Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again to debate Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
The bill was introduced in the Senate and passed in June. Essentially the intent of the bill is to permit the CRTC to establish criteria that would allow the awarding of costs to interveners in broadcasting proceedings. Currently it has the power to award costs in telecommunications cases. The wording of the bill states:
The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.
The Commission may order by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid and by whom they are to be taxed...establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs--
The intent of the bill seems reasonable and it is something that can be studied further in committee. However, the concern on this side of the House is that the timing of the legislation is perhaps a little inappropriate.
The Canadian heritage committee is currently reviewing the Broadcasting Act and will, without a doubt, focus on the CRTC's mandate.
Bill S-7 proposes that the awarding of costs would allow individuals or groups to come together with the opportunity to develop well researched evidence to present to the CRTC hearings. The opportunity to provide the awarding of costs to interveners would, according to the sponsors of the legislation, allow expert advice and testimony at hearings.
For those who sit on a committee and who are involved in parliament, as it is for witnesses who go before a committee, such as witnesses who go before the CRTC, it is imperative to come to conclusions on legislation and on their ideals. We applaud the essence of what the legislation is trying to do.
In May 2001, the government announced the long awaited review of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage requested submissions by Internet during the summer. We were hopeful for an early fall commencement of hearings. The Canadian Alliance agrees with the necessity of a review and it is anxious to participate in hearings that will host a wide range of differing opinions. However, at its present rate of speed, the review will not be completed by May 2002.
It must be recognized that technological changes are rushing opportunities of choices for consumers at the speed of light. The committee must be mindful that by the time the recommendations are put to paper, everything may have changed.
This brings me back to the reasons that it is it is not possible to support Bill S-7 at this time.
Legislation respecting the Broadcasting Act, whether it is the CRTC or otherwise, must not be dealt with prior to the completion of the Canadian heritage committee's study of the Broadcasting Act. To put forward legislation on a matter that is still in the process of being reviewed by the committee would be pre-emptive of the process.
I have a copy of a letter from the CRTC deputy commissioner of competition. It was written to the clerk of the committee on September 14, 2001. The letter states:
In general, the Commissioner is interested in examining and reporting upon the extent to which competition and market mechanisms have historically and may, going forward, be relied upon to realize the core objectives of the Broadcasting Act. For this purpose, the Commissioner will examine and make recommendations regarding the broadcasting policy objectives, the current regulatory model and its environment, and proposals for legislative and regulatory change.
The Canadian Alliance believes there cannot be any legislation put forward at this time which would pre-empt the recommendations of the study due to be released next year.
Furthermore, the committee has requested that the chair of the CRTC, David Colville, attend the committee to discuss his understanding of the proper constitutional relationship between parliament, its committees, federal commissions and their respective roles.
There is concern at this time that decisions made by the CRTC during the course of the heritage committee study may require the CRTC to impose regulatory changes on broadcasters and consumers long before the study is completed. Stated clearly, current CRTC decisions must not allow any unfair advantage while the committee is conducting the study.
Throughout the course of the hearings we must ask ourselves if the CRTC continues to be relevant or whether its purpose would be better served in an alternative regulatory body rather than under the arm of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry.
No one is questioning the relevancy of these regulatory bodies. We know there needs to be a regulatory body but as we discuss and study the CRTC and its mandate there are many things that will be brought out regarding its responsibilities.
We know the CRTC has a mandate to license and regulate broadcasters. We also know the CRTC is in charge of telecommunications. Part of telecommunications, especially phone companies and the use of telecommunications in rural Canada, will possibly be discussed at the hearings.
One of the concerns of Canadians is what is happening to rural Canada and agriculture. What the government, the CRTC and different bodies can do is look at what may be viewed as insensitivity toward some of our rural areas in regard to telecommunications.
When we look at some of our large metropolitan cities, all the business of the residents of those communities is carried out in the metropolitan area. One of my frustrations in rural Alberta is that every time we call the neighbouring town down the road where we do much of our business we are calling long distance. Towns in other parts have come together and the local call is broadening out a bit.
One of the things we need to look at is where people are doing business, where children are going to school and where people are carrying out their normal activities. In rural Canada local telephone calls are made not just to the closest small rural town but to many places. They are made to many small locales and little communities.
Bill S-7 does not and is not intended to answer all the questions of the CRTC. I fully understand that. However it sets the criteria for awarding costs in broadcasting proceedings. It is therefore not possible for the Canadian Alliance to support any legislative changes that would affect either the CRTC or the Broadcasting Act until the committee hearings are complete and recommendations are put forward.
As we have said, the content of the bill is good. The timing of the bill is bad.