Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Thank you.

As you are very interested and expert witnesses, I'd appreciate your comments on the comments that I'm about to make.

I think the position the Liberals are taking on this is really quite breathtaking, because the process the minister is working under is a creation of their government. They were in power for 13 years. They created the process that she has to work within, so if she has handcuffs on, they were crafted by the Liberals themselves. So I find their position really breathtaking.

Secondly, you should know that with respect to the issue of the loan, the difficulty with any government that will come forward with a loan or a loan guarantee of let's say $100 million or $150 million--or whatever the amount--is that that's not insubstantial. It is a tremendous amount of money. It's money that immediately has to go on the books, which of course is unplanned money or unbudgeted money at this particular point.

The fact that the government has made the commitment going into the next financial year of $100 million a year, going ahead of its budget and making that announcement, is something that will give the government the time to go through Treasury Board and actually prepare for that amount of money to be available.

So on the idea of the bridge financing, I'm not discussing whether it's desirable or not desirable; I'm just saying that in practical terms we are talking about a very substantial amount of money, at least equal to the amount of money the government has already committed. It is very substantial.

Finally, I wonder if, as witnesses, you're aware of the Supreme Court judgment on the so-called part II fees. This is a parallel situation, and the parallel is exceptionally close. The Supreme Court ruled, with respect to the part II fees, that they were effectively a tax. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see that the court could make a judgment that these fees that are part of the licensing agreement for the cable providers could also be construed to be the same as being a tax. Just give me your comment on that.

Again, I'm not discussing whether it's desirable or not. I'm just saying, on the mechanics of the thing, is it actually enforceable?

Finally, I think the direction the minister is taking right now of attempting to ask and to enter into dialogue really is about the extent of the so-called power the minister has under the rules under which she's working.

I wonder if you'd care to comment on my comments.

[Maureen Parker]

I'll just jump in on the part II and be very quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We only have two minutes.

[Maureen Parker]

We are very much aware of the part II fees in the ruling. We think we do have regulation and that it is enforceable. Absolutely, as you said, the only way to know for sure is to let the CRTC do its job. Let's start the machine.

But if it is determined that those fees are not required and they are a form of taxation, I would call for an immediate review of their licence. For some reason unknown to me--and we haven't done all the digging--Shaw's licence has been extended for two years under an administrative review. I don't know why. They should have had a hearing in 2006.

Their licence is up for renewal in 2008. If it is determined that they are not going to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system as required by the Broadcasting Act, their licence should be reviewed immediately. There has to be balance in the system. There has to be some integrity. It can't work all one way.

[Brant Kostandoff]

I have three quick points.

On the part II question, I think the distinction is that the contribution to the CTF is a condition of licence rather than a fee paid to a government agency. I see that as a difference.

On the minister being engaged in dialogue, I absolutely agree. It's a critical step in this process. If the largest players in our industry are going to listen to anybody, it's the Minister of Heritage.

To some extent, reiterating Maureen's comments, there is a role for the CRTC in this as well. In fact, in terms of the broader questions, the CRTC doesn't have a lot of teeth in this process. They're looking to enforce a circular, and they have no remedy other than potentially pulling a licence, which they've never done. So there needs to be consideration given to how to give them power to deal with these kinds of circumstances when they arise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

I must say that we're right on 11 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.