HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

1000

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

The Chair

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

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

1005

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1010

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chairman

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1015

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

1020

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

1025

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1030

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

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

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

1035

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1040

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

1045

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Mills

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

1050

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1055

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Mario Lepage (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Mario Lepage

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1100

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Jim Abbott

1105

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

1110

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1115

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

1120

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Betty Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

1125

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

1130

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 067

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1000)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order to examine Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

[Translation]

The bill only has two clauses. Let's begin with clause 1.

[English]

I've received an amendment from Mr. Harvard that Bill S-7 in clause 1 be amended by adding, after line 13 on page 1, the following:

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to licensees who are not required to pay licence fees under the Broadcasting Licence Fee Regulations, 1997.”

[Translation]

I have also received an amendment from Ms. Gagnon to amend Bill S-7, in clause 1, by adding after line 13 on page 1, the following:

(3) This section does not apply to “small broadcasters”, as defined by regulation.

[English]

I should mention to both movers of these amendments, Mr. Harvard and Mrs. Gagnon, that according to advice I have received from the legislative experts, if a bill does not provide automatically for any exemption, to create an exemption becomes inadmissible. In other words, if the bill doesn't provide for exemptions to be included, we can't bring exemptions to such a bill.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): What do you mean by that? Is the amendment in order?

The Chair: No. The amendment cannot be received, because if a bill does not make provision for an exemption to be taken into account—this bill doesn't—you can't just bring in an exemption.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I don't understand either, so perhaps you can explain what you're talking about legally, because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk): It's basically because there is no provision for an exemption anywhere in the bill. Let's say there were already an exemption in the bill, any type, then you could add other exemptions. But because there is no exemption in the bill now, you cannot add exemptions. That's the procedure.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Where is the authority for that?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: An amendment such as this goes beyond the scope of the bill.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Pursuant to what authority? Where is your authority for that statement?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: We've had other cases in committees. Also, in the House of Commons, the Speaker has ruled amendments that add exemptions to be inadmissible.

À (1005)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just don't understand.

Are you telling me that if Mr. Harvard's bill had originally had in it this exemption--

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Any exemption.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But if Mr. Harvard's bill originally had proposed subsection (3) in it, then we could bring in further exemptions?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer, and I guess I have some trouble understanding this advice. I can tell you that we ran this by the House of Commons law clerk, by Richard Denis, and it was all cleared by that particular office.

What I'm hearing you say, sir, is that exemptions are fine as long as they're written in the first draft, but if you come along later in the form of an amendment to fashion or to frame an exemption, that's out of order. I find that extraordinary.

The way the bill is written, without the exemption it would apply to all the licensed operators. The exemption simply says that there would be a number of licensed operations that would be excluded--in other words, exempt.

The Chair: Could I make a suggestion so we don't spend too much time on this?

The advice I've received is that this exemption will be inadmissible. However, the committee is master of its own destiny. If the members in their own wisdom should judge that we proceed with this amendment regardless, then the members can vote to proceed. And if by chance the House of Commons afterwards chooses to reject the amendment because they would rule it out of order, then they will do so. I'm just putting this alternative to you, that you may wish to just proceed regardless by a majority vote.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: A majority, Mr. Chair, or is it unanimous?

The Chair: I think a majority vote.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: When we did marine conservation, it had to be unanimous.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

As I said earlier, we had this cleared with the law clerk's office. Who is this gentleman?

Who are you with?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I'm with legislative services.

Mr. John Harvard: Legislative services. Now, how is this different from the office... Richard Denis, whom we dealt with?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: His office is responsible for writing motions in legal terms. Our service is responsible for the procedure. That's the main difference. He makes sure that all the motions you need to have written are properly, legally written.

The Chair: But he doesn't judge on the procedure of the motions.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Exactly.

The Chair: Madam Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we can ask the legal adviser whether our motion or amendment is in order or not. So, is the wording not in order with regard to restrictions to exemptions? It's very disappointing, Mr. Chairman, because if you don't vote for an exemption, you vote against it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Well, as the committee would know, one of my major objections to this bill in the first place has been the issue of the appropriation of assets from the broadcasters being redistributed to people who are challenging the broadcasters. I have said from the word go that although in the opinion of our current Speaker of the House this is not a taxation bill and therefore could come from the Senate, I nonetheless still consider any expropriation of wealth for the purposes of redistribution as a tax.

Therefore, these two amendments differ only in the fact that Mr. Harvard's says “pay licence fees under the Broadcasting Licence Fee Regulations”. I would presume--

The Chair: Hold it a minute.

Mr. John Harvard: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

With respect, you're going to the heart of the bill, which is fine, but I don't understand what it has to do with the particular issue before us, this procedural question.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. I will defer my comments, except to say--

The Chair: Yes, I think you should.

Mr. Jim Abbott: With respect to this, I will tell the committee that I will be taking the advice it has received this morning. If the committee decides by majority to proceed with putting these amendments in, and this is the way in which it is reported back to the House, I will be challenging that amendment in the House.

À (1010)

The Chair: You are of course free to do so.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, may I point out one other thing?

When we decided to write the amendment, we went to a woman by the name of Bibiane Ouellette, who is in charge of private members' business. We were given the advice that the only law clerk at the law clerk's office we had to get in touch with was Richard Denis, House of Commons law clerk. There was no mention about this particular gentleman or this particular office. This is not to denigrate you, sir.

I just find this extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. Not only that, but this committee has been seized with this issue for some time. And if this particular advice we're getting now is true, why were we not apprised of this a long time ago? Where has our staff been? I just find it extraordinary that at this very last minute, when we're asked to deal with this, someone comes along with this procedural obstacle or procedural question.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have been let down by the system. I think we apprised the clerk of this committee last Thursday. I spoke to the clerk of this committee last Friday and this was distributed. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am appalled if indeed this is the advice we should have had some time ago.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, in fairness to Mr. Roy and the legal services the House provides in regard to bills, my recollection of sitting in clause-by-clause, either as the chair or as a member, is that when the bills come up before us for clause-by-clause analysis, then the House of Commons provides us with the services of a legal expert on procedure who sits with us then, not before. And in fairness, he has given us advice to the best of his ability.

I have suggested to members that in view of all you've said, if a majority should decide to proceed regardless of this advice, which I have to accept as a chair, then let us have a vote on it. Then if Mr. Abbott would challenge it, as he suggested he would, the Speaker would have to rule.

Perhaps this is a way to go. I see there is a point there where all these things should be clarified. You have proceeded bona fide, and I think you have a fair case to make. You have a right for your amendment to be seen and dealt with.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, this bill was studied in the Senate. That's the problem! When we receive a bill through a member and it hasn't been studied... We met with industry officials who did not answer our questions on the objective of the new bill with regard to the fees people must pay when they appear before the CRTC. I am extremely disappointed because, three weeks ago, we discussed the matter and there was no doubt that amendments would be proposed. But we are now being told that we are not allowed to do so because the issue in question is not contained in the bill. We should have been told that from the start.

Two members who do not regularly sit on this committee have just come to vote in support of Bill S-7. So what's the point of being here? It's a waste of time.

The Chairman: Madame Gagnon, it is not up to us to judge the members who decide to come to the committee or not. This is perfectly acceptable under the rules and it is not my place to say anything. We are not to judge the MPs who come to the committee or those who decide to stay away. That is up to each political party to decide, as it is in the case of votes or other matters. I don't think that's an issue.

Further, with regard to today's decision, let me explain the context in which this is happening. When a committee goes into clause-by-clause, there is always a legal expert on hand.

Whatever the case may be, I have given you an opening. It's up to you to decide whether you want to go ahead or not. If you do wish to go ahead, we will follow.

[English]

I would like to suggest that members decide whether they want to proceed with the two amendments or they don't want to proceed. I'm quite ready to accept a motion that we proceed or we don't proceed.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my views on this bill are known. It is a private member's bill. I will not be supporting it because I think we're in the middle of a broadcast study. We will be making recommendations by the fall. There's nothing in this particular bill that causes me to have any sense of urgency. We can fine-tune this in our comprehensive study.

The Chair: I don't think it's a point right now. I think the point is I have made a ruling on the advice given to me that this exemption cannot be debated. It's for you to decide whether this ruling shall stand or not. If you want to challenge a ruling, then it's up to you to vote accordingly.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Not being an expert, I can't challenge the advice given. If this advice is sound, and chances are it is, as these people usually know what they're talking about, does it basically mean you can't amend it the way we would want to have it amended and the bill is dead? In other words, are you saying it's not salvageable?

À (1015)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, I don't know how many ways I can say it. I have to make a ruling according to the advice given to me that this exemption is inadmissible.

At the same time, the committee is master of its own destiny. You can challenge the ruling. If you don't feel the ruling should stand and you vote against it, then the amendment can be debated. In other words, you decide to debate the amendment and pass it. At that point, two things can happen: either the Speaker can challenge it, or, as Mr. Abbott has suggested, he will challenge it and the Speaker will have to rule.

Mr. John Harvard: Did you ask whether this kind of amendment, if it were offered a third reading at report stage in the House, would also be inadmissible, at that point, in the House?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: It would if the amendment has been proposed in the committee, as it is, with the new rules established by the Speaker. The Speaker said in May, I think, the amendments must be debated mostly in committees. If the member had a chance to propose it in committee and it has been debated, it won't be selected a second time in the House at report stage.

Mr. John Harvard: Does that mean I could move the same amendment at report stage or not?

The Chair: I take it you don't want to challenge the ruling of the chair. I've given you the opportunity so you can take a vote. If you don't want to, let's move on. I can't wait forever. I've suggested to you there's one way whereby you can vote to proceed with the amendment, and then let it be open to a challenge within the House. If you don't want to take the chance, let's move on. We can't carry on.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Can I ask you a question?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: If we don't do the amendment now, and leave it to third reading, then could it come forward at third reading because it has not come forward before committee? No?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: No.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, as the mover and sponsor of this bill, as far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to lose. We might as well go ahead with it. If the committee feels it should not challenge the advice of the chair, I respect it. I have nothing to lose.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Would we not have to have a vote on the challenge?

The Chair: Yes. The vote will be on whether you are prepared to let the ruling of the chair stand or not. If you are prepared to let the ruling of the chair stand, you vote for it. If you are prepared to go against the ruling of the chair so you can proceed with the amendment, you vote against it. Is it clear? All right.

All in favour of the ruling of the chair that the amendments are inadmissible? Contrary-minded?

(Chair's ruling overturned)

The Chair: Okay. Now we proceed with the amendments with the clear understanding that if there's a challenge it will happen in the House of Commons with a member or the Speaker making a challenge. Then we'll have to be bound by it.

In the meantime, we will proceed with the amendments. There are two amendments I've received.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I want to understand something with regard to the decision we are supposed to make. If the chairman challenges the amendments, what happens to the bill?

The Chair: If that happens, the chairman will make a decision, in other words, it will depend a great deal on what the chairman decides. Based on what the legal expert said, it would not up to the Speaker of the House to make a ruling if a member, such as Mr. Abbott, tabled a protest in the House, since it would be up to the members in the House to decide whether the amendments were in order or not.

[English]

We'll now proceed with the amendments received under clause 1. You've read clause 1. The first amendment--

À (1020)

Mr. John Harvard: Sorry to make things more difficult for you, Mr. Chairman, because I know how responsible you are, but I have one more question. Let's assume that we amend the bill the way I want to amend it and that the bill is passed by the committee and goes to the House. Let's also assume that the amendments we passed are found out of order. Where does that leave the bill? Does it then revert to its original form, or is it gone?

The Chair: The bill does not disappear.

Mr. John Harvard: So it would be dealt with as if there had never been any amendments. Is that it? It would be dealt with in that sense. It would be voted on in its original form.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: It would be voted on. Let's say it's approved. It goes into a report, and you report the bill as amended. At report stage members can make changes to this report. If someone is not in agreement with one of the amendments from the committee, it will be decided on by the whole House.

Mr. John Harvard: But you throw out the amendment if it's out of order and not the whole bill. Do you throw out the amendment or the whole bill?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Not the whole bill.

Mr. John Harvard: Just the amendment.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: This is a great learning experience for all of us. If we go forward on the presumption that one of these amendments passes and is reported to the House, at that particular point I would be challenging that amendment. Did you say that the judgment of that would not be up to the Speaker but to the members of the House?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Yes.

The Chair: The legal adviser tells me that he doesn't want to presume what will happen in the House, because that's the Speaker's prerogative. He would rather just leave it at that. If, for instance, you challenge the procedure here and say that we should not allow a vote, then I think it should be the Speaker who rules. He doesn't want to go further than that.

Anyway, we've voted now, so we'll just have to live with the consequences.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm still really puzzled by this. It is true that committees are masters of their own destiny. Therefore, the committee has now chosen to overrule your ruling. But your ruling was simply an expression of whether or not this was a legal process. How can we override a ruling as to whether something is legal or illegal when--

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We're challenging the ruling--

Mr. Jim Abbott: We're not. I took it as being--

The Chair: It's not legality. It's simply procedure. It's just a procedure established by the House. There's nothing legal or illegal about it.

I've made a ruling, and the ruling has been turned down by the majority of the members. So they produce the amendment. Then you make a challenge.

The legal adviser says he's not prepared to decide now how the House would deal with it, whether it's the full House or the Speaker that would decide, because of your challenge on a ruling of the chair. It will be one of the two.

I'm sorry, but I think we should move on now and accept what happens afterwards. Otherwise, we'll be here all day, and we'll be no further ahead.

À (1025)

Mr. Jim Abbott: Are we going to debate the amendments now?

The Chair: We're going to debate the amendments. We'll start with the amendments in the order in which they've been received.

First is the amendment presented by Mr. Harvard. Mr. Harvard, do you want to speak to it?

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I decided to bring forward this amendment to address the concerns of one or two members of the committee, particularly Mr. Mills. There was concern that this kind of provision might have a negative impact on some commercial operators, whose margin of profit might be somewhat modest.

It's worded the way it is because small stations that are not that rich are already identified, to a certain extent, under broadcast regulations. I want to point out that this is very important.

In the country right now, 4,903 licences are issued by the CRTC, and 4,100 of the 4,903 do not pay licence fees. In other words, only 803 pay broadcast fees, under the broadcast licence fee regulations of 1997. This amendment is modelled after that, and would change the bill to the extent that only 16.4% of commercial operators would be affected. This bill carves out all the non-profit operators. That includes CBC, TVO, Aboriginal Network, community.... To make it simple, we decided to simply carve out all the non-profit operators and most of the commercial operators, except for the 803—or the 16.4% of the media outlets—that are currently paying fees. I think that addresses the concern about a financial impact. That's why I brought forward the amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: My original reason for raising my hand was to ask the officials to summarize the differences between Madam Gagnon's amendment and Mr. Harvard's amendment. But I have to tell you, I'm actually quite shocked and surprised the CBC would be exempted. The whole point on public involvement, based on issues Mr. Abbott raised earlier today, is that it should be done by the public, not by this committee, without getting into the substance of that.

Why would we exempt the CBC? The CRTC went around the country. Don't most people feel they have some ownership in the CBC? Why would the CBC be precluded from this? I don't agree with that part at all. I don't believe the CBC should be excluded. If anything, it should be included, and people should be given the opportunity to appear before the CRTC. If they make big technical presentations, they should be allowed.

À (1030)

The Chair: Madam Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I agree with Ms. Bulte that the CBC should not be excluded from paying the fees. What we are dealing with are small operators who are not very profitable. Because the CBC receives grants and has income from advertising, it is extremely competitive compared to independent operators. That's why I don't think it should be excluded. This is one of the recommendations I wanted to make with respect to your amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I put the question to the officials. In Madam Gagnon's amendment where it says “does not apply to 'small broadcasters', as defined by regulation”, what would the relationship then be? Mr. Harvard has pointed out that the CBC, APTN, and presumably TVO and others would be excluded under Mr. Harvard's amendment. What would the relationship be to CBC, TVO, APTN under Madam Gagnon's amendment?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan (Director General, Broadcasting Policy and Innovation, Department of Canadian Heritage): Madam Gagnon's amendment seeks to exempt just small broadcasters. Now having just seen this wording, I'm not sure if from a drafting perspective this attains that objective, because small broadcasters are not defined under the broadcast licence fee regulations of 1997. Just in terms of legislative drafting I'm not sure if it takes you to the objective of carving out just the small broadcasters.

Mr. Harvard's amendment would exempt all those who are exempted from paying the licence fees. As he pointed out, that includes not just the small broadcasters who are excluded by reason of the revenue threshold that's set in the regulations, but also excludes community broadcasters, student broadcasters. It includes the provincial broadcasters—the TFO, TVO—and the CBC, of course. So that is the main difference between the two approaches.

Having just seen the wording of Madam Gagnon's proposed amendment, I'm not quite sure if that wording achieves her objective, just from a drafting perspective.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I understand the purpose of Bill S-7, it's so that ordinary citizens would be able to have access to funding to be able to make representations to the CRTC. The people they would be making the representations against--the corporations that would be under scrutiny in this process would be the defendants, I guess you would call them--would be funding the people making the complaint or trying to bring forward a particular position.

What Mr. Harvard's amendment would do would be to say that if I have a problem against a small corporation, or a smaller corporation--under $5 million revenue or whatever the threshold is--if I wanted to take them before the CRTC because of something they're doing in my constituency or whatever the case may be, I would not receive funding. It would only be funding coming from the very large corporations--from the Globals, from the CTVs, from the Bell Teleglobe Medias and all the rest of that. I would only be able to have funding.... This would say that this bill will only apply if I'm going after a large corporation. With the greatest respect, it seems to me that it very substantially changes the bill.

The Chair: I think it's a misunderstanding of what the intent of the amendment is. The way I read it is the intent of the amendment is to confine the fee-paying for interveners to those that are above a certain threshold. Let's let Mr. Harvard explain it. It's his amendment.

À (1035)

Mr. John Harvard: As I've said, there were some people who were concerned about the ability to pay if these awards were provided for by this legislation and of course acted upon by the CRTC.

I chose to make it very simple, and I truly believe we can meet the end we're aiming at--that is, simply to exclude from any possible awards any operator who doesn't pay licence fees right now. That means 4,100 commercial operators out of the 4,900. It also means every non-commercial or non-profit organization.

In other words, the CBC escapes. I know on a pure financial ground that might rub the wrong way, but in my opinion, Mr. Abbott, we have to start somewhere. I think the CBC is subject to politics and to public opinion. And if we can get this through, the day won't be far away when the CBC will have to do the same thing, because I think you'll find that if consumers who are interested in these issues are given modest cost awards or modest financial assistance by the CRTC when they're say dealing with CTV or Global but not with the CBC, that will not sit well with them. I think ultimately the CBC will have to come around. Maybe the government will have to provide some money.

But let's just make it simple. Anyone who is paying fees will be subject to this. If you don't pay fees, if you're non-profit, and so on, you don't. I just want to take a very simple approach.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, again perhaps I could defer to the officials on this, and possibly our adviser here as well. I'm just asking, is it possible to make a further amendment in such a way that CBC is part of this?

Secondly, I know Mr. O'Sullivan said that the way Madame Gagnon's amendment is currently drafted wouldn't achieve what she.... Can we fix it? I'm just asking.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte, I'm just reading your thoughts here. What you're trying to say is it would read--if it's proceeded with, if it's accepted by procedure--“Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to licensees, other than the CBC, who are...”.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Perhaps Mr. O'Sullivan could comment.

The Chair: You could make it a subamendment.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: You can make an exception to the exception--exactly. You'd have the general carve-out for all those who are exempted from paying the licence fees.

The Chair: Other than the CBC.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Other than the CBC. You'd provide an exception to the exception.

The Chair: That would be a subamendment that would be receivable.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Indeed, that's what I said earlier. I said that I don't agree that the CBC should be on the exclusion list. I referred to the small broadcasters. I'm aware that there is no definition of small broadcaster. We don't know if it also includes community networks, native radio stations and others. But I agree because it follows the spirit of what I am looking for.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Bulte, can we move on? Are you introducing a subamendment? Are you suggesting a subamendment?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, I am, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: So you're presenting a subamendment so that—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I want to work in the intent of Madame Gagnon's amendment—

The Chair: Yes, I understand.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: —to ensure that the CBC is subject to this section, not exempted from this section. I'm trying to get all of—

À (1040)

Mr. Jim Abbott: Can I speak to the subamendment?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well now, it would seem to me that we have really crossed over the line where, as I said in my preliminary... My comments were premature a few minutes ago.

We're talking about the appropriation of funds, or expropriation of funds, for redistribution to people, which, again, is Jim Abbott's definition of taxation. But if we go to the subamendment, now that we're talking about the CBC, which is publicly funded, we're talking about expropriation of tax dollars that have already been expropriated from people. We're really getting into it big time here. It really does make my point that this is a taxation bill by any other name, coming from the Senate.

So I would actually, as a point of mischief, be inclined to vote in favour of the subamendment, and then go back to the Speaker and make the point that this is a tax bill from the Senate.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the officials a few questions on this?

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Dennis Mills: First of all, I want it to be on the record that the purpose of the bill, that citizens have access to funding for intervention, I support; the instrument, I don't.

Mr. Harvard has gone a long way here in trying to be sensitive to the small-business, non-profit community. I need to deal with this revenue threshold. I didn't realize we had 4,900 radio stations in Canada. Who are these 803 that are on the list? Are these all private sector operators?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I don't have the list of those who pay and those who don't pay.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I don't need the names of the companies, but what types of organizations are these 803? In other words, what is the revenue threshold?

The last thing we want is to have a bill that looks like we're trying to punish entrepreneurship in this country, the private sector that has built a growing business. I don't think we want to punish achievers.

So I need to understand, when you say 16.4%, are they going to carry the can for the whole system, for all the interveners? What is the revenue threshold? Could you please let me know?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The exemption level is set under the broadcasting licence fee regulations. For distribution undertakings, for BDUs, they're set at $175,000. For television undertakings they're set at $1.5 million. And for radio undertakings, which vary depending on their revenue, there's a level set at $2 million and then another level set at $500,000. There are other levels set for joint radio undertakings as well.

Mr. John Harvard: That's $4 million, right?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: That's $4 million for joint radio undertakings, and then another level of $500,000. There is a gradation, depending on the type of service.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Wouldn't these people essentially be the ones carrying the can on this in terms of funding this intervener exercise?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: They would be exempted from paying the intervener funding. It doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else would have to carry the full weight of all the costs involved, depending on how the CRTC administers this—

Mr. Dennis Mills: Aha--depending.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: That's always been the crux of the matter with this bill. It has always been to what extent do you leave it to the CRTC to administer or to what extent does the bill set some rules, some guidelines that the CRTC has to administer?

Mr. Dennis Mills: But those guidelines don't exist at this moment.

À (1045)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Without the amendments, no, there are none in the bill.

Mr. Dennis Mills: So if we support this bill, we're essentially handing over a parliamentary right to the CRTC to decide how they want to fund citizens to intervene out of the balance sheets of those 800 radio stations.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: It would affect those companies that are covered by the bill in the sense that the companies whose applications before the CRTC give rise to a right to intervener funding, then the interveners would have the ability to get that funding from the CRTC, or as determined by the CRTC, paid by the broadcasters. Those that are exempted would not be paying at all.

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, but Mr. Harvard said there are 803 here that are in the loop, that are subject to that decision of the CRTC to allow someone to come and intervene against... Let's imagine I'm a radio station. The CRTC is going to tell me, there are ten people, Mr. Mills, who want to intervene against your radio station, and by the way, you are going to pay for those people to intervene against you, and we, the CRTC, are the ones who are going to decide, and that's the way it is.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The bill as drafted gives the CRTC that authority, as it does modelled on the telecommunications side.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I can't support this.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I want to add something to that, because I think Mr. Mills has given, shall I say, with respect, a highly skewed version.

Mr. Dennis Mills: It's the officials who answered the question.

Mr. John Harvard: The regulation, Mr. Mills, would be worked on by the CRTC. This is a very public process, Mr. Mills. The criteria will be not unlike the criteria already in existence under the Telecommunications Act. Not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry would be getting the moneys. This would be a very rigorous process, and anyone--take, for example, the representatives of the 803 operators--would have a chance to appear before the CRTC to work on these regulations to protect their own interests. That's the way it should be. But this is not going to be a one-sided affair, not for a moment.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I have to respond. I can't leave this on the record, because first of all I would never suggest that the CRTC would just call any Tom, Dick, or Harry. But I have to make sure that I heard the officials correctly. They just finished saying that there is no system or regulatory framework or design in place by the CRTC right now as to how they would manage that.

Is that correct, sir, yes or no?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: There isn't one right now. They would develop it. Upon passage of the bill, the CRTC would launch a public process. They would send out a public notice asking for comments on how this should be regulated. They may or may not, depending on the approach they want to take, either issue their proposed regulations right off the top and say “comment on these proposed regulations”, or they could do it in two stages and say “we are contemplating how to regulate intervener funding for broadcasting, and we invite your comments”, then receive those comments, issue proposed regulations, and ask for comments on those.

Mr. Dennis Mills: But my point is that once we pass this bill, it's in the hands of the CRTC. Whatever they decide, it's out of our hands.

Mr. John Harvard: The bill authorizes the CRTC to--

Mr. Dennis Mills: Fair enough.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I have to get a ruling on the subamendment.

The Chair: I'll come back to you, just hold it.

Mr. Abbott, Madame Gagnon, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. John Harvard: Could we not have a ruling on the subamendment? Is it in order?

The Chair: The subamendment is in order, for sure.

Mr. John Harvard: But Mr. Abbott is suggesting that if the subamendment is approved it turns the bill into a taxation bill, and that would be out of order. I just want a ruling on that.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, this is Mr. Abbott's interpretation of what it is. I have consulted. The subamendment is quite in order. Mrs. Bulte has produced it. We're discussing it now and then we'll proceed.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I just want to be crystal clear so that we all understand, because I'm not totally crystal clear.

Mr. Harvard has suggested that there would be 803 of the 4,903 licensees—803 under the subamendment, including the CBC, so 804—who would be responsible to pay for people making appearances before the CRTC. We're all in agreement to that point.

Now here's what I need to absolutely clarify. That means, then, of the 4,100 others who are excluded from this bill by this exemption, if someone makes an intervention with them, they could not look to this bill or look to the CRTC for intervener funding. Is that correct?

À (1050)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: With the amendment?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: With the amendment, those would be excluded. It would mean that the CRTC would not have the authority to award intervention funding for those proceedings involving applications from licensees who are exempted from paying the part two fees. It's not as if all licensees—the cost for interveners overall—the 4,000 licence applications are then parcelled out to only the 800 who pay the licence fees. That's not how it would work. It would only be those proceedings involving those broadcasters, those applicants for licences who are covered by the bill, who would then be subject to paying out intervener funding, as determined by the CRTC.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So as a matter of the way people will react to this, it effectively paints a target on the 800 companies you could have intervener status fees paid for. I don't expect a comment, unless you wish to make one, but that's the net result of this amendment. It basically paints a target on a certain group because they supposedly have deep pockets, and the assumption is that because they have over $5 million revenue, they're making a profit.

What happens if a corporation has $10 million revenue--so they're clearly in this category--and they just suffered two years of abysmal losses? They will still be obliged to pay, simply because they have a great amount of gross revenue. It's a rather perverse bill, in that respect.

The Chair: Mr. O'Sullivan.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Even without the amendment, the CRTC will most likely make some kind of assessment on which proceedings intervener funding would apply to. I suspect they wouldn't let it apply to everybody; they would make their own decisions and their own carve-out. So you would end up with that result, even without this amendment. You wouldn't know exactly what the result would be because it would be left to the CRTC's discretion.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the reason why we proposed these amendments is because we don't know what the regulations will be, and the CRTC will be involved, and wil decide on reimbursements and criteria. Not everyone will be reimbursed.

So, the objective of the bill is to help smaller consumer groups appear before the CRTC to defend their rights.

As for me, I feel we are doing things backwards when we have to deal with a Senate bill which we have not had time to study. We are trying to save the bill with those two amendments because, in fact, if community groups and the consumers can be reimbursed, it must not be done on the backs of other such groups who are in a tenuous situation, such as local radio stations or community and native television stations. It is for that reason that we are trying to save the situation this morning. Otherwise, we will vote against the bill and it will end up here, in committee. If that's what the government wants, it should do so.

Of course, without any regulations, we are working in a vacuum and so it would be up to the CRTC to decide. When the Department of Industry officials came before us... They're telling us to apply the regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry to the Broadcasting Act. Their answers were not reassuring and that is why we are proposing these two amendments. It's to save the situation.

That's all I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: After discussing it with Ms. Bulte, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to the amendment, to include not only CBC but APTN and the provincial networks. I think that's the purpose of this. I'll be supporting this subamendment, so the public can get involved in these major broadcasting organizations that their taxes go toward.

À (1055)

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I just need some amplification. How many other non-profit organizations are you suggesting, Larry?

The Chair: The subamendment talks about the CBC and Radio-Canada.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: This subamendment now includes CBC, Radio-Canada, APTN, and the provincial networks. Ms. Bulte has agreed to that.

Mr. John Harvard: So that would be TVO and who else?

Mr. Mario Lepage (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): Radio-Québec would be another provincial broadcaster.

Mr. John Harvard: Is there an organization in Alberta? We have to express ourselves with some clarity.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: We could use the same wording as in the fee regulations for the exemptions that apply now.

Mr. Mario Lepage: Under the regulations they talk about “an independent corporation”, as defined by the regulation. An independent corporation means provincial broadcasters.

[Translation]

It's the wording used in the regulations of 1997 with regard to fees. Subsection 2(c) says “an independent corporation, as defined in the Direction to the CRTC”. In other words, it's the provincial broadcasters.

[English]

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: For wording, we could also use the wording from subsection 11(3) of the Broadcasting Act, saying that it doesn't apply to the corporation, the CBC, or to licensees carrying on programming undertakings on behalf of Her Majesty in right of a province. That way you cover the provincial broadcasters, existing ones or any that are established in the future, and then we would add the reference to native broadcasters.

Mr. John Harvard: I was going to say that that wouldn't catch APN or AP.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: No, we'd have to add a reference to native broadcasters.

The Chair: Excuse me. I want to have a clarification from the two heritage department officials here, because there's a sort of cloud of misunderstanding that I see among members. Certainly I feel the same way as well.

When I look at the clauses, subclause 9.1(1) is award of costs, subclause 9.1(2) is payment of costs. My understanding of the thrust of the amendment produced by Mr. Harvard and the subamendment by Mrs. Bulte was that we were going to say that the people who are outside of the broadcast licensing fee regulations 1997, excluding the CBC, don't have to pay for costs and wouldn't be awarded costs. But at the same time, interveners could appear in regard to anything to do with them, APTN or another, except that these people wouldn't be charged costs and awards. So the 803, plus the CBC, would bear whatever costs are distributed among them by the CBC.

But what you're saying is that.... You add the interpretation that these people--that is, the people covered by the broadcasting licensing fee regulations of 1997, excluding the CBC, community broadcasters, APTN, and so forth--would be excluded from any cases of intervener funding altogether, that people couldn't appear. Isn't that carrying this one step further?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Well, Mr. Harvard's amendment refers to both subsections (1) and (2).

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: So the effect of it is that it takes them out altogether, so it's the--

Á (1100)

The Chair: It takes them out in regard to award of costs and payment of costs only.

Mr. John Harvard: Only compensation, that's the intent.

The Chair: Only compensation. I can't understand why it would be beyond that.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Because the amendment says subsections (1) and (2) would apply.

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: And subsection (1) is the subsection that refers to the commission may award costs--

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: --and subsection (2) is the section that refers to by whom the costs are paid.

The Chair: Let's take a practical example so that I understand it. Maybe there's something I'm reading incorrectly in this.

I'm an intervener. I want to appear before the CRTC in connection with a ruling about CTV. I apply and CTV is included and there's an award of costs against CTV and XYZ to pay for the cost of my appearance.

If I want to apply and I want to appear before the CRTC in relation to APTN and I ask for intervener funding, my understanding of this amendment and the subamendment was that the CRTC would agree or not agree, depending on the regulations. But then if they had agreed that I would be a bona fide intervener in this case, I could appear and they would charge the award and the cost to whomever they have selected in their regulations among the 803 plus the CBC. Is that not correct?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Well, the model of how things operate in telecommunications doesn't apply because intervener costs are awarded. They are charged to the applicant involved in a proceeding who is before the CRTC, not to a group of applicants. If there's more than one applicant, then the CRTC apportions the costs awarded to interveners among those applicants but it involves those applicants.

If the applicants aren't covered by Bill S-7 as it would be amended in the amendment proposed by Mr. Harvard, then interveners would not be eligible for costs; the applicant isn't covered by the bill as amended.

Mr. John Harvard: He has it right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on that very point.

Where do interveners who are not subject to the funding get their money when they come to intervene now? Who pays? Where does the CRTC get its money to look after those interveners?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Sorry, the interveners who...

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, if there are people who want to intervene and they're not funded under this, who funds them?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: They pay out of their own pockets.

Mr. John Harvard: So it's out of their own pockets. That's fine.

Mr. Dennis Mills: So there would be no funding directed by the CRTC.

Mr. John Harvard: That's not strange.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have in my file here the really quite interesting example of Corus radio and television. Corus Radio Company has a number of stations for which it is the licensee--Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, Vancouver, London, Barrie, Burlington, Woodstock.

Let's presume Corus Radio Company has well in excess of $5 million of revenue. Interestingly, another licensee under Corus Radio, CKIK FM, also has a radio station in Calgary, CKQR. So if I am concerned about something that's going on and I want to intervene over CKRY FM Calgary, which is owned by Corus Radio Company as a licensee, under Mr. Harvard's bill here, I presumably could do that and get compensation.

But if I wanted to go after CHQR, also in the Calgary market, in fact with a larger market share, because the licence in that case is under CKIK FM, and presumably CKIK FM and CHQR, the only two broadcasters under that particular licence would be doing less than $5 million, I would be able to go after one radio broadcaster because it happens to be a licensee of a company that has more than $5 million, but not the other one.

I've flipped through these--I just happened to have them in my file here--and just taking a look at this, it is clear that this amendment effectively creates a patchwork in the same marketplace: I can go after this radio station in Calgary, but I can't go after that radio station, in spite of the fact that they both belong to the Corus radio and TV group, Corus Entertainment, Inc. Am I correct in that assumption?

Á (1105)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Irrespective of how you draw the line, if you have a revenue threshold at one point you'll have situations where two broadcasters are up for licence renewal in the same market and an intervener would be able to apply for funding for one and not for the other. If you have to set the threshold somewhere, you could end up with that result in a given market.

I think we need to be careful about using the court analogy of “going after someone”. Keep in mind that this is when people are before the CRTC for licence applications and renewals. It's not a court-like procedure where someone goes after someone else with a specific complaint. Rather, it takes place in the course of CRTC hearings and procedures for most people with respect to licences.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I wonder if I can gently correct that from my perspective.

The reason why a person would be an intervener at a licence hearing is because they are going after or indeed they have a concern about—however one wants to phrase it.... In this particular case, according to this organizational chart, although Corus Entertainment is a 100% owner of Corus Radio Company, who is the owner of CKRY in Calgary, it happens to belong to a very large group, so they will be gathered into this net of the 800 people. Another company that is Corus Entertainment is a 100% owner of Corus Premium Television, which is a 100% owner of CKIK, who is the licensee who also broadcasts under CHQR.

So suppose I want to intervene against CHQR, which happens to have a far larger market share in the Calgary marketplace than the other one I named, CKRY. I might get intervener funding if I'm intervening against CKRY, which is owned by Corus Entertainment, but I won't qualify for intervener funding if I'm intervening on the broadcast licence of CHQR, which is also owned by Corus Entertainment.

Mr. John Harvard: The chain leads to the argument with respect to the exemption of licence fees. If that upsets you then you should be upset about the fact that this one station would be exempt from licence fees.

Mr. Jim Abbott: We're dealing with Bill S-7 here.

Mr. John Harvard: No, but you're concerned about a patchwork.

The Chair: Cut the arguments, please.

I would like to refer back to Mr. Bagnell suggesting that we add to the list of CBC licences other than the CBC.

Ms. Bulte, are you prepared to accept a change to your subamendment to include APTN and others?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, I am.

The Chair: So you would be in favour of APTN and who else?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: As the officials read from the Broadcasting Act--

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: It has something to do with the crown. It would read, “other than the corporation, licensees carrying on programming undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty in right of a province” and then to capture the native broadcaster. Rather than refer to a specific licensee, I think it would be preferable to say a “native broadcasting undertaking”.

The Chair: Would you write it up for us so that we're sure what we're talking about?

Monsieur Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have a question. The reason that example is given is because there is a parallel, in other words, the CRTC has the power to reimburse the fees of telecommunications organizations, but it cannot do so for broadcasting undertakings. The reason we are discussing this issue is because there are inconsistencies. But if we keep on adding more of those things, there is a risk of ending up with even more inconsistencies with regard to the telecommunications sector. Do you understand my question?

Á (1110)

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I apologize, Mr. Duplain, I was just completing the amendment.

Mr. Claude Duplain: The reason we are discussing this bill is because the CRTC has the power to regulate the telecommunications sector, but not the broadcasting sector. Do you agree? At the moment, we are studying a bill, but there is no end to amendments which would add new elements, such as who should pay and should not. Won't all these changes lead to even more inconsistencies with regard to the telecommunications sector? Will we have to start the same process all over again because there will still be differences between the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The two sectors are so different from each other that it would not be surprising to find differences in the way each regulates the issue of intervener fees. As for broadcasting, the number of companies applying for licences is much higher, as is the number of interventions. Therefore, there are major differences in the way each industry operates, as well as in the CRTC's approach to each industry. As a result, it would not be surprising to find differences between both systems, that is, broadcasting on the one hand and telecommunications on the other.

Mr. Claude Duplain: We will not necessarily create a bias.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I just wanted to point out the fact that the two sectors are different from each other. The original bill was basically copied from the telecommunications model, leaving it up to the CRTC to determine who was eligible and to address other issues. If you attempt to make the application of this bill more precise, you would have to take into account the differences between both sectors.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, there's something really strange going on here.

First of all, I want it on the record that I represent, in Toronto, a large number of very large radio stations. It's no secret to any of you here. What I find distasteful about this bill is that those men and women who have grown businesses in our community and have expanded them in all regions of the country--and I make no bones about the fact that many of them are profitable--did this on a certain set of rules and guidelines granted to them by the CRTC. And what we're doing with this bill, for a select few, is creating a condition where those officials can decide how much of their money they have to send to Ottawa, to the CRTC, to fund citizens to make deputations against them.

I've always been consistent in supporting the essence of the bill, having citizens there to criticize. But I find the notion that we would create a bill that would give officials a discriminatory power really, really strange.

Is that not the essence of what this bill does, Mr. O'Sullivan?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Well, once again, following as it does the model of the Telecommunications Act, the bill without the amendments--the original bill--basically authorized the CRTC to develop and administer a regime for the awarding of intervener funding. It's based on the same model as in telecommunications.

There are differences between the two industries, as I've pointed out. Maybe that's reflected in some of the difficulty associated with some of the issues the committee is struggling with right now. The broadcasting industry has many more players involved, it has a much wider variety of the types of players involved in the telecommunications side, and it interests citizens probably to a greater extent in terms of wanting to intervene. Those differences, I think, are giving rise to the difficulties the committee is having with this bill. It's simply because the two industries are so different. Trying to apply the rules for the telecom sector to the broadcasting sector is not a simple matter. That is the difficulty we're facing now, and that the CRTC will have to handle in administering this regime.

That's been, I think, a major point about this bill since the beginning. Importing the telecommunications rules into the broadcasting sector does give rise to certain difficulties, which we're trying to resolve.

Á (1115)

Mr. John Harvard: Let me just jump in here, Mr. Chairman.

That's the reason we're bringing forward these amendments. The broadcasting industry is quite different—we have 4,900 of them out there. And we're basically saying that a lot of them, most of them, are small operators. Mr. Mills was very concerned about a month ago—or less—about the small operators, so we have chosen to cut all of those out. We've left only 16% of the commercial operators who might be subject to some awards made by the CRTC.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I respect that, Mr. Harvard, but I also said to the officials at that last meeting that we should have a complete analysis of what this would mean in hard dollars for the whole system. We're passing a bill and we have no idea whether they're going to take $1 million out of these 800 organizations or whether they're going to take $5 million. We're going into a black hole with no fixed dollar attached to this bill, and we're saying to the CRTC, you be the judge. It's wrong.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte, then Madame Gagnon and Mrs. Hinton.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have two questions. I'm now confused, Mr. Chair.

What I hear Mr. Mills speaking about is a fund, about setting up a fund. The way I read this legislation, there is not a fund. It's a matter of the discretion of the commission. They may or may not award costs and tax them. So correct me, but there's no fund being set up; it's on an individual basis.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Exactly.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: My second question is, have we covered in these amendments Madame Gagnon's concern about the small broadcasters, and have we captured the intent of her amendment? I want to make sure we've done that.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Mr. Harvard's amendment carves out all those who are exempted from paying the broadcast license fees. That covers all those who are under the threshold set for the license fees. Then, with the sub-amendment, it would nevertheless apply to the CBC, the provincial broadcasters, and the native broadcasting undertakings.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In answer to Mr. Mills, who wanted clarification with regard to the costs to organizations, all I can say is that it's impossible to know, since we don't know what the CRTC fees regulations will be. That is why we are trying to help the smaller entrepreneurs, as well as local native television and radio stations. That is why we set out restrictions.

But can you tell me what the costs are for telecommunications organizations when an application is carried over from telecommunications to broadcasting? Are they outrageous? I suppose we don't have the answer to that, because we're not dealing with the same clientele. Can you answer the question?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The amount set aside for telecommunications interventions varies between $700 and $300,000, the latter being the highest amount we found. In more recent years, the average total cost has been $700,000.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: For the entire telecommunications sector? How many organizations does that represent?

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: There are far fewer players in the telecommunications sector, but the key factor is knowing how many there are. I will try to find the exact figures, but I don't have them with me right now.

Á (1120)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: So, it's not possible to know how many organizations are involved in the broadcasting sector. We are not necessarily talking about individuals, but rather organizations. We asked Industry officials the same question, but they were unable to answer. Perhaps we can work out how much it amounts to for the broadcasting sector.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: It's difficult to calculate the amounts because it depends on the way the CRTC regulates the industry. We could create a hypothetical situation, but ultimately, if we follow the telecommunications model, we realize that the CRTC studies the submission, decides on how relevant it is and then determines whether new arguments were made or new information was brought forward which could help it reach a decision. If that's the case, the CRTC authorizes the payment of fees. The system is fairly easy to manage in the area of telecommunications, because the number of cases and submissions is much lower than in the field of broadcasting. I imagine that they will have to decide what they are going to do with regard to broadcasting and that the system will have to be tighter than for telecommunications if it is to be manageable at all.

Furthermore, you have to recognize that the CRTC authorizes the payment of fees only after a submission has been made: people tender their submission in writing, after which the CRTC studies and assesses it. So, even before writing the submissions, a person doesn't know whether they will be compensated. The person only finds out after the CRTC has received the submission and determined whether a payment should be made.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Hinton.

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): I have an observation. I find it interesting that today Mr. Mills and I are onside and agree wholeheartedly on where this is going.

The other thing that disturbed me was a few minutes ago Ms. Bulte said we're going to tax them. It's exactly what we've been talking about on this side. This is a tax.

The Chair: Okay, stop the discussions please.

Ms. Betty Hinton: It's only an observation.

The amendment to the subamendment makes this even less palatable than it was before. The amendment to the subamendment now makes it race-based, as well.

I was not going to support it in the beginning for all of the reasons that have been outlined by my colleague. I definitely will not be supporting it now.

The Chair: Okay. All right.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: For the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, with respect to taxing costs, it's a legal term that is done by an assessor, be it in a court of law or otherwise, after costs are awarded. It's a very legal term and means something specific in law. It has nothing to do with it being a tax, as you know it, as an income tax. To have your cost taxed is a very specific legal term. I would refer to you to Black's legal dictionary.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: The subamendment isn't race-based. It only attaches it to all public broadcasters. When there are public funds involved, the broadcaster has to be open to having interveners and make sure they can have input.

The Chair: Okay. I'm only waiting for the wording of the friendly amendment to the subamendment so we can consider it as a subamendment. Then we'll go ahead and vote on it.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Could I see it? Will it be read?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: The wording is, and of course it will be translated: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to licensees, other than the Corporation,”--the corporation being the CBC, as defined--“licensees carrying on programming undertakings on behalf of Her Majesty in right of a province, and native broadcasting undertakings, who are not required to pay licence fees under the Broadcasting Licence Fee Regulations, 1997.”

Á (1125)

[Translation]

That means that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to licensees, other than the CBC Corporation.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: The wording comes from 11(3), of which I do not have the French version.

The Chair: They are licensees who broadcast on behalf of a province as well as the aboriginal broadcasting organizations. All that is defined in the act.

[English]

There we have it.

Yes, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I want to be absolutely clear. With this subamendment, if it passes, intervening funding might be available to interveners who appear on applications made by commercial operators who pay licence fees, the CBC, provincial broadcasters, and APTN.

The Chair: It is native undertakings, including APTN.

Mr. John Harvard: So I'm clear on who would be subject to it, everybody else is out.

The Chair: That's right.

Okay. We've heard the subamendment.

Madam Gagnon

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You include the provinces' television networks, but in that case, both Télé-Québec and TFO, the Ontario French-language television station, are not very lucrative broadcasters: they have trouble surviving. I will vote against that: the impact is too great.

The Chair: Fine. We must move on, so we will vote for or against. That is all.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a clarification.

[English]

The purpose is to capture APTN. It's awkward in legislation to refer to a specific entity, which is why I proposed the wording “native broadcasting undertakings”. But so that the committee understands, it wouldn't be just APTN--I'm trying to think who else would be covered by it--it would be the aboriginal radio stations. There are licences that have been attributed for aboriginal radio service in Ottawa, Toronto, and I believe Calgary. CRTC has awarded licences for an organization that's trying to get off the ground called the Aboriginal Radio Service.

The Chair: Mr. O'Sullivan, the question of Mrs. Gagnon was not about APTN; it was about provincial broadcasters.

Mr. Marc O'Sullivan: I'm sorry.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, I know you want to move on with this, but if Madame Gagnon raises this... We don't have the amendment in front of us; we haven't really thought about it. We seem to be making legislation on the fly here. That concerns me a little bit.

The Chair: What is your suggestion, then, Ms. Bulte?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't know; I'd need your guidance, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I think, if you've got thoughts about this thing, you can be guided as to whether you vote for it or against it. Or we suspend here, listen, and go on to find out some more--have another meeting about Bill S-7. These are the two choices. The first one is to move on and just vote on it. The second one, if members agree, is we suspend and then go back to Bill S-7 after finding out some more. There are the two choices.

Yes, Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I just want to say that I think that we are ill informed, and I suggest we postpone the meeting. In any case, I will vote against this. I want the committee to know that. I do not have enough information and I do not agree with what is going on here. Either we get the information or valid arguments are presented, or else I vote against this.

[English]

The Chair: There's a motion by Mr. Duplain to suspend the session because we haven't got enough information about the amendments, and to come back with more information to members.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'll second that motion.

The Chair: No, you don't have to second it.

Á (1130)

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let's take a look at our legislative schedule. When does Bill S-7 have to be reported back?

The Chair: June 4.

Mr. Jim Abbott: June 4, okay. Now, we were going over Bill C-48, which is a government bill, which presumably would supercede this bill. Where are we going to fit in Bill S-7? Have we not had a thorough enough amount of discussion that we can dispatch?

The Chair: The choice, if we suspend today, is that we have to report to the House by June 4. If there is no session between now and June 4, the bill is reported to the House as it stands, and then the vote of the House will be binding. That is a choice.

Mr. John Harvard: When could we have the meeting, Mr. Chairman? Unfortunately, I have to be away Thursday and Friday.

The Chair: We can also request the House for an extension of 30 sitting days. We have the motion by Mr. Duplain that we suspend because of lack of sufficient information. We'll take a vote on that; then we'll decide whether we ask for an extension or just take our chance on reporting.

We've now got a motion to suspend this present session because of lack of sufficient information.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: So we are going to suspend the session for today. If we can't find time between now and June 4 to deal with Bill S-7, it will be reported as it is, unless we ask for an extension of 30 sitting days. So are we prepared to ask for an extension of 30 sitting days?

Mr. Bagnell, could you just wait a minute, please? Is somebody prepared to move that?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I want to ask a question.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: What does an extension of 30 sitting days involve?

The Chair: Thirty sitting days means that it will take every day that remains until the end of the session, approximately 20 days, and that 10 more will be added when we return in September.

[English]

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: If we do find ourselves in an extension, can we use that time to somehow get reconfirmation on the advice given to us regarding the exemption?

The Chair: Yes. That's by the way anyway, but we'll do that.

Mr. Mills, are you prepared to move for an extension of 30 days?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: What will happen to Ms. Bulte's amendment? Will we review it and come back...

The Chair: It stays on the table.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It goes unheeded.

The Chair: It will be examined and we will have additional information.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Can we have the wording?

The Chair: Yes, we will also have the wording.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: So we'll ask the House for an extension of 30 sitting days. Then the clerk will advise accordingly on information to you, including the wording of the subamendment, and further information you may require.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.