Canadian Heritage Committee on March 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We will reconvene the meeting.

We have a bit of a quandary here this morning. We have some people who are going to have to leave. We do have some important work to do.

The first order of business that we have to deal with is the order-in-council appointment of Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. We need a mover that the committee has examined the qualifications of Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein as chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and that he has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he's been appointed, and that the chair report to the House. Would someone care to move that motion?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Our second piece of business is that we go back to our 17th report, Issues relating to the Canadian Television Fund. The other day, as we left the meeting, recommendation number 4 was....

Yes, Mr. Abbott.

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

I wonder if I might possibly move to the next motion that we have in front of us, on the dissenting opinion. I would like to move that the committee append to its report a dissenting opinion from the Conservative Party, and from the Bloc Québécois, should they choose to make that draft a dissenting report, providing it is no more than two pages in length and submitted electronically to the clerk of the committee no later than Monday, March 12, 2007, at 4 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Going back to the 17th report again, there were recommendations put forward by Mr. Angus, and I think recommendation number 4 was put on hold until we had some clarification from our experts.

When I read our great lawyer expert's report this morning I think it explains things clearly that there is a penalty system in place for the CRTC. It suggests here that if we do accept recommendation number 3--as we did--I think the penalties are already there. If we put it in place and we want to change things, it might take longer. If everyone is in favour of the penalties that are there, I think number 4 could be redundant, because there is already a fining mechanism there. All we could do with that would be to increase it or something like that. It looks fairly substantial to me.

Yes, Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, even though we have received a document on the CRTC's power to impose administrative monetary penalties, I still have trouble... Bill C-73 from the last Parliament, was a bill that died on the order paper. It read:

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission with the authority to create and administer an administrative monetary penalty scheme for contravention of its decisions or of the Act. It also streamlines existing summary conviction provisions and raises the associated penalties, and enables the Commission to share confidential information with the Commissioner of Competition.

If the CRTC had this power, I don't even think that we would had to... The act exists, but does the CRTC have the power to penalize contraventions? It's the whole grey area that bothers me still. If this had been the case, we wouldn't have had to debate this bill during the last Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Just before I ask the expert, I think it has to be clearer that both Shaw and Vidéotron did not violate any law. It was an annual payment that they had to make. That was obvious here. So they didn't violate, and this would not take effect. If what we have said in recommendation 3, “that broadcasting distribution undertakings must make monthly, rather than annual, contributions”, had that been there, these people would have been in defiance of the law. Then it would be my understanding that subsection 32(2) would be applied. Again, what I heard was that to pull the licence from someone is a very, very drastic thing. So these penalties are there.

But my understanding, Mr. Kotto, is that they did not violate the law as it is written. If recommendation 3 did become law--and that is our recommendation--then I think subsection 32(2) then would be applicable. Am I correct? I could be wrong.

[Marlisa Tiedemann, Committee Researcher]

I'll clarify a little bit. Under the Broadcasting Act, you already do have certain offences that carry certain penalties. A delegated authority such as the CRTC cannot make its own penalties. To do so, you would have to amend the Broadcasting Act to provide for those penalties.

So with respect to what was recommended in recommendation 4, you would have to go back to amend the Broadcasting Act to give the commission the authority to impose those new penalties. However, as I mentioned, there already are existing offences and penalties in the Broadcasting Act that would apply. The authority is already there in the Broadcasting Act for those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I was somewhat right.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

My memory is faulty, but I believe that in the last meeting the place we arrived at had to do with the fact that Mr. Angus offered the question: Were there powers to fine for activities that were apart from operating without a licence? I think the logic in that discussion was that the removal of a licence is very severe, and we wanted the ability to offer a fine to someone who was operating in a fashion that was not consistent with their licence but that didn't require the removal of the licence. Isn't that where we were the last time?

And I think we were told that we thought that the power existed--and you're confirming it today--that in fact you don't have to remove a licence to be able to fine somebody. I think that was the crux of the discussion the last time we had it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I just want to have it clarified for me. My understanding--and maybe I interpreted the issue wrongly--during the CHOI-FM debate with the pulling of the licence, what the media analysts were saying was that the CRTC didn't have tools at its disposal other than pulling a licence, as opposed to assigning financial penalties for a broadcaster that was ignoring CRTC directives. They still had a licence, but they were ignoring a number of issues. And whether or not there were sufficient tools in the CRTC toolbox to continue to apply pressure, for example financial penalties, short of pulling a licence, because, again, it's a drastic step.

Is that the case? Do they have the tools? I don't know if you know this or not, but do they use those tools?

[Marlisa Tiedemann]

I'm not familiar with the case you have referred to. But my reading of the Broadcasting Act is that under subsection 32(2) and section 33, there are these other enforcement powers that impose penalties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Hearing that, could someone tell me what to do with recommendation 4? I would suggest that it be struck.

Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes. We're not trying to rewrite the entire act. We're just trying to make sure that there are the appropriate measures in place. So I think if they have tools, then that's acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Recommendation 4 will be deleted.

Hearing that, I think all the rest of the recommendations were carried the other day.

All those in favour of the motion by Mr. Angus that the report be adopted as a report to the House, and that the chair or his designate present it to the House.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few mistakes in the report on page 7 of the French version. It's just a grammatical error.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

It has just been brought to my attention by the clerk that we do have another motion for typographical and editorial changes. We'll be putting a motion forward to make sure that everything is correct.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Along the same lines, I want to point out that the study was on the funding crisis of the Canadian Fund and not on the Canadian Fund itself. The title has to be changed.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jacques Lahaie]

Do you want to change the title?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I think that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The title has been changed to “The Crisis of the Canadian Television Fund”--correct? All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Does the committee want a government response? It would say, “Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”

It's moved by Mr. Angus.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Again, I'll go to the typographical and editorial changes.

It says:

That the chair be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.

This is moved by Ms. Bourgeois.

(Motion agreed to)