Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Fine, thank you.

I have 30 seconds left, Mr. Chairman?

This may be indeed the last chance I have in public to thank you, sir, and your fellow commissioners for the work you've been doing since your appointment to the CRTC. I think, generally speaking, I and many Canadians share the fact that we have a very good broadcasting system in this country, and that by and large the CRTC has been instrumental in making sure we've gone the way we've gone. So on behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you for the work you've done, and good luck on the rest of the mandate, however long it is.

[Charles Dalfen]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for being here today.

What I would like to know is where your mandate begins and where it ends. What is the extent of your ability to intervene as regards a radio station, for example? Do you have the power to influence a radio station's programming?

[Charles Dalfen]

We try not to engage in micromanagement. When a station applies for a licence renewal or a new licence, we look at the programming plans submitted by the licence holder. Basically, we accept what we hear and make suggestions. For example, if a station wants to have open-line shows, we ask whether they have a code of ethics, just to be sure that everyone will be treated equitably, and so on.

We don't get into the details of their programming.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I see.

So, you can assist them, but you don't have the authority to change everything.

[Charles Dalfen]

It's not a question of authority. We try not to interfere. Their responsibility is to manage their own programming, and so it is up to them to make those decisions. We try to encourage them to offer certain types of programming, such as dramas and local news, but beyond those categories, we allow licence holders to decide on their own programming.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dalfen. That answers my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Along that line, could you talk very briefly about CHOI?

[Charles Dalfen]

It's hard to talk briefly about it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Fifteen words or less.

[Charles Dalfen]

If you saw our release about 10 days ago, the approval of a new owner who will carry on the operation of that station has been granted. The jobs and service to the public will be maintained. But the original licensee will no longer be the licensee.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Recognizing that it is very sensitive—and I sincerely don't want to put you on the spot—what prompted you in the instance of CHOI? What put you over the edge?

We had Howard Stern, and we've had other things come to the air. The CRTC has regularly turned it over to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council--I think that is the name of the organization. But in this particular instance, you felt exercized enough to do something.

My question is particularly for people in broadcasting who would be taking a look at this testimony. This gives you an opportunity to give them a bit of an outline as to, okay, here is the border, here is the boundary, here is the line. Step across it at your own peril.

[Charles Dalfen]

I think providing that line was part of what went into it.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council had not once or twice, but to my knowledge at least three times, seizure of complaints and answered the complaints. The broadcaster didn't respond appropriately to those complaints. It escalated to the commission. We gave short-term renewals, and finally the line was crossed. The decision said what it said, and we made that decision.

I guess for broadcasters, the important thing is to read our decision, because we spelled out all the events that had occurred, including the CBSC hearings, very carefully. I would strongly suggest they read the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal decision that upheld the decision. I think it gives broadcasters a really good guideline of what is acceptable over the very powerful airwaves of this country as comment and what is regarded as abusive comment.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

In terms of part II fees, roughly what was the amount collected last year?

[Charles Dalfen]

Diane, did you think you were going to get away without answering?

[Diane Rhéaume, Secretary General, Corporate and Operations, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

About $112 million.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

About $112 million.

Is it appropriate for me to ask, do you have an opinion about part II fees?

[Charles Dalfen]

We're obliged to collect the part II fees under the act. We have been in litigation on that, so it's before the courts.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

With it being before the courts, if I'm asking a question that's inappropriate, I'll be happy to stop. I'll take your advice on that because I don't want to do anything to compromise the situation.

If part II fees in whole or in part were going to continue to be collected, and if the broadcasters could agree.... Let's presume the judgment of the court is in favour of the broadcasters, just for an intellectual exercise here. There has been some suggestion that they might be prepared to see a redistribution, perhaps into a CTF kind of idea, or to replace the legacy funds, or whatever the case may be. Do you have an opinion about that?

[Charles Dalfen]

I'd prefer not to discuss it because it is before the courts, and there are probably any number of hypotheticals that would lead to other kinds of discussions.

So if you don't mind....

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

No, I understand that completely. Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thanks for that. Your time is up. I thought that was a very appropriate answer.

I never like to finish with a government question, so Mr. Kotto has the last question. We can't go through a whole round. We haven't got enough time for that, so Mr. Kotto, you have the last question.