Vol. 132, No. 27 — July 4, 1998

COMMISSIONS

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

INQUIRY

EDP Hardware and Software

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) has received a complaint (File No. PR-98-012) from Corel Corporation, of Ottawa, Ontario, concerning a procurement (Solicitation No. 46577-7-1709/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (the Department) for the Department of National Revenue (Revenue Canada). The solicitation is for office automation suite licences. 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 and Revenue Canada have constructed an evaluation framework that is biased in favour of a particular supplier.

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, June 23, 1998

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[27-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

ORDER

Tillage or Earth Engaging Tools

In the matter of a request, under subsection 76(2) of the Special Import Measures Act, for a review of the order made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on November 23, 1993, in Review No. RR-93-001, continuing, without amendment, the review finding of the Canadian Import Tribunal made on November 24, 1988, in Review No. R-9-88, continuing, without amendment, the finding of the Anti-dumping Tribunal made on December 28, 1983, in Inquiry No. ADT-11-83, concerning deep tillage sweeps, field cultivator sweeps, reversible points, reversible heavy duty chisels, reversible twisted chisels and reversible furrow shovels, known as tillage or earth engaging tools, used on chisel plows and field cultivators, originating in or exported from Brazil

On February 23, 1998, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal issued a notice of expiry (Expiry No. LE-97-007) requesting views on whether the aforementioned order should be reviewed. The Tribunal has decided, pursuant to subsection 76(3) of the Special Import Measures Act, that a review is not warranted.

Ottawa, June 22, 1998

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[27-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

WITHDRAWAL

EDP Hardware and Software

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal received a complaint (File No. PR-98-001) from SHL Systemhouse Co. (the complainant), of Ottawa, Ontario, concerning a procurement by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (Solicitation No. FP802-7-0411/A). The solicitation is for a Maintenance Information Management System for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Notice is hereby given that the complainant has withdrawn the complaint.

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, June 23, 1998

MICHEL P. GRANGER
Secretary

[27-1-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

PUBLIC NOTICE 1998-60

A Policy Framework for the Introduction of Competition to the Satellite Relay Distribution Industry

Introduction to Decisions CRTC 98-171 to 98-174, and call for comments and related requests on a proposal to authorize reception by Class 2 and 3 broadcasting distribution undertakings of the 4 + 1 United States (U.S.) television network signals directly from U.S. service providers using U.S. satellites

Introduction

1. The purpose of this public notice is to announce the Commission's policy framework for a competitive satellite relay distribution industry, and to introduce decisions issued today on a number of applications heard at a Public Hearing commencing February 16, 1998, in the National Capital Region.

2. In this notice, the Commission also calls for comments on a proposal that would serve as a key element of its overall policy framework, namely a plan to permit Class 2 and 3 broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) to receive the 4 + 1 United States (U.S.) television network signals directly from U.S. satellite service providers, and calls for requests to add specific signals to the List of Part 2 Eligible Satellite Services and the List of Part 3 Eligible Satellite Services (satellite lists).

Today's Decisions

3. At the February 16 hearing, the Commission considered an application by Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. (Cancom) for renewal of its licence to carry on a national, multiple channel television and radio relay distribution undertaking. In Decision CRTC 98-171 of today's date, the Commission has renewed this licence for a period of two years. The renewed licence authorizes Cancom to carry on what will now be called a Satellite Relay Distribution Undertaking (SRDU).

4. In other decisions issued today, the Commission announces its determinations with respect to certain other applications presented at the February 16, 1998, hearing. All of these contemplate the introduction of competition, whether on a national or regional basis, to Cancom's licensed broadcasting activity, that being the distribution of television services to terrestrial BDUs and direct-to-home (DTH) BDUs. In Decision CRTC 98-172, the Commission has approved an application by Star Choice Television Network Incorporated (Star Choice) for a licence to carry on a second national SRDU service similar to that currently offered by Cancom. Star Choice is the licensee of an existing, national, DTH distribution undertaking. As in the case of Cancom, the new SRDU licence is for a term of two years.

5. The Commission's SRDU policy will generally rely upon competition to ensure that the broadest possible choice is available to BDUs at a reasonable cost. While the Commission has decided to renew Cancom's licence and issue a new licence to Star Choice, there exists uncertainty concerning the future ownership structure within the Canadian SRDU industry. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the two year licence terms granted to Cancom and Star Choice are warranted.

6. All of the remaining applications have been denied, including one by Prime Time Canada, on behalf of a company to be incorporated, proposing what would have been a third, national SRDU service. The Commission found Prime Time Canada to be ineligible to hold a broadcasting licence under the Direction to the CRTC (Ineligibility of Non-Canadians), P.C. 1997-486 (see Decision CRTC 98-173). The other applications, either by or on behalf of a number of BDUs, sought authority to distribute U.S television signals (in the case of one application, U.S. radio signals as well) received directly from U.S. satellites. These applications have been denied for the reasons set out in Decision CRTC 98-174.

7. Based on the evidence provided at the February 16, 1998, hearing, however, and in keeping with its overall policy objective of providing subscribers of smaller BDUs with the broadest possible choice at an affordable cost, the Commission proposes to implement measures that would permit Class 2 and Class 3 BDUs to receive the 4 + 1 U.S. television network signals directly from U.S. satellite service providers. Specifically, the Commission contemplates that the existing satellite lists would be amended, by adding signals that Class 2 and 3 BDU licensees would be permitted to receive directly from U.S. satellite service providers, whether through authorizations now contained in the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations) affecting Class 3 licensees, or through authorizations that, upon application by Class 2 licensees, may be granted pursuant to a condition of licence. Class 1 and Class 2 licensees are reminded that, in accordance with the Distribution and Linkage Requirements for Class 1 and Class 2 licensees (Public Notice CRTC 1997-151 dated December 22, 1997), a condition of licence is required in order to distribute these signals as part of the basic service.

8. The Commission notes that, although the applications dealt with in Decision CRTC 98-174 have been denied, the flexibility that most of the applicants sought would be achieved under the Commission's proposal to amend the satellite lists.

9. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that interested parties should be given a further opportunity to provide written comments and supporting evidence with regard to the potential impact of this measure on the Canadian broadcasting system and the ability of its components to achieve the policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act). These comments will assist the Commission in reaching its ultimate determination on implementation of this policy proposal. Details concerning the public process that the Commission will conduct on this matter are provided later in this notice.

10. In view of the above, the Commission denies the request, presented at the February 16, 1998, public hearing by the Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, that the signals of the U.S. satellite service provider known as Prime Time 24 be added to the satellite lists.

SRDU Policy Framework

11. The policy framework described below addresses, among other things, the role that SRDU undertakings are expected to play within the Canadian broadcasting system and the contributions they are required to make to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming. In order to ensure fair and sustainable competition, the policy framework also prescribes a specific condition of licence to deal with concerns about undue preference or disadvantage. Further, the Commission has imposed conditions on licensees regarding their conduct and obligations in resolving disputes between themselves and either their affiliates or program providers.

Fair and sustainable competition

12. Fair and sustainable competition within an industry is taken to require increased reliance on market forces for the provision of facilities, products and services. The Commission's policy framework for the SRDU market-place favours entry to all qualified applicants, with primary consideration being given to the financial ability of the sector to sustain competition, rather than to the financial viability of specific undertakings.

13. The Commission is satisfied that the introduction of competition to this sector will benefit the viewing public and the Canadian broadcasting system generally, and the subscribers of smaller systems in particular. Objectives include both the development of a strengthened Canadian distribution sector better able to compete with the unlicensed "grey market", and the emergence of certain system-wide benefits, including enhanced choice and cost-competitiveness, flowing from the greater efficiencies, innovation and customer service that generally exist in a competitive market-place. The Commission expects all parties to conduct themselves with these goals in mind.

Extension of service

14. While the role of an SRDU has grown to encompass more than the original goal of extending Canadian services to remote and underserved communities, the Commission emphasizes that this remains its fundamental purpose and objective. The Commission notes that SRDUs also serve as signal suppliers for urban areas. New entrants to the SRDU market-place should bring the benefits of competition to these areas as SRDUs increasingly compete with terrestrial alternatives, such as optical fibre and microwave distribution networks.

Preponderance of Canadian signals

15. Licensed SRDUs will be required to distribute a preponderance of Canadian signals. The Commission notes that the two successful applicants proposing national operations indicated their acceptance of such a requirement in order to help ensure the continued availability of, and choice among, Canadian signals.

Minimum levels of French-language services

16. Licensed SRDUs offering a national service will be required to provide national distribution for the signals of all conventional, Canadian, French-language television services that purchase national program rights, other than the French-language television network service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which service is already generally available to BDUs via satellite. With respect to regional SRDUs, the Commission is prepared to consider exceptions to this general requirement on a case-by-case basis.

17. The Commission encourages Cancom and Star Choice, as resources permit, to increase the range of French-language services that they make available to affiliates. 20.

Contributions to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming

18. Licensed SRDUs will be required to provide contributions to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming representing a minimum of 5 percent of their annual gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities. This is the same level of contribution that is generally required of all BDUs under the Regulations, with the exception of Class 3 terrestrial distributors.

19. At the hearing, the Commission discussed with Cancom the appropriateness of including, as part of that licensee's required contribution to Canadian programming, the annual costs that are currently absorbed by Cancom through its policy of subsidizing the cost of the equipment used by its BDU affiliates to decode Cancom's satellite signals. In the Commission's view, Cancom's decoder subsidy program has served essentially as a marketing technique to attract and retain affiliates. As such, the costs associated with this program are most appropriately identified as a cost of doing business rather than as a bona fide contribution to Canadian programming. Accordingly, and as a matter of policy applicable to all licensed SRDUs, the Commission has decided to disallow the inclusion of decoder costs as part of required annual contributions to Canadian programming.

20. Otherwise, considerable flexibility will be accorded SRDUs in choosing where their contributions will be directed. For example, the Commission would be disposed to accept financial contributions to independent Canadian program production funds, or to certain named parties who might otherwise have difficulty obtaining funding, including groups active in native and French-language broadcasting, and in programming involving distance learning.

21. Licensees will be required, by condition of licence, to file a report for the Commission's approval within three months, identifying the recipients of their contributions to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, as well as the projected annual amounts that they intend to allocate to each and the timing of such contributions, if the contribution is to a recipient other than a production fund. Contributions directed to a production fund are required to be made on a monthly basis. The due date for Cancom is set out in Decision CRTC 98-171 and in Decision CRTC 98-172 for Star Choice.

Undue preference and dispute resolution provisions

22. Each SRDU licensee will be subject to a condition of licence containing provisions comparable to those found in section 9 of the Regulations. This condition will prohibit the licensee from giving an undue preference to any person, including itself, or from subjecting any person to an undue disadvantage.

23. The Commission notes that it will take some time for transition to full competition in the delivery of signals to distribution undertakings. Accordingly, it has imposed a condition of licence requiring an SRDU licensee to submit to a dispute resolution process, where the Commission is of the view that such a process will assist in resolving a dispute. The Commission, however, encourages parties to make every effort to resolve disputes in a timely and effective manner on their own.

24. The Commission contemplates a process for dispute resolution similar to that set out in the Regulations. At the hearing, parties expressed particular concern about releasing confidential information, especially agreements with affiliates. Recognizing this concern, the Commission intends to keep information submitted in the course of such a process confidential, and not to use such information in subsequent processes before it (unless obtained independently). Nevertheless, the Commission intends to tailor the dispute resolution process to the requirements of each particular situation.

25. In this regard, having considered requests from various parties that it require SRDU licensees to file affiliation agreements, the Commission has decided not to do so at this time. It may, however, require that such agreements be filed, on a case by case basis, at a later date. The Commission may, on request, grant confidentiality concerning all or part of such agreements that it requires be filed.

Rate regulation

26. Cancom is currently subject to rate regulation in the form of a cap on the overall rate that it may charge affiliates who receive some or all of its signals (rate cap). Because Star Choice is already in operation as a licensee of a DTH distribution undertaking, the Commission is satisfied that it is in a position to compete immediately with Cancom in the SRDU market. Accordingly, rate regulation by means of a rate cap will not be imposed at this time on either of these SRDU licensees. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier in this notice, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the future ownership structure within the Canadian SRDU sector. The Commission therefore emphasizes that it is prepared to reconsider the possibility of regulating the rates charged by SRDUs at the time it considers the licence renewals of Cancom and Star Choice in two years.

27. In the absence of a rate cap, and as a consequence of BDUs having the choice of obtaining signals from two competitors, the Commission notes that, over time, any cross-subsidization of one signal by another that may have occurred in the past will likely disappear (or at least be reduced), and the price charged by an SRDU for any given signal will more closely reflect the actual cost of providing that signal.

Other matters

28. The television satellite services that Cancom and Star Choice are authorized to distribute by condition of licence also appear in Part 2 or Part 3, or both as appropriate, of the revised satellite lists issued today in Public Notice CRTC 1998-61.

29. The Commission notes that an exempt distribution undertaking, such as a master antenna television system (MATV), is permitted to distribute the same signals that a licensed terrestrial BDU is authorized to distribute in the same area served by the exempt undertaking.

30. The Commission also notes that Cancom and Star Choice both indicated that they did not require exclusivity with respect to the programming services they will offer. Accordingly, the Commission is disposed to deal expeditiously with applications by either licensee to distribute any service that has been authorized, by condition of licence, for distribution by the other.

Call for Comments on a Proposal to Permit Class 2 and 3 BDUs Access to the 4 + 1 U.S. Television Network Signals Directly from U.S. Service Providers Using U.S. Satellites

31. As indicated earlier in this notice, the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances of Class 2 and 3 BDUs in the emerging competitive market-place and, in particular, their need for maximum choice and affordability in choosing the 4 + 1 U.S. television network signals they deliver to their subscribers, warrant particular consideration by the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes to authorize the licensees of these smaller BDUs to obtain the signals of these network services directly from U.S. satellite service providers.

32. While the Commission considers that it may be in the public interest to allow direct access by Class 2 and 3 BDUs to the 4 + 1 U.S. television network signals from U.S. satellite service providers, this enhanced flexibility has, as its rationale, the desire to ensure maximum choice and affordability for such undertakings within a competitive market-place. Accordingly, interested parties are advised that should the Commission decide to implement this measure, it may, following due public process, remove authorizations for the carriage of signals obtained from any U.S. satellite service supplier that it determines to be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.

33. Parties wishing to submit comments should also take into account the following statement contained in the Schedule of Specific Commitments (the schedule) made by Canada to the World Trade Organization on April 11, 1997:

On March 1, 2000, Telesat Canada will no longer be authorized to be the sole operator in Canada of fixed satellite space segment facilities used to provide national and Canada-U.S. fixed satellite services.

34. The applications of Cancom and Star Choice are both predicated on their use of Canadian fixed satellite space segment facilities, which may soon be open to competition. The Commission notes that broadcasting is excluded from the schedule. Accordingly, direct broadcast satellites (DBS) are not considered to be fixed satellite space segment.

35. As discussed earlier, the Commission's policy framework requires each SRDU licensee to provide a contribution to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming representing 5 percent of its gross annual revenues derived from broadcasting activities. Should the Commission, following its consideration of comments received, decide to implement its proposal to permit direct access to the 4 + 1 U.S. television network signals from U.S. service providers using U.S. satellites, the Commission intends to require those licensees of Class 2 and 3 BDUs who avail themselves of the new policy to make a similar contribution. Specifically, and in the interest of maintaining a competitive balance among distributors, those Class 2 and 3 licensees who subsequently obtain any of the 4 + 1 U.S. television network signals directly from a U.S. satellite service provider (such as Prime Time 24 or Netlink International) would be required to make a 5 percent contribution to an independent Canadian program production fund. The 5 percent would be calculated based upon the annual gross amount of the payments by the BDU to the U.S. satellite service provider. This requirement would be enforced through the inclusion of a notation in the satellite lists, whereby a Canadian licensee would only be authorized to continue distributing these services so long as it makes the requisite contributions.

36. The Commission does not wish to limit the scope of the comments that may be filed addressing this matter. Indeed, in the interest of maintaining a balance among the economic, social and cultural objectives of the Act, it seeks to benefit from the broadest and most enlightened discussion possible of the many related and important issues at stake in implementing the policy change it is currently proposing. In particular, the Commission wishes to receive documentary evidence that would substantiate or lend support to any opinions submitted. Supporting documentation could include, but need not be limited to, specific economic models or analysis and information on cost structures for individual signals.

37. Examples of areas that might be addressed include the potential impact that such a decision may have on the following:

— the viability of the current and future SRDU licensees, as well as the sustainability of competition within the SRDU sector;

— the ability of SRDUs to distribute a variety of Canadian signals, including French-language signals;

— the pricing and affordability of distant signals supplied by SRDUs, particularly the pricing of Canadian signals, including French-language signals; and

— the level of contributions provided by licensed SRDUs to certain parties who might otherwise have difficulty obtaining funding, including groups active in native and French-language broadcasting, as well as the level of contributions by licensed SRDUs to the Canadian programming funds.

38. The Commission will consider requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis. Persons submitting commercially sensitive information that they wish to be held confidential are requested to identify and substantiate all claims for such confidential status.

Public Process

39. The Commission will follow a three phase written comment process in this proceeding. As the first phase, interested parties are invited to file written comments no later than Friday, August 7, 1998. Parties requesting to have specific U.S. television network signals added to either or both of the satellite lists (i.e. signals that are now uplinked to U.S. satellites by such service providers as Primetime 24 or Netlink) should file such requests with the Commission by that same date.

40. In the circumstances, such requests shall not be considered to fall within the moratorium on additions to the satellite lists announced in Public Notice CRTC 1997-33-2. However, all other requirements governing such requests, including the requirement for sponsorship, remain unchanged.

41. In the second phase, interested parties, regardless of whether they have participated in phase one, will have an opportunity to reply to any or all of the written comments and requests for additions to the satellite lists that are received by the Commission during phase one. These replies must be filed with the Commission, and be served upon the party or parties who submitted the comments or requests to which the replies are addressed, by no later than Friday, August 21, 1998.

42. In the third phase, involved parties will have an opportunity to rebut any comments made in phase two related to requests for additions to the satellite lists. These rebuttals must be filed with the Commission, and be served upon the party or parties who submitted the comments to which the rebuttals are addressed, by no later than Monday, August 31, 1998.

43. The Commission will only accept submissions that are received by the Commission on or before the prescribed dates noted above.

44. Comments filed in response to this notice must be addressed to the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, and must be filed in hard copy form.

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

46. All comments will be considered by the Commission, and will form part of the public record of the proceeding without further notification, provided the procedure set out above has been followed. Interested parties are therefore strongly encouraged and expected to monitor the content of the public examination files.

June 23, 1998

[27-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 1998-61

Revised Lists of Eligible Satellite Services

1. In Decision CRTC 98-172 dated June 23, 1998, the Commission approved an application by Star Choice Television Network Incorporated (Star Choice) for a broadcasting licence to carry on a national satellite relay distribution undertaking (SRDU). The List of Part 2 Eligible Satellite Services (Part 2 list) and the List of Part 3 Eligible Satellite Services (Part 3 list) appended to the notice have been amended accordingly.

Addition of CBC, SRC and CTV signals

2. Star Choice has been authorized to distribute a number of conventional Canadian services. With the exception of CBFT (SRC) Montréal, CBFXT (SRC) Edmonton, CBHT (CBC) Halifax, CBLT (CBC) Toronto, CBRT (CBC) Calgary, CHBC-TV (CBC) Kelowna, CJCH-TV (CTV) Halifax and CFRN-TV (CTV) Edmonton, all of these services are already included on the Part 3 list. The eight signals noted above have therefore been added to that list.

3. The Commission notes that the distribution of the CTV signals by cable licensees is subject to a restriction which requires that, where a cable licensee is also distributing the signal of a local CTV affiliate, it shall delete the duplicate programming received from the licensed SRDU or substitute the local service when the programming is identical.

Addition of United States 4 + 1 signals from Buffalo and Spokane

4. Star Choice has also been authorized to distribute United States 4 + 1 signals originating from Buffalo, New York, and Spokane, Washington. These signals have been added to the Part 2 list and the Part 3 list.

Other matters

5. Class 1 and Class 2 licensees are reminded that, in accordance with the Distribution and Linkage Requirements for Class 1 and Class 2 licensees (Public Notice CRTC 1997-151 dated December 22, 1997), a condition of licence is required in order to distribute these signals as part of the basic service.

6. The Part 2 list and the Part 3 list have previously contained a notation indicating that certain services were "received from Cancom". Given that the Commission has introduced a competitive environment for SRDUs, this notation has been amended to read: "received from a licensed SRDU". Furthermore, all other notations that previously referred to "Cancom" have been replaced with a reference to a "licensed SRDU" to reflect the change in environment.

Revised Lists

7. The above-mentioned lists supersede the lists appended to Public Notice CRTC 1998-7 dated January 30, 1998. For convenience, the List of DTH Eligible Satellite Services is also attached to the public notice as Appendix C.

June 23, 1998

[27-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISIONS

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

98-165 June 19, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Windsor, Chatham, etc., Ontario

Approved — Acquisition of the assets of the cable distribution undertakings serving Windsor, Chatham, Leamington and Dutton, from 1105145 Ontario Inc. and acquisition of the assets of the cable distribution undertakings serving Bancroft, Barry's Bay, Lakefield, Bridgenorth, Millbrook and Whitney, from 1110761 Ontario Inc. The licences will expire August 31, 2004.

98-166 June 19, 1998

Nexicom Communications Inc.
Bancroft, Barry's Bay, etc., Ontario

Approved — Acquisition of the assets of the cable distribution undertakings serving the localities mentioned in the decision, from Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. and application for broadcasting licences to continue the operation of these undertakings. The licences will expire August 31, 2004.

98-167 June 19, 1998

Cogeco Cable Systems Inc.
Smiths Falls, Ontario

Approved — Transfer of effective control of 1110761 Ontario Inc. to Cogeco Cable Systems Inc.

98-168 June 19, 1998

Cogeco Cable Systems Inc.
Windsor, Chatham, etc., Ontario

Approved — Acquisition of the assets of the cable distribution undertaking serving the localities mentioned in the decision, from Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. and application for broadcasting licences to continue the operation of these undertakings. The licences will expire August 31, 2004.

98-169 June 19, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Kamloops, Courtney/Comox/Powell River, British Columbia, and Lethbridge, Alberta

Approved — Acquisition of the assets of the cable distribution undertakings serving these localities, from Cogeco Cable Systems Inc. The licences will expire August 31, 2004.

98-170 June 19, 1998

Nexicom Communications Inc.
Keene, Ontario

Approved — Licence for a cable distribution undertaking to serve Keene, expiring August 31, 2004.

98-171 June 23, 1998

Canadian Satellite Communications Inc.
Across Canada

Approved — Renewal of the broadcasting licence for a national satellite relay distribution undertaking (SRDU), from September 1, 1998, to August 31, 2000.

98-172 June 23, 1998

Star Choice Television Network Incorporated Across Canada

Approved — Broadcasting licence for a national satellite relay distribution undertaking (SRDU), expiring August 31, 2000.

98-173 June 23, 1998

PrimeTime Canada, on behalf of a company to be incorporated Across Canada

Denied — Application for a broadcasting licence to carry on a satellite relay distribution undertaking.

98-174 June 23, 1998

MKC Properties Ltd., on behalf of a company to be incorporated British Columbia and Alberta

Denied — Application for a broadcasting licence for a regional multiple channel television and radio broadcasting relay distribution undertaking.

Saxe Communications
Across Canada
The Battlefords Community Cablevision Co-operative Biggar, Kindersley, etc., Saskatchewan

Denied — Applications to distribute United States signals directly from United States sources.

98-175 June 23, 1998

Videotron Communications Ltd.
Raymond, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, a television signal originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-176 June 23, 1998

Videotron Communications Ltd.
Barrhead, Drayton Valley, Drumheller, Edson, Lloydminster,
Stettler, Vegreville, Vermillion, Viking and Westlock, Alberta

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-177 June 23, 1998

Brooks Community Television Ltd.
Brooks, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-178 June 23, 1998

Cable T.V. of Wetaskiwin Inc.
Wetaskiwin and Millet, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-179 June 23, 1998

Taber Cable Television Ltd.
Taber, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-180 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Hinton, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-181 June 23, 1998

Videotron Communications Ltd.
Part of Edmonton and area, Fort Macleod, High River, Lacombe and Ponoka, Alberta

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution at Edmonton, of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-182 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Calgary (part of), Crossfield; Calgary (part of), Airdrie and Cochrane; and part of Edmonton and surrounding area, Alberta

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-183 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Pincher Creek, Crowley, Lundbreck, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-184 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Fort McMurray, Mildred Lake Camp, Tar Island Camp and Saprae Creek, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-185 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Cranbrook, Invermere, Athalmer and Windermere, British Columbia

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of an audio signal originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-186 June 23, 1998

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Red Deer and area, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-187 June 23, 1998

Okanagan Radio Limited
Elkford, Fernie and Sparwood, British Columbia

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-188 June 23, 1998

Okanagan Radio Limited
Kimberley, British Columbia

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-189 June 23, 1998

Monarch Cable TV Ltd.
Medicine Hat and Redcliff, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-190 June 23, 1998

Cogeco Cable Canada Inc.
Lethbridge, Alberta

Approved — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

Denied — Distribution of audio signals originating from Spokane and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-191 June 23, 1998

Northern Cablevision Ltd.
Grande Prairie; Grand Centre, Medley (CFB Cold Lake) and Cold Lake, Alberta

Approved — Applications for authority to distribute, at its option, television signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satellite, as outlined in the decision.

98-192 June 23, 1998

Northern Cablevision Ltd.
Whitecourt (Alberta)

Denied — Application for authority to distribute, at its option, audio signals originating from Spokane, Washington, and received via satelitte, as outlined in the decision.

98-193 June 23, 1998

Canadian Satellite Communications Inc. (Cancom)
Across Canada

Denied — Addition of Euronews to the list of signals that Cancom is authorized to distribute.

98-194 June 23, 1998

The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited (NBTel)
New Brunswick

Approved in Part — Application for a broadcasting licence to carry on a new (cable) distribution undertaking to serve the Province of New Brunswick. The Commission will issue a Class 1 licence to NBTel, authorizing the applicant to carry on a broadcasting distribution undertaking to serve the area within the municipal boundaries of each of Saint John and Moncton, plus those areas, if any, that are outside of, but adjacent to, these municipal boundaries and, as of this date, are passed by NBTel's existing hybrid fibre/co-axial cable (HFC) network.

[27-1-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 June 4, 1998 (Secretariat File No. USA-97-1904-03).

In the June 4, 1998, decision, the binational panel affirmed in part and remanded in part the investigating authority's determination respecting certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada.

The binational panel instructed the investigating authority to provide its determination on remand within 60 days of the panel decision (by August 3, 1998).

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4802 (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

[27-1-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).