HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

¹

1540

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Michael Wernick

¹

1545

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Innovation, Department of Canadian Heritage)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto--Danforth, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

¹

1550

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.)

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

º

1600

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Michael Wernick

º

1605

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Jim Abbott

º

1610

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

º

1615

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Michael Wernick

º

1620

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Loyola Hearn

º

1625

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. John Harvard

º

1630

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

º

1640

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

º

1645

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

º

1650

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 051

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to consider Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

[Translation]

    Madam, in the absence of a quorum, we cannot consider your motion. The presence of additional members is required.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): We can wait. You already have part of my motion.

    The Chair: Perhaps after hearing from the witnesses, your problem will be solved.

    Let's begin.

[English]

    I would like to welcome, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Michael Wernick, the assistant deputy minister for cultural affairs, Mr. Marc O'Sullivan, director general for broadcasting policy and innovation, and Mr. Larry Durr, director of broadcasting distribution services, broadcasting policy and innovation.

    Thank you very much for accepting to appear on such short notice.

    Mr. Wernick, the floor is yours. From what I understand, you would rather just have questions from the floor on Bill S-7. Or do you want to make a statement?

    Mr. Michael Wernick (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage): I have no statement and no paper, and you've done the introductions. We're very conscious that this is private members' legislation. If we can be useful to the committee in coming to its views on the bill by answering questions, we're at your service.

    The Chair: Fine.

[Translation]

    Go ahead, Ms. Gagnon.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The aim of Bill S-7 is rather unique. The proposed legislation provides for the awarding of costs to enable groups that would otherwise not be in a position to do so to conduct research with a view to making recommendations or preparing submissions.

    Some witnesses, including the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, have testified that Bill S-7 would have the opposite effect. Submissions on the telecommunications industry have not had the desired results. The money tends to go to the experts. The same may be true of submissions on broadcasting.

    My hope is that Bill S-7 would benefit not only the experts, but groups as well. I would like them to be awarded costs so that they can make submissions and conduct research. Could you shed some light on this matter for us because I'm not sure if Bill S-7 will have our support. It will depend on the answers we receive.

    It's never easy when a bill comes to us from the Senate, because we haven't heard the testimony of all of the witnesses. We must rely on the good faith of others. We support the bill's underlying principle, but perhaps there are other ways to finance travel.

    Could you possibly point us in the right direction on this?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: It's truly difficult to predict the impact that this new measure will have on the system. There are no guarantees. It will depend to some extent on the nature of the questions submitted to the Commission over the next few years, on the persons who will be requesting financial assistance and on how the Commission will choose to administer the mechanism set out in the bill. There have been both pessimistic and optimistic predictions on how this measure is likely to affect CRTC procedures.

    Obviously, many experts, lobbyists and association representatives attend CRTC hearings. That's not unusual. If I understand correctly, the aim of the bill is to bring some kind of equity to the process by providing some financial resources to new voices that want to be heard.

    How will this alter the dynamics of certain specific hearings? I cannot answer that question or give you any guarantees. It will all depend on how the Commission processes the requests received. Therefore, there is an element of trust associated with how the CRTC plans to administer the mechanism.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: With respect to telecommunications, ordinary citizens rarely express a desire to appear before the CRTC because of the travel costs and expenses associated with hiring experts. Ordinary citizens or the most vulnerable organizations do not ask to appear because selection is based on established criteria and there are fewer incentives for members of the public or an organization to submit to this process.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I'll ask Marc to answer that question. Since our field of expertise is broadcasting, I don't profess to be an expert in telecommunications.

    The two systems and regulatory environments are quite different. Hearings into telecommunications issues are bigger events, but occur less frequently. From time to time, major issues are brought to the Commission's attention. In the broadcasting field, radio station and television licenses must be renewed on an ongoing basis. Hearings are scheduled on a more frequent basis because of the proliferation of regional and local issues. The differences between the two fields are such that the lessons learned about telecommunications cannot automatically be applied to the broadcasting industry regulatory process.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Innovation, Department of Canadian Heritage): I'd just like to say that basically, because of these differences, hearings on broadcasting issues are currently much more informal that hearings into telecommunications and they attract a greater number of participants. Broadcasting hearings attract greater public attention and participation. The fact that these hearings are conducted more informally than those on telecommunications produces a spinoff effect and encourages participation.

    Would these hearings become more formal if participants were funded in some way? That would depend a great deal on how the CRTC would administer this program in the broadcasting field. Is there a danger that the process will become more formal? That is a risk that will need to be managed. Through its regulations, the CRTC will need to ensure that procedures do not become overly cumbersome or costly. That's the challenge facing the broadcasting industry's regulatory body, a challenge quite unlike that facing the telecommunications industry.

    The Chair: I have an announcement to make to committee members.

[English]

     Somebody from the whip's office just told me that there's a vote in the House predicated for around 4:30 and that all the members should be in the House by 4:15 or so.

    Yes?

    Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I think I may have some...as long as this isn't broadly known. The probability is that the vote won't be occurring. And I have that on a fairly authoritative source. It will probably depend on the capacity of Mr. Reynolds' letter.

    The Chair: All right. So there we go; there might be a vote. I'm saying this to the members just in case, because we have the chance to have the officials here.

    We have two motions before us, and we have quorum now, so I think we should interrupt for just a minute. We don't have to change anything.

[Translation]

    Ms. Gagnon, would you like us to deal with your motion, or would you prefer that we wait...

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes. I cannot adopt a bill in haste, without having all the background information I need.

    The Chair: There are two motions.

[English]

     We'll take the easy one first.

    The motion we now have before us is on Bill C-54, which has been sent to us by the House of Commons. Bill C-54 is an act to promote physical activity and sport.

[Translation]

     The first involves the Act to promote physical activity and sport. The motion was referred to us by the House on Monday April 15 for consideration.

[English]

     The motion is that it be referred to the subcommittee on sport--which is already established under the chairmanship of Mr. Dennis Mills--for consideration and that the subcommittee report the bill to the standing committee by a certain date, which we can set ourselves.

    That will have to do, because we have to deal with this bill and there's no way we have time in this committee to deal with it.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto--Danforth, Lib.): I'd like to move the motion.

    The Chair: Do you know what kind of date you would...?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: What we'll do is go to the members that are on the committee and work around their schedules. Some members will want to have witnesses and we'll work out a schedule to hear the witnesses. After that we'll decide when we want to go clause-by-clause.

¹  (1550)  

    The Clerk of the Committee: Well, it's up to the committee if they want to give a deadline to report back to the committee. But if you want to leave it open, that's fine.

    The Chair: So we'll leave it open.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sorry, I need some information here. I don't have any idea what the answer to this question is. I was given the understanding that when a bill passes second reading and is brought before a committee, there is a finite timeframe. I was under the impression that it was 60 days before it had to be reported back to the House.

    The Chair: That's correct.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Therefore, putting a date here, just for clarity, would be June 15.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: It may be done before that.

    The Chair: This private member's bill is--

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I think we have to rely on the goodwill of the committee.

    The Chair: We want to insert a date. So we are moving it, Mr. Mills.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    We will now move on to Ms. Gagnon's motion.

    Do you have additional explanations for us, Ms. Gagnon?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I've already explained the rationale for my motion. Bill S-7 originated in the Senate, and we're facing the same problem we always have with Senate bills. The principle is very laudable, but I have some concerns in that I don't think we'll achieve the stated objective. Since the only witness we've heard from is the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, I feel we should hear from additional witnesses. I name them in my motion. I would also like to be able to put questions to Heritage Canada officials, but we're being told that we can't deal with the telecommunications industry separately. Broadcasting is not their area of expertise. We've heard that some legal, albeit controversial procedures could affect the pace of recommendations.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. You've all had the clause, so that everybody knows what the motion says: that the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be postponed to enable other witnesses, in particular Radio-Canada/CBC and Canadian Heritage officials--who are here already--to answer questions before the committee.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chair, again I ask the question: is Bill S-7 considered to be a private member's bill, and if so, can we actually do this? Because it has to be reported back to the House within 60 days.

    The Chair: It definitely has to be reported within 60 days.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: And do we have a date for that?

    The Chair: I think it's the 4th of June.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

    The Chair: All right. Madam Bulte.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): I believe Mr. Abbott asked about the CBC coming before, and I think the concern we expressed at that time was that they haven't asked to come. I don't see that we should use this as an opportunity to solicit people. I mean, the reason that Madame Gagnon...the reason the other two associations came before us was that they had requested to.

    I may be unaware of this, but I don't think there's been a floodgate of requests to come and be witnesses on this bill. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I don't see what purpose it serves. We had the people who wanted to speak on this. We have had the officials, who came on short notice.

    So just to leave it out to maybe who we can think of, who might be just frivolous and vexatious...just to have the process continue, I don't see the point, unless there is somebody specific who has asked to come.

    Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, through you, we could find out from the clerk, has anybody else even asked to appear on this bill?

    The Chair: No, or nobody has asked me, anyway, except for two associations. We've had the CAB and the CCTA.

    Yes, Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): I'm really uncomfortable with this motion. One half of it, of course, has already been met because we have the officials here. With respect to the CBC, I made the CBC aware of this motion two days ago. They expressed no interest in coming, and I don't know why we should be browbeating them if they don't want to come. They spoke at the Senate, and they are not inviting themselves to come to this committee.

    The other thing is, Madam Gagnon, your remarks would suggest that this bill has somehow come from some dark, faraway place. It has come from the Senate, and it happens to have a record. The record is very clear as to what was said at the Senate, and it's all very clear. I have a transcript of what the CRTC said right here, and when I have a chance, I'm going to be quoting back some of the things the CRTC said at the Senate. I just don't understand it when you suggest that you don't know anything about what happened in the Senate.

    I'm just afraid any further witnesses are only going to delay it, particularly if we want to ask someone who hasn't shown any interest in coming. I would appeal to Madam Gagnon to just leave well enough alone. We have the officials here, and let's leave it at that. Let's get the clause-by-clause at our next meeting.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: John, could you just briefly summarize again the winners and the losers in this amendment and tell us why you're sponsoring it?

    Mr. John Harvard: I don't...I--

    The Chair: You know, Mr. Mills, I agree with that, but at the same time, especially if there's going to be a vote, we have to take advantage of the officials being here. I'm sorry, but I'll feel bad if.... We can always ask Mr. Harvard later on, but if the officials are here--

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, maybe they could answer the question.

    Mr. John Harvard: I'm more than happy to answer, but let's deal with the motion. I'm not too sure whether Mr. Mills' question or suggestion is furthering our discussion regarding Madam Gagnon's motion. Let's deal with the motion.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I thought it was related to the motion.

    The Chair: If we were able to have a quorum at the end of the officials' meeting, what I would suggest to Madam Gagnon is that maybe the presence of the officials here, when we have finished with this thing, will solve a lot of problems, because they might make suggestions to us that will create--

    Mr. John Harvard: Lock the door so they won't be able to leave.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, perhaps you will get some answers that will enlighten you and we won't need to call in other witnesses or delay the process any further. We also have a problem with this bill. If we continue to examine Bill S-7, we won't make any headway with our study. At some point, we need to get things moving. We won't be able to hold lengthy hearings, because we will have neither the time, nor the means. This is a private member's bill. I don't know how much time we can devote to it. That's the problem. But I do understand your concerns.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: This is a private member's bill with cost implications. I'd like Mr. Harvard to know that I am well aware that the Senate is not some dark, faraway place. I realize that, but the issue is a little more complex than that. The whole dynamics of this bill are at issue here, not the dark, faraway place, as you stated.

    The Chair: As I was saying, we have all of the transcripts.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have but one assistant and no research staff to review this material.

    The Chair: The choice is yours, Ms. Gagnon. Do you want us to proceed with your motion, or should we hear from the witnesses?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Let's move to the witnesses. Will we be doing a clause-by-clause study? I haven't had time to...

    The Chair: No, not today.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Not today and not next week. We could delay this by one week to give me time to check into a few things. I will review the transcripts of the testimony. I'll get someone from my office to handle that.

    Thank you.

[English]

    Mr. Jim Abbott: So how are we going to handle it?

    The Chair: Now, I'm quite prepared to take that motion at the end, after we've heard from the officials.

[Translation]

    Except, we run the risk of not having a quorum then. We need nine members to have a quorum.

     Let's listen to the witnesses.

[English]

until 4:20 p.m., and then we'll decide.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I want my question answered, the one I put before, which I thought was related to the motion.

    The Chair: Go ahead, then.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, maybe the officials can answer it.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: What was the question?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: The question was, who are the winners and who are the losers in this amendment?

    Mr. John Harvard: Well, in my opinion, Dennis, the winners are Canadian democracy and the Canadian public. It gives members of the Canadian public who may be impacted by particular requests that come before the CRTC the chance to participate in the process before the CRTC. This happens under the Telecommunications Act. It doesn't under the Broadcast Act. What this bill does is level the playing field.

    There are many applications that have enormous implications for Canadians--consumers, whoever--and they have a right to participate. We're not suggesting a mechanism that's going to costs millions and billions of dollars. We already have a precedent under the Telecommunications Act where I think the CRTC is quite discretionary in its awards. Only in about 1% of the cases does the CRTC grant awards to provide input.

    Let me just quote what Mr. Colville said at the Senate:

Let me begin with stating that the Commission considers that public participation in our proceedings is an important tool to help us support informed participation in its processes. Such involvement would enrich our decisions

--our decisions--

and help us better determine what would be in the public interest.

    This is what the intent of Bill S-7 is.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: What would oppose this, if it's so good?

    Mr. John Harvard: Well, the opposition--

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, with due respect, maybe our wishes are--

    The Chair: Yes. I think we should ask the officials to say, which in the...are there losers, are there problems?

    A voice: Who's against this?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: Well, apart from the public policy arguments that Mr. Harvard's made, it comes down to two sides.

    Economically, the winners would be those groups that are likely to receive funding through this mechanism, and the commission will administer that in terms of eligibility and so on. We would expect, based on the way it works on the telecom side, that there'll be a bit of a needs element. They're not likely to provide funding to provincial and municipal governments and well-resourced corporations and organizations. It will likely be NGOs, community groups, and individuals who can argue they need the help and have something of value to add to the proceedings.

    The people who stand to lose economically are the broadcasting licensees and broadcasting distribution companies who would be assessed a levy at the end of the proceeding to pay the costs. It's a bit like courts awarding costs after a trial.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: So that would be an added burden on those licensees. That's not very good.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Well, there you are.

    I'm sorry; we have to move on.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

    Just for the edification of the witnesses, to restate where I'm coming from, I believe this bill is inappropriate at this time, because we are in the middle of the broadcast hearings. I have therefore taken that position on Bill S-7. However, given that it is before the committee and that the Liberals, should they choose to, may support it as party policy, I recognize that the bill may be going ahead. In that context, I'd like to ask the following question.

    Bill S-7, by its very nature, coming from the Senate fundamentally as a private member's bill, automatically becomes votable, which isn't one of the privileges we have in the House of Commons. Very frequently, whether private members' bills come from the Senate or from the House, they are somewhat deficient as far as the drafting is concerned and as far as the interests of the responsible department are concerned.

    In taking a look at Bill S-7, it's my judgment--and I'd like you to comment on my judgment--that this is a skeleton; that we don't really have the muscle, the sinew, the skin we need on a bill in order to be able to move forward. As a skeleton this just gives--not in a pejorative sense--a carte blanche to the CRTC to make up the rules as they go along. If the committee, and ultimately the House, were to pass this bill as a skeleton, we've just basically opened the door and said to the CRTC, “Okay, now you figure it out from here.” Is that a correct evaluation, in your judgment?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I'm not sure I'd phrase it exactly the same way. The bill obviously creates a power for the commission to establish a regime. That's the same as the telecom side. The policy choice you're making is whether you want to confer that on the commission and whether you trust them to set up a good mechanism or not. They would in the normal course of events draft criteria for eligibility, administrative procedures, deadlines, and mechanisms. They'd put those out for consultation, and people would have a chance to comment on them and respond to them. Then the commission would finalize them as administrative procedures.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I want to be sure that I'm not asking unfair questions here. I know you'll respond negatively if I am; it's certainly not intended.

    I'm taking a look at proposed subsection 9.1(2). Shouldn't we be perhaps doing an amendment there that would give the commission some direction? In other words, we are the people who are elected by the people of Canada to act on their behalf, whether it's corporations or individuals. Do we not have a responsibility? I'm sorry; this is a policy question, and I shouldn't phrase it that way.

    Let me ask this. What if we were to add four clauses? The first clause would be along this general line: that has demonstrated that they are representative of a group or class of subscribers that has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and has established that they will either receive a benefit or suffer a detriment as a result of the decision resulting from the proceeding.

    A second one: that this organization or individual has acted in a responsible manner. A third one: has significantly contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the commission. And a fourth one: has submitted to the commission in periodic reports, or in such other form and manner as the commission specifies, any information that the commission considers necessary for the administration of the costs awarded under this section.

    There's no possible way you can digest what I just read--I hardly understand it myself--but the point I'm driving at is that there is some thought given here that as the elected officials, we could, in this bill, if we were to put a piece of muscle onto the skeleton, be giving some specific direction in legislation to the CRTC. In the opinion of the department, would that be a positive step?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: The language you just read is the administrative procedures that we used on the telecom side and I think what's being suggested to you is that for greater certainty, clarity, and predictability you take language that is currently of administrative procedures and elevate it to the level of statutory language. That's your choice as a committee. I can't give you advice on that. There's a trade-off for you.

    If it's hard-wired into the legislation, then it becomes very difficult to change in the future. You'd have to come back and reopen statutory language. If it's in administrative language and the mechanism goes in a certain direction and people aren't happy with the administrative rules, it's easier to go to the commission and convince them to change their procedures. You won't involve an entire parliamentary process to do that.

    It's a lot like the discussions we're inevitably going to have on copyright legislation about what should be in the statutory language and what should be in regulations. That's the choice you have to make.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Would you feel comfortable offering an opinion as to the placement of statutory language like this in the bill, as to whether it would be beneficial in terms of the actual functioning of a bill like this? Do you have an opinion about that?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: It gives you greater clarity and predictability, but the price you pay is a degree of rigidity in the future. That's the choice.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I have one final question. My concern, and you'll excuse me if this sounds terribly political, is that there has been direction of the existing government to create skeletons and then allow regulatory bodies to put the meat on the skeleton.

    I wonder if we could consider another clause added to this act that read something like this: This act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council and such date shall follow the date on which the commission has made regulations establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs.

    If we didn't go to establishing for the reasons that you're talking about, and that's a perfectly valid opinion and a perfectly valid argument, if we didn't go there, would you agree that at least this way this skeleton would not actually be asked to run in a race until we'd seen what the muscle was that was going to go onto it?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: There are no general guidelines I'm aware of in creating legislation as to where the balance between statutory and regulatory language should lie. We're going to have this conversation about copyright legislation in the next little while.

    The normal way public policy evolves is that Parliament passes the legislation, and then regulations are drafted and consulted on, and come into force. It has been, as I understand it, an ongoing concern of parliamentarians that they want to have a sense of where the regulatory language is going to go before they create a regulation-making power. I understand that entirely.

    On the copyright legislation, we are trying very hard to get draft regulatory language, a sort of pre-study form, so that you can get a level of comfort as to where the regulations would turn out before you confer regulation-making power on a minister. So I understand that dynamic.

    Government-drafted legislation, I think without exception, has a coming-into-force clause precisely to create a bit of space between royal assent and the regulatory process. If there is debugging required, or surprises, or if it turns out to be trickier drafting than people had anticipated, you create some space and the minister can hold up a proclamation of the law into force.

    That can either be open-ended, as you have suggested, or to a fixed state. You could pick a calendar date. You could pick one year after royal assent. I think the way...if I understood your wording, is a little bit catch-22, because the commission, legally, won't set up its regulations on a law that hasn't come into force. What we're talking about is more of an informal consultation on draft guidelines and draft eligibility criteria, but they won't be the formal, final things until this law actually has the force of law.

    So as a matter of drafting, I'm not quite sure your wording works. But if this was government legislation, it would have a coming-into-force clause.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: But the coming-into-force clause--

    The Chair: Mr. Abbott, may I give a chance to Ms. Bulte?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I will continue on the same line that Mr. Abbott started.

    From what you were saying, you kept talking about...how will the CRTC administer, I think you said, or how does the CRTC decide. And the commission, I believe, is going to determine eligibility. So I think the key here is what the commission.... And maybe I'm wrong, but I think part of the concern here is that we don't know what those rules are going to be. I know that when the CRTC appeared before us, they actually talked about setting up hearings and things like this.

    Let me just go back to what Mr. Abbott said. Could this legislation then be amended to provide for this coming-into-force clause?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: That is entirely the committee's prerogative. You can amend it any which way you want. You could add a clause to the bill that would say, this act comes into force one year after royal assent, or on a fixed date, or on proclamation.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But if we did that, if we did amend it, during this time, how would we know the CRTC would go about and do this? I guess that's my other concern. Would it just...?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: That's a question you might want to put to the CRTC. They are aware of the bill. Mr. Colville has appeared on it. They know the mechanism that they run on the telecom side. My guess is as soon as it's clear that the bill is going to pass then they will be scurrying around to draft a set of....

    Basically it's going to be, who is going to eligible? What are the administrative processes for applying? How are awards going to be made and levied? You create an administrative structure for it, put a piece of paper out for consultation, and give people a chance to have views on whether they can improve it or not. That's inevitably going to follow the adoption of this bill if it goes through.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Just one quick question.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Bulte.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: This is just for my understanding. When the CRTC creates these rules.... Now, you talked about regulation. Are you using those words...? Regulation means something to me, or different, for instance, from a legal point of view.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I think the term is probably “administrative procedures”.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. So they are not actually regulations.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: No.

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you. That was just something I wanted cleared up in my own mind.

    The Chair: Ms. Lill.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Well, I support--

    The Chair: Oh, excuse me, Ms. Lill; I didn't realize that Mr. Duplain had asked. There are two on the government side.

    Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): If I understand correctly, the act and the regulations to be made by the CRTC will be different. We can adopt legislation that is to our liking, but the CRTC may make regulations with which we disagree. At that point, our hands are tied.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: The bill proposes to give the CRTC a financing mechanism and the necessary powers to create the appropriate administrative mechanisms.

[English]

    So you have to choose whether you're comfortable with this level of detail in the bill, or if you want to add more detail to it, as Mr. Abbott was discussing. Ultimately, if the bill is not amended, the commission will set up these administrative rules on who is eligible, how they have to apply, how awards are going to be made, and so on.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Is there anything else, Mr. Duplain?

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have a problem. The other day, when we met with witnesses, we were told that it was in the public interest to vote in favour of this bill. Another time, we were even told that we should be defining what the public interest was for the benefit of the CRTC. Therefore, I'm starting to have a problem with this.

    The Chair: Well, it's your...

[English]

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Is there another question over there?

    The Chair: No. Next is Mrs. Lill, Mr. Herron, Mr. Harvard, and you.

    Okay, Mrs. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

    I support the concept behind this bill. From our own experience with the broadcasting study, we have really noticed the difference in the quality of the presentations that come before us on some very complex issues around broadcasting. It's really critical that the quality of public presentations is increased. That's part of the whole democratic process.

    The contentious issue seems to be who pays for the cost awards. At the present time, from the notes I have on this, the funds come from the key industry intervener service budgets. That procedure is the same as what already takes place in the Telecommunications Act.

    I know you're not in that department, but maybe you are aware of how it works. Is that working well within the Telecommunications Act? What is the experience at this time with the way cost awards are being given there? Is there any problem with it? What is the underlying premise of it? Obviously, some members take exception to the idea that key industry interveners pay the tab on this, but there's obviously a fundamental principle there.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Especially the small ones.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I'm going to pass one question on to Marc.

    The public policy rationale is essentially as Mr. Harvard advocated. The regulatory proceedings are about broadcast licence companies and broadcast distribution companies. They are--and I'm sure they wouldn't use this phrase--the beneficiaries of that regulation.

    If you're satisfied that the current procedures are a level playing field and people have the ability to participate in those regulatory and licensing decisions, then you don't need this mechanism and you shouldn't support the bill.

    The argument for intervener funding on the telecom side and on the broadcasting side is that the playing field is not completely level; there are people who have more resources and therefore more ability to influence these proceedings than others. By providing some additional financial resources to a certain kind of intervener, you'll get a more balanced set of facts and arguments that the commissioners can then work with.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: The argument is that the entity that stands to benefit the most from this action or decision should pay for a quality debate on the issue, in fact.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: That's the argument in favour of intervener funding.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Certainly one of the issues is that much of the money these companies have comes from ordinary citizens, who should be able to be represented in a fair way at the table.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: This has to be weighed. There's no question that unless we change the way fees are levied and collected, the immediate impact of this bill on the bottom line of broadcasting and licensing companies would be to add cost. I don't know how to predict exactly how much this would be, because we don't know how many people are going to apply for the funding or get it.

    It's difficult to forecast. Companies would have to have need of the resources and offer an argument to the commission that they would have something to add to the proceedings. The awards are given after the proceedings; a rough analogy would be the awarding of costs in a court proceeding.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, let me apologize for my ignorance of some of what has been discussed here. I was absent but now I'm back, and I'll be here for a while.

    The Chair: We're glad to see you back.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'm in agreement with Mr. Abbott, actually. We're discussing a bill here that we shouldn't be discussing, in light of the timeframe. We're out talking about the Broadcasting Act in general, but we're tying our hands in between on an issue that we might feel entirely differently about when the process unfolds.

    That said, let me remind you of the old saying, “If it's not broke, don't fix it.” And how well does the present intervener status work in relation to the Broadcasting Act? The Telecommunications Act is entirely different and we should look at it.

    When I saw this bill originally, looking at it from a very local perspective, I thought that perhaps it had merit. Quite often people in remote areas of the country will be affected by the Broadcasting Act more than any other act, and because the hearings don't usually take place in such remote areas, they have to go to larger centres. Very often they can't afford to do so, and consequently they can't intervene.

    On the other side, however, it's amazing who appears on the scene once you flash around a few dollars. This attracts the professional interveners who sometimes go well above and beyond what the cause calls for.

    I also have some concern about the costs being passed on to the broadcasting groups, because quite often they're in a pretty tight fix themselves.

    Could the witnesses give us some idea of the magnitude of cost we are looking at if we have hearings and they're paying for intervener status under the Broadcasting Act? Are we looking at significant dollars here or are the costs usually just incidental ones that wouldn't have any major effect on the companies?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: It's difficult to transfer one to the other. Telecom proceedings, like the regulation of phone charges and so on, tend to be very, very long and legalistic. They require a great deal of economic analysis and many legal arguments, so they can go on for weeks and weeks.

    Broadcasting hearings tend to be short. We go in, listen to the views of the community about their radio or television stations, and we're done. Others of course are much more substantial, such as the licence hearings on big groups like CTV, CanWest, or the CBC. These are longer affairs and require more substantial involvement. Associations, lawyers, lobbyists, experts, economists, and other people already participate in those proceedings.

    The question about intervener funding is a little hypothetical. I don't know how many awards the commission will provide. Under the Telecommunications Act, it has been fairly stingy. It doesn't give everyone what they ask for; sometimes a group may ask for $100,000 and only get $20,000. I can provide you with some information on how the telecom system works, but that's not necessarily going to predict how things will work on the broadcasting side.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have one short point, Mr. Chairman.

    You mentioned that the broadcasting proceedings are usually short and to the point, which is probably the way it should be; but if interveners were getting paid to attend and make presentations, would these proceedings still be so short and to the point? Is this one of the things that's encouraging more complicated interventions? Is it better to stay with the simplicity of what we have, where proceedings are to the point and only those who are really interested show up to intervene?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I have one point that I think is germane here; on the telecom side, none of the companies know in advance that they're getting funding. It's not like they're getting money to come to St. John's for a hearing. They make the decision of whether and how heavily to intervene with no guarantee that they're going to get the awards; the awards come afterwards.

    The Chair: Mr. Harvard, followed by Mr. Mills.

    Mr. John Harvard: Under the Telecommunications Act, interim funding is available. No interim funding is available under Bill S-7. Perhaps that's something we should consider.

    Let me just pick up on a couple of points and then ask a couple of questions.

    I don't think we have to worry, Mr. Hearn, about creating a new class of professional interveners. It hasn't happened under the Telecommunications Act. About 1% of all the cases heard have drawn awards imposed by the CRTC--only 1%. We're talking 20 to 24 cases a year. The average cost per year of awards--for the entire year--is $500,000. That's it, under telecommunications. Mr. Wernick is right that perhaps it could be different under the Broadcasting Act. I'm just giving you what the precedent is under the Telecommunications Act.

    I also think that your questions, Mr. Hearn, are very appropriate and very relevant, but I think those are the questions that can be asked in the hearings preceding the establishment of the criteria and regulations--a job that would be done by the CRTC. And the CRTC, when it appeared before the Senate, made that promise. I want to quote what Mr. Colville said:

Our intention is to hold a public proceeding with respect to this. It is conceivable that the criteria could be the same.

    He means the same as under the Telecommunications Act. He goes on to say:

However, there may be some reasons that the criteria would be somewhat different and unique to the broadcasting situation. I do not know what those could be, but we would certainly want the public and the industry to be involved in a process to determine what the criteria would be.

    Before I ask my question of Mr. Wernick, I am concerned that if we were to put in the kind of language that perhaps Mr. Abbott is suggesting, we would have rigidity. And I think if we're going to have these kinds of impositions, let's put them into the regulations, not into the law.

    I have two questions. One is with respect to fixing a date as to when the act would come into force, let's say a year. By the way, as a sponsor of the bill, I can easily live with that.

    The only question I have about that, though, Mr. Wernick, is if we were to fix a date of one year, in that interim, could the CRTC hold those hearings to establish its regulatory procedures? They wouldn't have to wait for the one year, would they?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: No, they could start consulting on draft rules today if they wanted to.

    Mr. John Harvard: Right.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I think they just want to know that Parliament is going to pass the bill before they launch that process.

    Mr. John Harvard: Of course.

    I have another question that I think is perhaps the most germane from my point of view. I think the reason we asked the officials to come today--and thank you for that--is that there is a fear, and a legitimate one, I understand this, that somehow or other this legislation, if it's passed, will cause the CRTC to become almost wild in its behaviour and award monstrous cost awards on innocent, unsuspecting applicants.

    I don't think that's the case, but I want you to respond to them, Mr. Wernick, because surely there are regulations with respect to regulatory work. Bureaucrats and agencies that receive legislation can't just take the legislation and draw up the craziest kinds of regulations. There are parameters. There's an ambit within which they work.

    Can you just explain that so that you allay these fears that the CRTC, despite, I think, its responsible behaviour under the Telecommunications Act, would go crazy with all these possible cost awards?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: You're asking me to put myself in the place of the commission. You may want to ask the commission--

    Mr. John Harvard: But what's the precedent? What are the laws of the land? What does Parliament say to these people who have the power to draw up regulations?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: Again, this would go back to your earlier question. These are basically administrative procedures. My guess, based on Mr. Colville's testimony at the Senate, is that they will take the telecom model and adapt or fine-tune it to the broadcasting environment. I'm not quite sure what adjustments would be required. I think they've already heard the interventions before the Senate and this committee, from the cable and broadcasters' associations, about the worry that this could mushroom out of control for them, and they'll put some rules out there. I think one of the key control factors is who's going to be eligible. Who can come in and apply for this?

    The other is the criteria around value added to the proceeding. It's not enough just to show up. Many of these proceedings draw hundreds and hundreds of applications. People have views on their television and radio and broadcasting services. The commission usually sorts out those it wants to hear from as witnesses, just as your committee does. After all that, if I understand the telecom world, to get an award somebody is going to have to show they needed the money and had something of value that enriched the proceeding.

    Those are the basic control points the commission would use. Then they'll set an amount and a levy. The people who are going to pay are a little nervous--quite reasonably, in my view--about what this will do to their bottom line, but I don't know how to quantify exactly how much this will be. I think a lot will depend on the administrative procedures, and those people would be consulted on the rules.

    If I understand the telecom mechanism, and I'll stand to be corrected by my colleagues on it, there's even another control point, which is when somebody applies on the telecom side and says, “I need some help, and here's my proposition. I need $200,000 to do this or do that.” The applicants are invited to comment. They can pick apart and criticize and say, for instance, “That's not a value added.” The commission will weigh not only the application for support but also the comments of the applicants, and then, like Solomon, decide what's a reasonable amount.

    The Chair: Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to make three quick points.

    Number one, we are studying the broadcast system, and I think all the information we've heard here today, with even more research, could be possibly a part of our ultimate list of recommendations.

    Second, I totally support the notion that more people coming in to give witness on the way the broadcast system works is fine, but I am adamantly opposed to signing off on a piece of legislation where hundreds of small business men and women in this country could ultimately get a charge-back that, at this point in time, is not part of their business plan. If this only affected one or two of the big guys, and they had to pick up the costs of an extra $40,000 or $50,000 a year because of a bunch of interveners coming in to keep them honest, I'm there.

    But the reality of the broadcast industry in this country is that especially in my community, Toronto, it's not just about Standard Broadcasting; there are a lot of small and medium-size new-Canadian stations representing the Tamils, representing the Greeks, representing this and that. If, all of a sudden, because a whole bunch of people wanted to intervene because the bureaucrats, with all due respect to them, and the CRTC, decide, “Oh, we'll have these people interfere--and by the way, they get a big bill in the mail”, that affects their balance sheet and their banking and everything else.

    A lot of these smaller radio stations, colleagues, work on very fine margins. Oh, it looks big and sexy and everything else, but their debt is right up to their eyes, and their margins are very small.

    The Chair: What is your third point?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: That was my third point.

    The Chair: There was a second, and the third...?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No. My second point was a concept where creating intervener status is good, but no way do we support something that burdens small business.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: I understand.

    Before I open this to the third round of questions, it's 4:35 p.m., and a lot of members have said they are going to be leaving very shortly. While we have enough members here, I see my role as trying to build a consensus and find a solution to things.

    I understand from the hearings we've had before that our colleague, John Harvard, being the sponsor, wants this bill to go through, otherwise he wouldn't have picked it up as a sponsor. That's legit and I see his point that he believes in the aim of the bill.

    At the same time, there's been representation from people such as Madame Gagnon, Mr. Duplain, and others who are wondering about the mechanics of this thing, because it's been left wide open.

    I think that was your point of view, Mr. Abbott.

    There's been a suggestion, endorsed by the sponsor himself, that if it is coming into force a year hence, maybe it will give time for the CRTC to flesh out this thing--produce the skin on the skeleton. At the same time, our study will have ended and maybe we'll have a recommendation to back up intervener funding, or whatever we decide on. Maybe that will give time for this work to be done, so everybody will feel satisfied.

    If this is the element of a solution, maybe we can just get this thing moving on, instead of staying with Bill S-7 for another few weeks, because I don't know where we'll find the time.

    I just want to put it forward to you. Mr. Harvard has said he's prepared to live with this, so maybe this is the element of a solution that is a compromise, and very fair on his part. At the same time, it might meet the objections of Madame Gagnon, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Mills and others.

    I put that to you, then, so that we can find out if this is an element of a solution. If it is not, then we'll carry on.

    Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I don't want to be a stick-in-the-mud, and I really respect your attempt at coming down the middle on this thing, but it seems to me it would simply defer the problem Mr. Mills is talking about. In other words, if the decision were to go ahead with Bill S-7, with the application of an amendment to the amendment coming into force 12 months or 18 months hence, we would still arrive at the same result Mr. Mills was having some difficulty with--and certainly I have some difficulty with it. I appreciate the effort, but I don't think that really is a solution.

    I have just a quick comment for Mr. Harvard. In proposed subsection 9.1(1) it says that the commission may award interim or final costs. I believe I heard you say this bill would not allow for interim costs, but it says here it would award interim or final costs. I just thought I'd mention that to you.

    Mr. O'Sullivan, as the director general of broadcasting policy, could you give us a word picture of the hearings before the CRTC in a 12-month period? How frequently are there interventions, how many people are involved, and what are the hot points of the interventions? Perhaps it would give us a bit of an idea of what we're really looking at. We might be looking at an ant, we might be looking at a mountain. We don't know what we're looking at here.

    Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The CRTC has gone through some of the most important licence renewals over the past little while. They've gone through the major national broadcast systems, so the major hearings we knew were down the road have been dealt with. I'm not aware of major hearings that are coming up.

    The CRTC has gone over a big hump in dealing with the major licences it has awarded for seven years, over the past year. So we don't have major CRTC proceedings on the same scale as the renewal of the CBC's licence, and the renewal of the licences of CTV, Global, and TVA. The CRTC has gone through some of the major applications in the past while.

    I can't think offhand of something of a similar scale or scope down the road in the near future. We've dealt with the major ones recently.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

    I would appreciate it if you would feel comfortable in offering an opinion on this. When there have been interventions--or in the interventions that you foresee in the future--do you believe there have been people who have been disadvantaged, that have not been able to come and express themselves, that haven't been heard?

    Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: In the year that I've been in this position, I haven't seen correspondence. I haven't received calls. There haven't been cases brought before me of people saying, “In the absence of intervener funding, I wasn't able to participate in the process”. But that's a poor indication of whether there's a problem or not. The problems have not been brought to our attention.

    I'm not aware of correspondence to the minister or to the department arguing that because there's no intervener funding, group A or B has not been able to participate. However, I know there are groups that are allied with this private member's bill that have expressed their concerns and their hope for this type of regime to be established.

    So there has been a call for this from certain parts, but in regard to the general public, I personally am not aware of people making complaints about the lack of funding prohibiting them from participating in the broadcast proceedings.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: I wonder if you would feel comfortable about expressing an opinion on the following comment. Mr. Hearn was saying that if funding were available, people would therefore be going for the funding. In other words, it would become an industry on its own. Because of the fact that it's there, the fact that it's available, people will be attempting to tap into it, which will create the kind of drain that Mr. Mills and I--we're simpatico on this, I think--are concerned about.

    In other words, there isn't a problem right now, but if the funding were put out, if it were available, people would attempt to attach themselves to the funding, thereby creating a negative cashflow for the broadcasters.

    Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I understand the concern on the part of the small broadcasters about the possible effects on their bottom line. Because the number of people participating in broadcast hearings is high, or higher than on the telecom side, there's a legitimate question there about what the financial impact would be.

    As Mr. Wernick pointed out, that would be one of the major challenges faced by the CRTC, to devise ways of proceeding under such a regime under Bill S-7 to ensure it wouldn't create a terrible burden for the smaller players. It's a legitimate question. It's a legitimate issue about the impact of this, because the number of people who participate in broadcast hearings is higher than it is in telecom. So that would be a major challenge, trying to devise rules that would address that.

    Mr. Jim Abbott: So if we were to put--

    The Chair: Mr. Abbott, in fairness to the others...sorry.

    Mr. Harvard, then Mr. Mills.

    Mr. John Harvard: I have a short reply to what Dennis has said, and perhaps one question.

    In regard to what Dennis said about his concern for small radio-station operators, I have considerable sympathy for these people as well; I'm talking about small operators whose profit margins may not be that grand. But when we're talking about awarding costs, we're not talking about taxing everyone in the industry. If you don't apply, if you don't have an application before the CRTC, these award costs aren't going to affect you. It would come into effect only if you were an applicant before the CRTC. Yes, while broadcasting might be different from telecommunications--and it is--a lot of the matters before the CRTC are technical matters and are not going to be of interest to the general public. Certainly that's the experience under the Telecommunications Act under broadcasting.

    But my question for you on that, Mr. Wernick, is if we were to consider some possible relief, let's call it, to address the concern of Mr. Mills--and I think we all have that kind of concern--would it make sense from either a regulatory point of view or a legislative point of view to simply identify a certain class of radio stations whose revenues are at a certain level, and anything below that would be exempted?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: As I imagine you heard during the hearings, the CRTC essentially already does that in a number of ways. They exempt small cable systems from some of the regulatory burden that is put on bigger cable systems in the assessment of the basic fees that are paid to the CRTC for the cost recovery. There is an exemption for small companies. They're just not assessed. They're carved out, so to speak.

    I don't know if this is helpful to you or not, but certainly if your concern is the impact on the small players, I don't know exactly how to express this in legal language, but you could put a little carve-out clause in the bill that would say, “This section does not apply to those companies who have the benefit of the fee exemption.”

    The Chair: Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, building on this amendment that you've just proposed--

    Mr. Michael Wernick: Suggested...[Editor's Note—Inaudible]

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Dennis Mills: First of all, I think, John, in fairness, the officials have said it's a different scene from the telecommunications game, because there are many more of them.

    Here is my concern, and I think it should concern all of us. We've just had a bill go through the House of Commons--I think it has gone through--on a $24 charge at the airports, without any impact analysis. Mr. O'Sullivan just said a few moments ago that we have not done an impact analysis on what this exercise would cost. Is it unreasonable to see if we could have a little impact analysis before we, as legislators, sign on to this and hand it over to the officials?

    I've been around here long enough to know that once you sign on to a bill and hand it over to the officials, it's like a big black hole. Through regulations, they.... And present company probably excluded from time to time, I'll say.

    Mr. Michael Wernick: No offence taken.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Dennis Mills: But the notion that we would just sign on to this without having an impact analysis, I find a little edgy, for me, anyway.

    John, I want to support you on this, and--

    Mr. John Harvard: You're doing a terrible job.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm just trying to see if you'd put a little water in your wine there.

    Mr. John Harvard: I've just given you an F. You score an F.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm looking to see whether the officials could help bridge this for us by giving us an impact....

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I don't think it would be worth anything to you, because it would just be totally hypothetical. We don't know what proceedings would happen in the next few years, which was one of the questions.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Could you put a floor on it?

    Mr. Michael Wernick: We don't know the criteria in terms of who would be eligible.

    The bill basically confers to the commission the ability to run this mechanism. If you're not comfortable, then you shouldn't support the bill; you shouldn't give them that power. I can't construct numbers and modelling and figure it out. You either believe it's going to work roughly like the telecom side or you don't.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable doing this.

    The Chair: Are there any other questions for the officials? This is our opportunity to question them. We asked to have them here. Have you any other questions, or do we close at this point?

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, and hopefully this will be very quick.

    When we did copyright in 1996-97 and we were looking at the blank tape levy, people were talking about a 25¢-per-tape charge. DVDs have gone from 5.2¢ to 59¢; MP3s, which are now covered by the same thing, are running between $200 and $400 per unit. That's a pretty big difference, between 25¢ and those numbers.

    So the concern I have is on the basis of that history, of having turned it over to the Copyright Board, and now we're talking about turning this over to the CRTC board. I guess what I'm looking for is some ideas that the heritage department might be able to give this committee as to how we could avoid the potential of a mirror image of what has happened to us on the recording media.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Michael Wernick: I'm not sure the analogy fits, because the Copyright Board is precisely there to arbitrate tariffs associated with various forms of copyright. People come in and apply for a tariff, people oppose them, the Copyright Board decides what to assess, and that moves over time in proportion to the economic value of those rights.

    Nobody should be surprised that the value of the private copying levy has increased since 1997, because there's more and more private copying going on. There are applications before the board now to change the rates, to increase them, to change the medium on which they apply, but that's a proceeding that has not been concluded. The back and forth of what's asked for and what will finally come out, we're not going to see for several months.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one final point, if I may. It will be very short.

    You know, we've all been passionate supporters of CBC Radio on this committee, but this is an example where CBC really wouldn't be affected by this at all, because any charge-backs to them are essentially covered by the Crown, whereas those private operators don't have that same luxury. So you essentially create a two-tiered system in terms of treatment.

    Mr. John Harvard: I don't think that's necessarily true. The government can take the view that any particular costs of this kind would have to be absorbed by the current CBC budget, or the budget of the moment. There's no guarantee the CBC could run off to Treasury Board and say, “We've been hit with a $100,000 fee; please pay up and add $100,000 to our budget.” The two don't necessarily follow.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: And that means layoffs.

    The Chair: Just before we close, we made a commitment to Ms. Gagnon that at the end of the proceedings we were going to deal with a motion as to whether or not we go forward with it. The motion is still before us. In fairness to her, I think that was our agreement with her.

[Translation]

    Do you want us to vote on the motion, Ms. Gagnon?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll have to vote yea or nay to Mrs. Gagnon's motion. You have the wording in front of you. I will read the motion so that we can deal with it, because we have to deal with it.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: So we're not voting on whether to proceed with clause-by-clause.

    The Chair: No. It says:

That the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be postponed to enable other witnesses, in particular Radio-Canada/CBC and Canadian Heritage officials, to answer questions before the committee.

    Mr. John Harvard: I just want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that we've already heard from the officials, and they've done a good job. The CBC has not asked to appear, even though they know that if they were to be...you know, they would come if asked. But they're not inviting themselves, so I don't know why we're picking out the CBC.

    The other thing is that in your motion, Madame Gagnon, you use the words “other witnesses”. What other witnesses are you talking about, or thinking about?

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'm talking about witnesses you could shed more light on this matter. We could draw up a list.

[English]

    Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Maybe we could call the question and vote on the motion.

    The Chair: Yes, do we call the question now before Mr. Abbott goes? That's the only way. Otherwise--

    Mr. Dennis Mills: This doesn't mean we're supporting the bill.

    The Chair: No.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Right. We're just wanting to move on.

    The Chair: We'll now vote on the motion as presented by Ms. Gagnon.

    (Motion negatived)

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I' m alone, alone, alone. For heaven's sake, Mr. Duplain, I want the committee to hear other witnesses in order to...

[English]

    The Chair: I would like to thank the officials--

º  (1655)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Personally, I'm not opposed to the bill.

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me. Order, please.

    I would like to thank the officials very sincerely for appearing on such short notice. We appreciate your presence here. We'll proceed from here. Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.