 27, 2000, the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision amending the sector. The Tribunal granted the request to reconsider its decision and has decided to seek the views of artists, artists' associations and producers regarding the amendment proposed by the SARTeC.

The request of April 6, 2000 seeks to add a paragraph "(c)" to the SARTeC's sector, such that the certification order would read as follows:

Throughout Canada, a sector composed of:

Any artist, artists' association or producer wishing to file written representations with the Tribunal with respect to this request must do so no later than January 31, 2001.

Written representations may be sent either by facsimile or by mail to the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, 8th Floor West, 240 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1A1; Facsimile No. (613) 947-4125.

JOSÉE DUBOIS
Executive Director

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

COMMENCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJURY INQUIRY

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sheet

Notice was received by the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) on December 4, 2000, from the Acting Director General of the Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) stating that the Commissioner of the CCRA had initiated an investigation into a complaint respecting the alleged injurious dumping of certain corrosion-resistant steel sheet originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China, India, Malaysia, Portugal, the Russian Federation, South Africa and Chinese Taipei, and the alleged injurious subsidizing of certain corrosion-resistant steel sheet originating in or exported from India (Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PI-2000-005).

For the purpose of this investigation, certain corrosion-resistant steel sheet is defined as follows:

flat-rolled steel sheet products of a thickness not exceeding 0.176 in. (4.47 mm), coated or plated with zinc or an alloy wherein zinc and iron are the predominant metals, excluding corrosion-resistant steel sheet products for use in the manufacture of passenger automobiles, buses, trucks, ambulances or hearses, or chassis therefor, or parts, accessories or parts thereof, for which the proper Harmonized System tariff item is 9959.00.00.

Pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the Tribunal has initiated a preliminary injury inquiry to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods have caused material injury or retardation or are threatening to cause material injury, as these words are defined in SIMA.

The Tribunal's inquiry will be conducted by way of written submissions. Each person or government wishing to participate in the inquiry must file a notice of participation with the Secretary on or before December 15, 2000. Each counsel who intends to represent a party in the inquiry must file a notice of representation, as well as a declaration and undertaking, with the Secretary on or before December 15, 2000.

On December 27, 2000, the Tribunal will distribute the public information received from the Commissioner to all parties that filed notices of participation, and the confidential information to counsel who filed a declaration and undertaking with the Tribunal.

Submissions by parties opposed to the complaint must be filed on or before January 8, 2001. These submissions should include evidence, e.g. documents and sources which support the factual statements in the submissions, and argument concerning the questions of:

— whether there are goods produced in Canada, other than those identified in the Commissioner's statement of reasons for initiating the investigation, that are like goods to the allegedly dumped or subsidized goods;

— whether there is more than one class of allegedly dumped or subsidized goods;

— which domestic producers of like goods comprise the domestic industry; and

— whether the information before the Tribunal discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping or subsidizing of the goods has caused material injury or retardation, or threatens to cause material injury.

The complainant may make submissions in response to the submissions of parties opposed to the complaint by January 15, 2001. At that time, other parties supporting the complaint may also make submissions to the Tribunal.

Under section 46 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, a person who provides information to the Tribunal and who wishes some or all of the information to be kept confidential must submit to the Tribunal, at the time the information is provided, a statement designating the information as confidential, together with an explanation as to why that information is designated as confidential. Furthermore, the person must submit a non-confidential summary of the information designated as confidential or a statement indicating why such a summary cannot be made. (See Procedural Guidelines for Designation and Use of Confidential Information in Canadian International Trade Tribunal Proceedings available on the Tribunal's Web site at www. citt.gc.ca.)

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules govern these proceedings.

All submissions must be filed with the Tribunal in 20 copies. The Tribunal will distribute the public submissions to all parties that filed notices of participation and any confidential submissions to counsel who have filed a declaration and undertaking.

Along with the notice of commencement of preliminary injury inquiry, the Secretary has sent a letter to the domestic producers, to importers and to exporters with a known interest in the inquiry which provides details on the procedures and the schedule for the inquiry. The notice and the schedule of events consisting of key dates are available from the Tribunal's Web site at www. citt.gc.ca.

Written submissions, correspondence or requests for information regarding this inquiry should be addressed to: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Written and oral presentations to the Tribunal may be made in English or in French.

Ottawa, December 5, 2000

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

FINDING

Waterproof Footwear and Bottoms of Plastic or Rubber

In the matter of an inquiry, under section 42 of the Special Import Measures Act, respecting waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, under the provisions of section 42 of the Special Import Measures Act, has conducted an inquiry (Inquiry No. NQ-2000-004) following the issuance by the Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of a preliminary determination dated August 10, 2000, and of a final determination dated November 8, 2000, respecting the dumping in Canada of waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber, including moulded clogs, originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China, excluding ski boots, skating boots and all footwear subject to the order made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in Review No. RR-97-001.

Pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal hereby finds that the dumping in Canada of the aforementioned goods originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China has not caused, but is threatening to cause, material injury to the domestic industry, excluding:

— fully waterproof polyvinyl chloride injection-moulded footwear consisting of a one-piece construction where the entire surface, other than the sole portion, is coated with an adhesive and flocked with small particles of suede, suede dust or suede powder, whether or not trimmed with other materials and however fastened; and

— women's waterproof footwear consisting of a polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane injection-moulded sole of non-boat-like construction and a polyurethane or nylon upper that is treated and affixed to the sole in a manner that makes the boot fully waterproof, whether or not trimmed with other materials and however fastened.

The statement of reasons will be issued within 15 days.

Ottawa, December 8, 2000

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

INQUIRY

Helicopter Dry Lease

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) has received a complaint (File No. PR-2000-040) from Canadian Helicopters Limited (the complainant) of Toronto, Ontario, concerning a procurement (Solicitation No. W3999-01M339/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (the Department) on behalf of the Department of National Defence. The solicitation is for the dry lease of three helicopters for the training of Reserve personnel. Pursuant to subsection 30.13(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act and subsection 7(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Tribunal has decided to conduct an inquiry into this complaint.

It is alleged that the Department improperly split the requirement to lease three helicopters and improperly declared the complainant's proposal non-compliant in violation of the Agreement on Internal Trade.

Further information may be obtained from: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Ottawa, December 5, 2000

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[51-1-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:

— Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Ground Floor, Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2, (819) 997-2429 (Telephone), 994-0423 (TDD), (819) 994-0218 (Facsimile);

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

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

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

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 405 De Maisonneuve Boulevard E, 2nd Floor, Suite B2300, Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5, (514) 283-6607 (Telephone), 283-8316 (TDD), (514) 283-3689 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 55 St. Clair Avenue E, Suite 624, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2, (416) 952-9096 (Telephone), (416) 954-6343 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, Cornwall Professional Building, Room 103, 2125 11th Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3, (306) 780-3422 (Telephone), (306) 780-3319 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, Scotia Place Tower Two, 19th Floor, Suite 1909, 10060 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3R8, (780) 495-3224 (Telephone), (780) 495-3214 (Facsimile).

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.

Secretary General

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISION

The complete text of the decision summarized below is available from the offices of the CRTC.

2000-747 December 7, 2000

1406236 Ontario Inc., on behalf of CTV Inc.
Across Canada

Approved — Subject to the terms and conditions set out in the decision, transfer of effective control of CTV Inc. to BCE Inc.

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARING 2000-11-1

Further to its Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2000-11 dated November 24, 2000, relating to the public hearing which will be held on January 30, 2001, at 9 a.m., at the Commission Headquarters, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec, the Commission announces that the following item is amended and the changes are underlined:

Issue No. 1 — Item 9
John Elliott
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

To carry on a low power English-language FM radio programming undertaking at Sault Ste. Marie. The new station would operate on frequency 96.3 MHz (channel 242LP) with an effective radiated power of 50 watts.

Deadline for intervention: January 10, 2001

December 4, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-160

Atlantic and Quebec Region
Montréal, Terrebonne, Mascouche, Lachenaie and part of Saint-Louis-de-Terrebonne, Quebec

The Commission has received applications from the following cable distributors to be relieved, by condition of licence, of the requirement of subsection 22(1) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations to distribute CIME-FM Saint-Jérôme, an audio priority signal.

1. Vidéotron ltée
Montréal, Quebec

2. CF Cable TV Inc.
Montréal, Quebec

3. TDM Newco inc.
Terrebonne, Mascouche, etc., Quebec

Deadline for intervention: January 9, 2001

December 4, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-161

Atlantic and Quebec Region

1. Radio Communautaire MF Lac Simon inc.
Lac Simon (Louvicourt), Quebec

Decrease of the effective radiated power for CHUT-FM Lac-Simon from 102 to 97.9 watts.

Ontario Region

2. Wired World Inc.
Kitchener, Ontario

To amend the broadcasting licence for the Type B community radio programming undertaking, CKWR-FM.

Western Canada and Territories Region

3. Northern Native Broadcasting, Yukon
Good Hope Lake, British Columbia

To add an FM transmitter to offer the programming of CHON-FM at Good Hope Lake.

4. Northern Native Broadcasting, Yukon
Aklavik, Northwest Territories

To add an FM transmitter to offer the programming of CHON-FM at Aklavik.

Deadline for intervention: January 9, 2001

December 4, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-162

Proposed Exemption Order for Small Cable Systems

The Commission invites comments on a proposed exemption order that would exempt from licensing requirements any system that provides cable service to fewer than 2 000 subscribers and serves communities with populations of less than 10 000. Such cable systems are already regulated in a light manner. One issue concerns how to ensure the distribution of an adequate number of programming services in the official language used by a minority of people in the community that a cable system serves. As a result, the comments filed as part of the proceeding related to the provision of French-language services, initiated in Public Notices CRTC 2000-38 and 2000-74, as well as transcripts from the related public hearing will be placed on the public file for the proceeding that is being initiated by this notice.

Information about how to submit a comment is provided at the end of the notice.

This notice is one of three that the Commission is issuing today relating to its regulation of cable distribution undertakings. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-164 Review of Certain Aspects of the Regulation of Cable Undertakings, the Commission calls for comments on its approach to licensing and regulating cable systems. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-163 Licensing cable undertakings — a regional approach, the Commission calls for comments on issues related to licensing cable systems on a regional basis. The Commission's goal is to adopt a regulatory framework that meets the public policy goals set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act) while reducing the administrative burden on licensees and on itself.

Under the Act, the Commission has the power to exempt certain classes of broadcasting undertakings. Subsection 9(4) of the Act states:

The Commission shall, by order, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, exempt persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings of any class specified in the order from any or all of the requirements of this Part or of a regulation made under this Part where the Commission is satisfied that compliance with those requirements will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).

The Commission also notes that paragraph 5(2)(g) of the Act provides that "the Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner...that is sensitive to the administrative burden that, as a consequence of such regulation and supervision, may be imposed on persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings."

In Public Notice CRTC 2000-164 issued today, the Commission discusses proposals put forward by the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) and the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA) that would streamline the Commission's regulation of smaller cable systems. As part of their proposals, both the CCTA and the CCSA suggested that the Commission develop exemption orders that would apply to cable distribution undertakings of various sizes.

Regardless of the determinations that the Commission may make with respect to the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 2000-164 Review of certain aspects of the regulation of cable undertakings, it considers that, as a first step, it would be appropriate to exempt persons operating cable systems that have fewer than 2 000 total subscribers (all systems and licences included) and serve smaller communities with populations under 10 000. Such systems generally have few employees and limited resources, and are therefore the most affected by the administrative burden of dealing with the Commission. This proposal would affect approximately 450 licences held by more than 330 separate licensees. This represents 22 percent of all licences but less than 2 percent of all subscribers.

Most of these systems are already regulated in a light manner, and the Commission is of the preliminary view that the objectives of the Act could be met through the proposed exemption order. In addition, cable systems in rural areas will be able to focus their energies on responding to increasing competition from both direct-to-home (DTH) and multi-point distribution systems (MDS), and on providing their customers with better and more diverse communications services.

The proposed exemption order, set out in the appendix to this public notice, would maintain current requirements with respect to carriage of Canadian signals, while removing the administrative burden required to deal with certain regulatory matters.

The Commission is currently conducting a proceeding related to the availability of French-language broadcasting services in French linguistic minority communities in Canada. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-38, the Commission called for comments on a proposed policy intended to increase the availability of minority official language specialty services for cable subscribers in the new digital environment. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-74, the Commission sought public input for a report to the Governor in Council on measures to encourage and facilitate the provision of and access to the widest range of French-language services in French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

During this proceeding, the Commission received comments from some participants requesting that its proposed policy intended to increase the availability of minority official language specialty services apply to all classes of cable undertakings. Comments received in response to Public Notice 2000-38 and Public Notice 2000-74 as well as the transcript of the related public hearing have been placed on the public file for the proceeding initiated by this notice.

Another concern that may arise through use of an exemption order relates to customer service and service standards. The Commission wants to ensure that customers in small communities are not at a disadvantage compared to those in areas served by licensed systems. A possible solution would be to include in the exemption order a stipulation that an undertaking may be exempt from licensing requirements as long as it remains a member in good standing of an organization such as the Cable Television Standards Council (CTSC). This organization could then act as an ombudsman in cases involving customer complaints.

Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on the proposed exemption order, as well as the following question:

Should membership in the CTSC or a similar industry organization be one of the requirements for exemption?

In Public Notice 2000-164, the Commission poses a number of questions relating to proposals by the CCTA and the CCSA to issue exemption orders for other types of cable undertakings.

Call for Comments

The Commission invites comments that address the issues and questions set out in this notice. The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before January 16, 2001.

The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out in the decision have been followed.

December 7, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-163

Licensing Cable Undertakings — A Regional Approach

The Commission calls for comments on issues related to the implementation of a regional approach for licensing cable systems. Currently, individual cable licences are issued for particular territories. Thus an individual operator may hold several different licences even if its systems are adjacent to each other and, in some cases, technically interconnected. Under a regional licensing approach, the Commission would issue a single licence that might cover a number of territories or serving areas. Such an approach could reduce the administrative burden both on cable licensees and the Commission.

Information about how to submit a comment is set out at the end of the notice.

This notice is one of three that the Commission is issuing today relating to its regulation of cable distribution undertakings. The other two notices deal with the Commission's approach to small cable systems. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-164 Review of Certain Aspects of the Regulation of Cable Undertakings, the Commission calls for comments on its regime for licensing and regulating cable systems. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-162 Proposed Exemption Order for Small Cable Systems, the Commission invites comments on a proposal that would exempt from licensing requirements any person who provides cable service to fewer than 2 000 subscribers and serves communities with populations of less than 10 000.

The current licensing system for cable distribution undertakings is based on issuing individual licences for a particular territory, regardless of whether or not the same licensee operates systems serving adjoining areas. The recent trend toward ownership consolidation and regionalization of operations has created an environment where many cable licensees own more than one licensed system, and often own several separately licensed systems that serve contiguous (adjacent) areas. These systems may be interconnected, have only one head end, and fulfil identical requirements with respect to the local and regional stations that they distribute.

Regional licensing proposal

The Commission sets out the following proposal for licensing cable systems on a regional basis.

Canada would be divided into five regions for the purpose of regional licensing. Region 1 would include British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. Region 2 would include Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Region 3 would cover Ontario. Region 4 would cover Quebec. Region 5 would include New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

The Commission would issue a maximum of three cable licences for each licensee operating in the region. One licence would cover all of its Class 1 systems, the second licence would cover all of its Class 2 systems, and the third would cover all of its Class 3 systems in that region.

Each licence would cover a number of territories or serving areas, and the portion of the system covering each terrritory could be subject to separate requirements with respect to matters such as the local and regional stations that must be carried. Rates for each territory could differ, with the rates charged under the current system serving as a base.

Questions for consideration

The Commission seeks comments on the regional licensing proposal set out above. While not wishing to limit comments, it poses the following questions for interested parties to use as a guide in developing their comments.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal for regional licensing set out in this notice? Please suggest any specific ways in which it might be improved.

What changes to the Broadcast Distribution Regulations, and other regulations administered by the Commission, would have to be made in order to implement a regional licensing proposal?

How would obligations related to signal carriage and simultaneous substitution be established?

What would be the impact of a regional licensing approach on the licence fees that cable undertakings pay to the Commission?

Call for comments

The Commission invites comments that address the issues and questions set out in this notice. The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before January 16, 2001.

The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out in the decision have been followed.

December 7, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-164

Review of Certain Aspects of the Regulation of Cable Undertakings

The Commission invites comments on certain aspects of its regime for licensing and regulating cable distribution undertakings. The Commission wishes to consider if there are more appropriate ways to regulate such undertakings while still ensuring that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are met and the public interest is served. The Commission also wishes to reduce the administrative burden on cable licensees as well as on itself. This public notice sets out a number of specific questions on which the Commission seeks comment. These questions can be found in paragraphs 33 and 36 of this notice. Comments filed and transcripts gathered as part of the proceeding related to the provision of French-language services initiated in Public Notices CRTC 2000-38 and 2000-74 will also be placed on the file for the proceeding that is being initiated by this notice.

Information about how to submit a comment is provided at the end of the notice.

This notice is one of three that the Commission is issuing today that relate to its regulation of cable distribution undertakings. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-162, Proposed exemption order for small cable systems, the Commission invites comments on a proposal to exempt from licensing requirements any person that provides cable service to fewer than 2 000 subscribers and serves communities with populations less than 10 000. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-163, Licensing cable undertakings — A regional approach, the Commission calls for comments on issues related to licensing cable systems on a regional basis.

Introduction

As a result of an extensive public process initiated in May 1996, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC 1997-150, dated December 22, 1997, which set out revised Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations). At that time, the Commission announced that it intended to
...undertake a general review of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the new Regulations after two years, and to consider whether further refinements to the regulatory framework are appropriate in pursuit of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

The Commission has reviewed specific aspects of the Regulations since their adoption in 1997, but has not yet conducted a broader review on the continued effectiveness of its licensing and regulatory approach to small cable systems. Despite continued consolidation and interconnection of many small cable systems by one owner, there are still approximately 330 different cable companies serving fewer than 2 000 subscribers each.

At a convention held by the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) in April of this year, the Commission announced that it was conducting an internal review of how it licenses broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDUs), with a particular emphasis on how it deals with smaller cable systems. Since that time, the Commission has received written submissions from the CCTA and the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (CCSA). These associations provided information on the operations of the various classes of cable systems and made proposals for changing the current regulatory approach. The CCTA and CCSA submissions will be discussed in more detail later in this document and the Commission will seek comments on the changes that are proposed. The Commission has also received submissions from several individual cable companies that generally support the positions taken by the CCTA and CCSA.

The current regime

By packaging local and regional over-the-air signals with other programming services such as pay and specialty services, as well as programming from foreign sources, BDUs provide Canadians with a wider diversity of programming than they would receive only from over-the-air transmitters. To further ensure that they make a strong contribution to the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act), BDUs must respect a number of regulations and signal carriage obligations. These obligations vary according to the class of the undertaking.

The Regulations establish three classes of licence based primarily on the number of subscribers that a cable BDU serves. These are:

Class 1 licensees, generally systems having 6 000 or more subscribers;

Class 2 licensees, generally systems with 2 000 or more but fewer than 6 000 subscribers; and

Class 3 licensees, generally systems with fewer than 2 000 subscribers. As well, this class includes systems in remote areas that were formally known as Part III cable licensees, regardless of the number of subscribers they serve.

This licensing system is based on issuing individual licences for a set territory, regardless of whether or not the same person or company owns systems serving adjoining areas. The recent trend toward consolidation and regionalization of operations has resulted in an environment where many cable companies own more than one licensed system, and often own several separately licensed systems that serve contiguous areas. These systems may be interconnected, have only one head end, and fulfil identical requirements with respect to the local and regional stations that they distribute. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-163, Licensing cable undertakings — a regional approach issued today, the Commission addresses issues relevant to this trend.

The current regulatory system attempts to balance the regulatory obligations imposed on cable systems with the resources that the systems have to fulfil them. Thus, regulatory obligations are generally more extensive for larger systems. However, some regulatory obligations apply to all BDUs, regardless of their size. For example, all cable BDUs must:

Other regulatory mechanisms are applied differently, depending on the class of the undertaking. The most significant differences between a Class 1 and 2 system's obligations relate to the requirement to perform simultaneous substitution, the obligation to carry specialty services, the regulation of rates for basic service, and contributions to support Canadian programming. While Class 2 licensees are required to perform certain substitutions requested by local, conventional television programming undertakings with a studio located within the licensee's service area, this situation occurs infrequently and effectively removes the majority of Class 2 licensees from the simultaneous substitution requirements that apply to Class 1 licensees. As well, Class 1 systems are required to carry all licensed analog Canadian specialty services in the same official language as the mother tongue of the majority of the population in its market, while Class 2 systems may carry these services at their discretion. The basic service rates for incumbent Class 1 systems are regulated, but such rates are not regulated for Class 2 systems. While both Class 1 and Class 2 undertakings must make an annual contribution to Canadian programming, Class 2 undertakings may devote their full contribution to local expression, usually a community channel.

The distinctions between the regulatory obligations of Class 3 systems and those of other systems are more substantial. Class 3 systems have much greater flexibility with respect to the services they may offer. They are not required to carry specific Canadian services other than local and regional television stations, but rather may carry such services at their discretion. In addition, distribution and linkage rules do not apply to Class 3 systems. These rules, which are set out in Public Notice CRTC 2000-155 dated November 8, 2000, determine how Canadian pay and specialty services may be packaged with foreign services and establish the eligibility of different types of signals for carriage on a BDU's basic service. The distribution and linkage rules are intended to ensure that a wide variety of Canadian services is available.

Current proceeding

The Commission is currently conducting a proceeding related to increasing the availability of French-language broadcasting services in French linguistic minority communities in Canada. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-38, the Commission called for comments on a proposed policy intended to increase the availability of minority official language specialty services for cable subscribers in the new digital environment. In Public Notice CRTC 2000-74, the Commission sought public input for a report to the Governor in Council on measures to encourage and facilitate the provision of and access to the widest range of French-language services in French linguistic minority communities in Canada. Comments filed and transcripts gathered as part of the proceeding relating to the provision of French-language services initiated in PN 2000-38 and PN 2000-74 have been placed on the file for the proceeding that is being initiated by this notice.

During the proceeding on French-language services, the Commission received comments from some participants requesting that its proposed policy intended to increase the availability of minority official language specialty services apply to all classes of cable undertakings.

The current environment

According to 1999 annual returns, 1 840 licences have been issued to cable companies that provide service to a total of 7 977 000 subscribers and are held by more than 420 different licensees. While Class 1 systems represent less than 8 percent of licences issued, they serve more than 86 percent of all subscribers. Conversely, Class 3 systems represent more than 85 percent of licences issued, but serve less than 9 percent of all subscribers. Class 2 systems represent less than 7 percent of licences issued and serve 5 percent of all subscribers.

The 330 licensees that individually serve fewer than 2 000 subscribers hold 450 licences and serve less than 135 000, or 1.6 percent, of the total number of cable subscribers in Canada. By comparison, the ten largest Canadian cable operators serve approximately 7 180 000 subscribers, or 90 percent of all cable subscribers. These ten companies hold approximately 1 070 (58 percent) of the licences issued by the Commission.

The Commission's objective

The purpose of the current review is to establish a framework that will reduce the administrative burden on small cable systems that may result from the current licensing system, thereby creating efficiencies both for licensees and the Commission. At the same time, the Commission must ensure that the public policy objectives set out in subsection 3(1) of the Act are met.

The CCTA and CCSA proposals

As indicated earlier, the Commission received proposals from the CCTA (letter dated May 2, 2000) and the CCSA (letter dated May 1, 2000) suggesting changes to the current regulatory regime and outlining circumstances under which the Commission might use its power to exempt parties from licensing requirements. The Commission also received letters from several operators of smaller cable systems who generally supported the positions of the CCTA and CCSA. All of these submissions are available on the public file of this proceeding. The CCTA and CCSA letters are summarized below.

The CCTA proposal

The CCTA is a national association representing the Canadian cable television industry. Its members, which include some of the largest cable operators as well as some of the smallest, hold 846 licences of all classes and collectively serve more than 7.3 million Canadian households.

In its submission, the CCTA noted the high level of consolidation in the cable industry that has occurred in recent years. This has resulted in four Canadian cable companies (Rogers Cablesystems Ltd., Shaw Cablesystems Ltd., Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. and Vidéotron ltée) serving close to 90 percent of all cable subscribers and collectively holding 370 licences. The remaining 400 licensed cable operators hold approximately 1 600 licences and serve only about 10 percent of all Canadian cable subscribers.

The CCTA suggested that licensees of smaller cable systems not owned or operated on an interconnected basis by a large multiple system operator (MSO) should not be subject to the same degree of regulation as licensees of larger systems. The CCTA noted that the Commission has already made distinctions between small operators and large MSOs in recent decisions related to third-party access to high-speed Internet services delivered by cable.

The CCTA proposed a model for "light-handed regulation" that, it suggested, would permit smaller cable systems to compete more effectively, particularly with direct-to-home (DTH) systems. It proposed that the Commission develop a series of exemption orders that would affect all licensees with fewer than 20 000 subscribers.

Under the CCTA's proposal, all Class 3 licensees would be exempt from licensing and from all regulations, except for the obligation to carry local signals.

All Class 2 licensees would be exempt from the provisions of the Regulations, except requirements to:

Class 1 licensees with fewer than 20 000 subscribers and not affiliated with one of the four largest MSOs would be exempt from all regulations except requirements to:

All Class 1 licensees with fewer than 20 000 subscribers, including those affiliated with the four largest MSOs, would be exempt from all regulations related to the packaging of services on various tiers and the linkage of Canadian and non-Canadian services. Under the CCTA's proposal, such cable licensees would also be permitted to receive U.S. 4+1 signals from U.S. satellites. The U.S. 4+1 signals are the signals of U.S. television stations offering programming from the CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX commercial networks and from the non-commercial PBS network.

The CCTA argued that implementation of its model would bring significant benefits. Although it considered that the negative effects would be minimal, it did note two possible drawbacks to its proposal. First, while total licence fees charged by the Commission would remain the same, there would be an increase in the percentage of licence fees paid by the four largest MSOs. The CCTA considered, however, that any negative effect would be offset by the reduced costs that the CCTA approach would bring to the Commission. Second, the amount of money advanced to the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) from cable operators would decrease by approximately $1 million annually. The CCTA noted that cable operators provided $61.4 million to the CTF in 1999.

The CCSA proposal

The CCSA represents 90 cable television licensees that hold a total of 279 licences and serve approximately 450 000 subscribers. These companies operate 11 Class 1, 34 Class 2 and 234 Class 3 systems serving predominantly rural or small urban communities.

In its submission, the CCSA noted that as ownership within the industry continues to consolidate, the differences between small and large companies are becoming more pronounced. The CCSA suggested that competition has been successfully introduced into markets served by small operators and has replaced the need for detailed regulation by the Commission. Accordingly, the association suggested that resources now spent on regulatory obligations could be redirected to financing technical improvements, introducing new digital services, and improving the content offered to subscribers.

The CCSA's proposal included two aspects — increased subscriber thresholds for defining classes of licence, and exemptions for Class 2 and Class 3 licensees.

Increased thresholds

The CCSA suggested a change in the subscriber thresholds used to establish three classes of cable licensees. These new thresholds would, however, apply only to systems that are not affiliated to the four largest MSOs. Under the CCSA's proposal, a Class 1 licensee would be a system with more than 60 000 subscribers, a Class 2 licensee would have between 20 000 and 60 000 subscribers, and a Class 3 licensee would have fewer than 20 000 subscribers. The CCSA considered its revised definition would be similar, in a Canadian context, to the definition of a "small cable company" established by the United States Federal Communications Commission, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Exemptions for Class 2 and 3 systems

The CCSA further proposed that all systems with fewer than 60 000 subscribers (i.e. its proposed Class 2 and Class 3 systems) that are not affiliated with the four largest MSOs, be exempt from all regulations made under Part II of the Act, with the exception of the following obligations:

The CCSA argued that exemption orders, under the terms described above, would have a minimal negative impact on the Canadian broadcasting system and may even generate certain benefits. It considered that removal of the various regulatory obligations it identified would permit resources to be redirected to the upgrade of facilities and the provision of new services.

The CCSA also pointed out that the Commission's access rules are designed to ensure that distributors do not act as gatekeepers with regard to programming services by distributing some services in preference to others. It submitted that smaller cable systems are unable to mobilize sufficient market power to hinder the development of programming services.

Finally, the CCSA argued that the introduction of digital services will stretch the resources of smaller cable systems. The imposition of access rules for digital services would therefore be particularly onerous for them, and may slow down or stall the transition of these systems to digital distribution.

Key questions for consideration

Both the CCTA and CCSA proposals are based on significant modifications to the existing licensing regime. For example, both parties proposed changes to the subscriber levels used to define different classes of licence. To help it evaluate these suggested approaches, the Commission invites comments on the proposals filed by the CCTA and CCSA. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the specific provisions of the CCTA and CCSA proposals?

What would be the impact of the CCTA and CCSA proposals on programming undertakings and the program production industry?

Should these proposals or parts of these proposals be implemented? If so, how? Are there any modifications that would enhance their appropriateness?

Proposed exemption order

As indicated above, both the CCTA and the CCSA have proposed that the Commission develop exemption orders for cable systems of various sizes.

The Commission is today issuing Public Notice CRTC 2000-162 calling for comments on a proposal to exempt from licensing requirements any cable operator that provides cable service to fewer than 2 000 subscribers, and serves towns with total populations of less than 10 000.

The Commission invites comments on the following questions relating to the wider use of exemption orders that would apply to small cable systems not meeting the criteria set out in Public Notice 2000-162 Proposed exemption order for small cable systems:

Considering the current environment, what classes of cable undertakings should be exempt from licensing under the Act?

What would be the regulatory benefits of such exemption, and how could the Commission ensure that the quality of service provided to consumers is maintained?

What would be the criteria for eligibility to receive an exemption?

Call for comments

The Commission invites comments on the questions set out above, as well as on any other issues that interested parties consider relevant to the licensing of cable systems. The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before January 16, 2001.

The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out in the decision have been followed.

December 7, 2000

[51-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2000-165

Proposed Review of the Commission's Position Regarding Ownership of Discretionary Programming Undertakings by Cable Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings

In its May 1995 Report to the Government (Competition and Culture on the Information Highway), the Commission stated that:

Until there is sufficient capacity on cable networks, and until transparent access rules are in place to prevent undue preference, cable licensees and their affiliates should generally not 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.

In a number of decisions issued over the intervening five years, the Commission has expressed concern about the potential for undue preference in the analog distribution market, and has denied or placed restrictions on the equity interests held by cable distribution undertakings in discretionary programming undertakings. The decisions include the following:

— Decision CRTC 98-226 Sportscope Television Network Ltd.;

— Decision CRTC 98-487 CTV Sports Net Inc.;

— Public Notice CRTC 1999-89, Decision CRTC 99-113 Licensing of new French language specialty television undertakings;

— Decision CRTC 99-169 StarChoice / Cancom (ROBTv);

— Decision CRTC 2000-217 Food Network Canada; and

— Decision CRTC 2000-222 Corus Entertainment Inc.

In Public Notice CRTC 2000-6, the Commission issued its Licensing framework policy for new digital pay and specialty services. In that document, the Commission acknowledged the key role that distributors could play in launching new digital services, and therefore announced that it would consider applications for such digital services involving ownership participation by disributors, including cable operators. As part of the licensing framework, the Commission established specific carriage terms for the new services, including measures to ensure equitable terms of carriage for services that are not affiliated with distributors.

Subsequently, on November 10, 2000, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) filed a request asking the Commission to review and amend its current position relating to the ownership by cable distribution undertakings, or their affiliates, of equity interests in discretionary programming undertakings distributed on an analog basis.

According to the CCTA, the broadcasting environment has significantly changed, so that it should no longer be necessary for the Commission to restrict cable distribution undertakings from holding or increasing their ownership interests in analog discretionary programming undertakings. In the CCTA's view, such changes include increasing competition, convergence in the communications sector, and the increasingly significant role played by companies having access to multiple distribution and exhibition platforms. The CCTA argues that these justify a revisitation by the Commission of its position on this matter.

The Commission notes the following CCTA proposal as one possible means of alleviating concerns about undue preference:

The CCTA is prepared to undertake, on behalf of its members, that none of its member companies that has an ownership interest (existing or future), either directly or through an affiliate, in a discretionary programming service that is distributed on an analog channel on any cable system owned and controlled by that company or any affiliate of it, will alter the terms of carriage of that service on analog in respect of channel placement or packaging without the prior approval of the Commission.

In the circumstances, the Commission considers that a review of its position on cable/discretionary service cross-ownership would be appropriate at this time. Accordingly, the Commission invites comments that address the matters raised in this notice. Without limiting the discussion of these matters, the Commission would appreciate receiving comments on the following questions:

— What has changed in the broadcasting environment that would warrant revisitation by the Commission of its current position regarding cable distributor equity in analog discretionary programming services?

— Considering the current and future broadcasting environment, what factors should be considered in assessing the continued potential for undue preference in respect of the analog distribution of discretionary programming services owned by cable licensees (i.e. addressing capacity and access issues)?

— What safeguards would be sufficient to continue to protect the public interest, taking into account such matters as the interests of subscribers, the need for affordable rates, and the need for discretionary programming services to have fair and equitable access rights to analog distribution?

— Should safeguards include a limit on the ownership of any one analog service by a cable licensee, or on the number of analog services owned by a cable licensee?

— Are there other terms and conditions that could be included in a code of conduct to address concerns about preferential treatment in the distribution of discretionary programming services?

Call for comments

As a first phase, the Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before January 26, 2001.

This will be followed by a second written process to allow any party to file a reply to a comment filed with the Commission during the first phase. The Commission will accept all such replies that it receives on or before February 26, 2001.

The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out in the decision have been followed.

December 8, 2000

[51-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

COMPLETION OF PANEL REVIEW

Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subrule 78(a) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the binational panel review of the Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada is completed. Pursuant to subrule 78(a) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, this Notice of Completion of Panel Review is effective on December 1, 2000, the day the Consent Motion to terminate the binational panel review of this matter was filed (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-00-1904-08).

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, 90 Sparks Street, Suite 705, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, (613) 992-9388.

FRANÇOY RAYNAULD
Canadian Secretary

[51-1-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).