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

Wednesday, April 10, 2002

1530

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.)

1535

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR)

1550

Mr. Alex Hayward (Representative, Canadian Horse Breeders Association)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

1555

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe (Senior Vice-President, External Affairs, Canadian Cable Television Association)

1600

1605

The Chair

Mr. David Goldstein (Vice-President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters)

The Chair

Mr. David Goldstein

1610

1615

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1620

Mr. David Goldstein

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

The Chair

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

Mr. David Goldstein

1625

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. David Goldstein

The Chair

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

1630

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

1635

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. David Goldstein

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1640

Mr. David Goldstein

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia--Lambton, Lib.)

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

1645

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

1650

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. David Goldstein

Mr. Roger Gallaway

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. David Goldstein

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. David Goldstein

1655

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mme Gagnon

The Chair

1700

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

1705

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1710

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

1715

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1720

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais

The Chair

1725

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. John Harvard

1730

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Roger Gallaway

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 048

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to consider two private bills, Bill S-22 and Bill S-7.

Before we do so, I would like to ask members for one motion that is really important for us to present to a budget committee. Members have agreed we should try to get funding for our travel to the north, and if we are unsuccessful, we should do it by other means. But we should try to travel so we don't discriminate between the north and other areas.

You have a motion in front of you that was distributed yesterday to travel to Yellowknife, Whitehorse, and Iqaluit from May 26 to May 31, 2002. The cost is, of course, very high, as we all knew it would be at the time: $195,984.

There is a motion by Mr. Harvard to present this to the budget committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I will now consider Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada. The order of the House of Commons was:

That Bill S-22, An Act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of Canada, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons of Monday, February 18, 2002)

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), our consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed at this time.

At this time, I would like to call on our colleague Mr. Murray Calder, MP for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, who will act as a witness on the bill.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have a couple of videos for you today that basically give the history of the horse. They give commentary by people right across Canada who put forward the message that it in fact is a national horse and is a breed that helped to establish us as a nation. If I could have your indulgence, we would like to play that video. I'll do some commentary as we go through.

¹ (1535)

There are a number of points the committee has to consider about the Canadian horse. This is the only breed that was uniquely developed in Canada. All other breeds in this country are basically imports. The original breeding stock was brought over here in 1647 by Louis XIV, and they were interbred with stock here in Canada.

The Canadian horse has played an important role in Canadian history since it first came to New France, as I said, in the mid-1600s. It has played a role in agriculture, transportation, and in fact in battle, because the Americans used this as the horse of choice during their civil war in the 1860s. It has been used to open up many parts of Canada beyond Quebec, including the Maritimes and the west. It's been used in clearing fields and hauling wagons.

As the country expanded, so did the Canadian horse go with it. The Europeans came to Canada through the east coast. The horse of choice to take them as they migrated across the country, in the province of Quebec, was the Canadian horse. It hauled the wagons out west.

Its heartiness, strength, endurance, and gentle nature make it a fitting symbol for Canadians. With ancestry abroad, it is like our immigrants who adapted to this country. The Europeans who came here...we are not necessarily a melting pot; I like to think that this country is definitely multicultural, because we have immigrants from every country in the world who have immigrated to Canada and have become Canadian.

It has provided the genetic stock for other North American breeds important to the equine industry as a whole, and it is important to preserve its heritage and genetic stock. We're talking about the Tennessee walking horse, the Morgan, and the standardbred. These are all base breeds that have come from the Canadian horse through crossbreeding.

The bill, as I am presenting it, has broad support across the country from breeders.

[Video Presentation]

¹ (1540)

¹ (1545)

Mr. Murray Calder: We now have a national horse song too, by the way, which is playing. But we'll cut it off here, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I should mention that it's not very often in these committees we have four stars with us. Besides Murray Calder, Sam Bulte and Richard McGuire, we're very happy that Mr. Alex Hayward is here, as well as Dr. Kelly Ferguson and Ms. Marilou Seabrook, who appeared in the film. We're very pleased you're here with us today.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, could I ask that both Kelly and Alex be allowed to come forward?

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you.

The Chair: If you don't go for too long.

Mr. Murray Calder: No, I'm not going to show another film.

Some hon. members: Oh, no!

Mr. Murray Calder: We tried to put together the presentation you've seen here in such a way that it would answer any of the questions the committee may have. I have my experts with me here too, so if you pose a question that I can't answer, they will be able to.

I would like to thank you for your time, basically listening to a video here. We're ready to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Thank you.

First of all, on behalf of the Conservative Party, Murray, I'd like to personally thank you and Senator Lowell Murray from the Senate side for bringing this bill forward. It's an effort that is certainly needed. It's a little late in coming, but it is definitely supported, and I think this time it's going to make it.

For the benefit of your guests, I'm the member of Parliament for South Shore and we have the Ross Farm Museum in New Ross on the south shore. We have eight Canadian horses at the farm and three or four in the rest of the little community I live in, so I'm no stranger to Canadian horses. These particular horses originally came from Quebec and were bred there.

It has always amazed me that when we first brought these horses into the community--and it's a very small rural community--all the older farmers in the area talked about how they looked like the horses did when they were kids. The typical horse might have weighed 900 pounds or even as much as 1,100 pounds, but nowhere near the 1,500-pound, 1,800-pound, or 2,000-pound horses of today.

I'm trying to not take too long, Mr. Chairman, but I also worked off Sable Island for a number of years and had the opportunity to land on the island--I've had this discussion with Mr. Calder. The first thing I noticed there were the horses. At that time I wasn't familiar with the Canadian breed, but I've often wondered if any genetic work was done on the horses on Sable Island. French horses were put on Sable Island after the expulsion of the Acadians, and that genetic stock has descended from them. They look exactly like the Canadian horses.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Alex Hayward (Representative, Canadian Horse Breeders Association): Yes, we believe the Sable Island horse has a definite link to the Canadian horse, so this gentleman is right. We believe that due to shipwrecks and things like that, some of the horses coming into Canada at that time landed on Sable Island and have survived to this day.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have just a short supplementary. Thank you.

Just as a further aside to that, if you read the accounts of 1755 about the British picking up the livestock in Nova Scotia, they talk directly about going to Port Royal and Pisquid, which is now Windsor, and down to Le Havre and picking up the cows, the pigs especially, and the horses, which they took at that time to Sable Island--and a few other islands as a matter of fact--because they had no other place to put them.

I know other people want to ask questions. This is a great bill and a big success story, and you people have played an important part in it, so thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions? If not, we'll proceed with consideration of clause-by-clause.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry on division?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry on division?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): No. This time, I'm not objecting. I'm saying no.

The Chair: Then you're requesting a recorded division.

[English]

Some hon. members: Yes.

Bill S-22 agreed to: yeas, 7; nays, 1

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: So it is ordered that Bill S-22 be sent to the House for report stage.

I will now proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Calder.

¹ (1555)

I would like to now call on the Canadian Cable Television Association and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

We will now consider Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act,

[Translation]

an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

[English]

I would like to read the Order of the House:

That Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. (Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons of February 5, 2002)

[Translation]

That Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is an excerpt from the Journalsof the House of Commons of February 5, 2002.

[English]

We welcome the representatives of the Canadian Cable Television Association, Mrs. Elizabeth Roscoe, senior vice-president, external affairs; Mr. Nick Masciantonio, director of government relations; and on behalf of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Mr. David Goldstein, vice-president of government relations.

We'll start with you, Mrs. Roscoe, please.

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe (Senior Vice-President, External Affairs, Canadian Cable Television Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First let me thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill S-7. My name is Elizabeth Roscoe. I'm senior vice-president for external relations for the Canadian Cable Television Association. With me today is my colleague, Nick Masciantonio, vice-president, government relations, at the CCTA.

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill S-7, a proposal to amend the Broadcasting Act to enable the CRTC to make regulations concerning the awarding of costs. CCTA, for your information, is the national industry association of the cable television industry. We represent 800 federally licensed cable systems that collectively provide communication services to Canadians, serving more than 7.6 million residences and over 500,000 commercial customers coast to coast.

The cable television services that cable companies offer are governed by CRTC regulations. The licences they hold, the renewals they are granted, the service offerings they provide, are all approved and authorized by the CRTC. The public processes by which cable companies receive approval for any of these activities are administered by the commission.

The hearing process managed by the CRTC allows for a great deal of public input. In recent years, the public hearing process has been amended to encourage greater public participation. The commission has put an increased emphasis on regional hearings and public consultations, individual participation by means and tele- and video-conferencing, and an expanded Internet and electronic document filing system for access by members of the public. In short, consumers can easily comment on a proposed television licence application, a cable rate, or a developing technology such as interactive television.

As we understand it, the objective of the proposed amendment is to encourage public participation and provide some funding for public interest groups. The mechanism put forth by the bill would provide such groups with the necessary funding to take a more active part in the CRTC proceedings in the broadcasting sector.

There is no doubt that we are in agreement with the principle behind the amendment. It is indeed important to secure sufficient funding for public interest groups in order to ensure they take part in broadcast proceedings. But before we discuss the proposal outlined in Bill S-7, we would like to note the principal difference between the telecom and broadcast proceedings of the CRTC.

Telecom proceedings by their very nature often require detailed economic and legal analysis, while broadcasting hearings are less technical, more informal, and are generally in relation to broad policy matters or licensing applications. As Mr. Marcil, member of Parliament for Beauharnois--Salaberry, noted, “It is easier for an informed and well-spoken citizen to present his or her view at a CRTC broadcast hearing without necessarily needing economic or detailed legal analysis”. That being said, we would like to comment on the proposed means by which such intervener funding would be secured.

We do not agree with the mechanism identified in the proposed amendment that would--and I quote--“make regulations establishing criteria to give the commission the power to award and tax costs between the parties that appear before it”. We believe there is a better alternative, which we will outline for the committee.

The benefits of our proposal are twofold: first, stable funding in advance for public interest groups; and second, a reallocation from existing resources, rather than the imposition of an additional charge to the industry. If you will allow me, I will explain our proposal.

Under CRTC regulation, broadcasting distribution undertakings are required to pay fees for their licences. The fees are intended to cover the costs of regulating the industry. Broadcasting licence fees have two components: part I of the licence fees, which covers the CRTC's regulatory or operational costs for the broadcasting directorate of the CRTC; and part II of the licence fees, which are allocated to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the CRF. They represent the economic rent for use of a limited public resource--that is, the broadcasting spectrum, Industry Canada's spectrum management costs, and fees in recognition of a commercial benefit for holding and operating a licence in a given market.

º (1600)

In the year 2000, cable companies paid $12 million in part I licence fees and $47 million in part II licence fees. In total, the broadcasting industry contributed $22 million in 2000-01 in part I fees to the CRTC and $81 million in part II fees to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The part I licence fees of the broadcasting industry more than cover the operating costs of the broadcasting directorate that are reported to be $16.6 million. Since the two components of the broadcasting licence fees more than cover the costs of the CRTC operations, we would propose that a small cost reallocation of the part II licence fees would be appropriate to finance the intervener funding for broadcasting proceedings that are the purpose of this bill.

We believe this proposal has two advantages. An allocation of even half of one percent of the part II licence fees would generate a significant fund of approximately $400,000 for interveners that would be from existing resources. Such a fund could be established annually, allowing intervening groups to apply and to seek prior approval for the research program. We see the prior approval of funding as a critical improvement to the mechanism outlined in the draft legislation that contemplates reimbursing interveners after the fact.

We urge the committee to discuss the reallocation of part II licence fees with other government authorities, particularly with the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board. As we've often said before, we are in favour of providing financial assistance to public interest groups; however, we do not approve of the proposed amendment that would establish a reimbursement mechanism and impose additional costs to our industry.

Some members will recall our industry in the broadcasting community has asked for the government to stop the collection of part II licence fees. This recommendation has not been acted upon to date. While our industry continues to pay part II fees, we believe there is ample allocation to cover intervening funding from these resources.

We believe the cable industry contributes significant resources to the Government of Canada. As stated, our industry contributes close to $60 million annually in part I and part II broadcasting licence fees. Our companies pay corporate taxes. In addition, cable companies contribute 5% of gross revenue to support Canadian programming, of which $80 million annually is contributed to the Canadian Television Fund. In sum, we think we do our part.

Our companies believe the government should be able to accomplish its policy objective of including public groups in CRTC proceedings through the reallocation of existing resources.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear. We'll be glad to answer questions following the next witness.

º (1605)

The Chair: Mr. Goldstein.

Mr. David Goldstein (Vice-President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters): Merci, monsieur le président. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, as many of you know, my name is David Goldstein. As vice-president of government relations for the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to come and express our views.

The Chair: Mr. Goldstein, do we have a copy your brief?

Mr. David Goldstein: Yes. The clerk received packages both in English and French.

The Chair: Excuse me one minute. I apologize.

Go ahead, Mr. Goldstein.

Mr. David Goldstein: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to come and express the views of over 600 radio stations, conventional television, specialty, pay television, and pay-per-view services from coast to coast.

On behalf of our members, the CAB would like to take this opportunity to express strenuously our opposition to Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, and to ask members of the committee to defeat the bill for three reasons: first, to avoid unintended negative consequences; secondly, to ensure accountability; and thirdly, to avoid compromising substantive reviews already underway.

As outlined in the CAB submission to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications last May on this bill--which is attached to today's submission--while the goal of increased public participation in policy and licensing proceedings is laudable, the evidence shows that the approach taken by this bill will create quite the opposite effect, leaving some unintended negative consequences.

To date, the proponents of the bill have used the issue of fairness as a key argument. They simply want broadcasting proceedings to mirror telecom proceedings. Let's be very careful what we wish for. Telecom proceedings have devolved into legalistic and adversarial affairs, where witnesses are sworn in and cross-examined, a place dominated by lawyers and high-paid consultants who face off against each other in competing testimony. While intervener funding on the telecom side might help a few well-positioned lawyers and consultants, it has created an environment where so-called “real” Canadians have no place and are completely disenfranchised.

The opposite is true of broadcasting proceedings, where the process is open, average Canadians make representations, there's no swearing in, no cross-examination, just an opportunity for them to tell their stories, raise concerns and present solutions, not to be brow-beaten by lawyers in cross-examination.

A review of recent broadcasting proceedings of the CRTC makes it clear that individuals and groups of Canadians already have overwhelming access to CRTC proceedings on the broadcasting side. We need only look at the thousands of interveners who have participated in broadcasting policy reviews and specific licence renewals. We have outlined several in our submission to the Senate committee, but here are perhaps a few examples: CBC's recent licence renewal, over 4,000 interveners; CTV's and Global's recent licence renewals, over 4,900 interveners. Even seemingly smaller proceedings, like the CRTC's review of community channel policy, allowed for over 700 interveners. Even when you weed out the 20 or 30 so-called “usual suspects”, there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadian individuals who are participating in these proceedings.

On behalf of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, we are not here to impede public participation in the process. Rather, we are here to defend it. Unfortunately, Bill S-7 will create a robust cottage industry of lawyers and high-priced consultants. This should not be confused with increased public participation or good public policy.

The second issue is that of accountability. While licensed interveners must provide detailed financial reports to the CRTC and the CRTC is allowed to monitor the achievement of their commitments, there are no provisions within Bill S-7 to set guidelines on who would be deemed appropriate for funding, under what circumstance, for how much, or any provisions for reporting mechanisms for the accountability of funds used. The bill, as written, cedes all decision-making power to the CTRC.

Again, if the issue is fairness, then those organizations that receive intervener funding should be held to the same level of financial scrutiny as licensed interveners. If resources are going to be taxed from our members and the CBC for the hiring of high-priced lawyers and consultants, then, at the very least, those who are receiving the funds should be required to submit audited financial statements and information on their ownership and corporate governance. These are public dollars, after all. The public has a right to that accountability.

Our third concern is that Bill S-7 compromises the larger review of the Broadcasting Act. Last spring, this standing committee began the important and timely review of Canada's broadcasting sector. The committee has now heard from dozens of groups and individuals and continues to hear from interveners from coast to coast. These interveners have taken this process very seriously and have responded with comprehensive submissions on a range of challenges--and I'm not just talking about interveners like ourselves, or the CBC, or our friends in the cable industry. There are dozens of organizations, which include the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association; Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union; ACTRA; the Canadian Media Guild; the Toronto Arts Council; Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; and, yes, even the Raging Grannies. These, and many others, spent a great deal of time preparing thoughtful presentations on the system as a whole, to ensure that the government looks at as many issues as possible in context.

º (1610)

If you believe in that process, why should we be singling out an issue like intervener funding? And even if Parliament truly believed this approach would increase public participation in the process, and we have stated earlier we believe it won't, the only reason to expedite an amendment to the act would be in response to some issue facing the CRTC in the coming months. This is simply not the case.

Over the last four years, the CRTC has reviewed all of its major policy areas--radio policy, television policy, new media, digital framework--and has just finished its main licensing hearings for the CBC, CTV, Global, TVA, TQS, and the new digital speciality services. These major policy reviews or licences will not be up for renewal for another five to six years, which begs the question of why we are rushing to deal with the issue of intervener funding in isolation.

As mentioned, the standing committee is in the midst of the review of the broadcasting system in Canada. Secondly, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has called on the President of Treasury Board to review the equity of CRTC licence fees, or broadcast undertakings, meaning broadcasters and cablecasters together are paying over $90 million annually above and beyond the cost of running the CRTC--a situation that could be exacerbated by the passage of Bill S-7. Again, we strongly believe it is inappropriate to be looking at issues on a micro level, or in a piecemeal way, while these two substantial reviews are taking place.

In conclusion, it's clear that the issue of increasing public participation in the broadcasting policy-making process is an important virtue. But we hope this issue deserves more consideration than a short bill that would only provide a band-aid solution--a solution that we contend would bring some significant unintended negative consequences.

It is for those reasons that we ask you to defeat Bill S-7 or to hold off passage of this bill pending reconsideration, thereby avoiding the hurried passage of a bill that may have been born of good intentions but would create flawed public policy.

We cite the following points for serious reconsideration.

By amendment to the proposed statute or by power of regulation by the Governor in Council, there should be, first, clear guidelines on what types of interveners could apply for what kind of proceedings with established guidelines from funding caps; second, guidelines on governance and accountability for organizations accepting intervener funding; third, exemptions for small broadcasters from having to contribute to this type of funding.

Furthermore, the bill should be amended to include a bringing-into-force clause that will hold off assent until such time as the government can look at comprehensively and respond to all of the recommendations in the Broadcasting Act review, and the minister conclude the review of equity in CRTC licensing fees.

If creating real increased public participation is the goal, this committee has the capacity to take a step back, study several options, and make recommendations to the Minister of Canadian Heritage that are far more likely to become part of a more comprehensive set of amendments to the Broadcasting Act.

Once again, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, on behalf of the CAB and our 600 members from coast to coast, I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

º (1615)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Goldstein.

We'll now open the floor to questions.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Mr. Goldstein, as you know, in my representations on Bill S-7 in the House of Commons in debate, I've taken your last position. There's no point in my asking you questions about it, because I happen to agree with what you have just said.

I am wondering if there's a connection here--I shouldn't say “wondering” if there's a connection, there is a connection here--and I would like to give you the opportunity to expand on it just a little bit. We're talking about the fact that the CRTC is supposed to be running on the basis of cost recovery and the fact that the CRTC currently has fees far in excess of cost recovery. We're saying, as I understand Bill S-7, should it pass, that there would be an additional tariff. Is that your understanding? In other words, we already have the CRTC becoming a profit centre for the government, and now it would appear under Bill S-7 that all of the costs of Bill S-7 would be recovered by even more funds taken out of the pockets of the businesses in Canada. Is that your understanding?

Mr. David Goldstein: The short answer is yes, which is probably--and Ms. Roscoe may want to add to that--why CCTA has brought forward a solution that would somehow not create an additional burden. But, yes, that is the case. In fairness, it has been recognized by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is trying to undertake a review process with the President of the Treasury Board on this issue, which again to the earlier point is why we would hope this initiative could be somehow parked or set aside for reconsideration until that situation is figured out.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The other point, still on the issue of the funding, is that it seems to me that under the copyright and neighbouring rights we did under Bill C-32, we've ended up with some unintended costs flowing from that bill.

As I see it, for all its good intentions, this is a case of basically looking to the broadcasting industry as being something of a cash cow that you can continue to milk. To that extent, I would concur with both Ms. Roscoe and you in your presentations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like some information. The CRTC would be responsible then for assessing costs and determining the costs to be reimbursed to certain witnesses to cover travel expenses. That would include all witnesses, whether it be a representative of a small community organization or an individual wishing to make a presentation... If I understood correctly, the CRTC will determine the costs that will be covered when witnesses appear before the commission, regardless of the size of the organization. The witnesses could be representing a small organization or a large corporation on solid financial ground. I thought the idea behind this bill was to provide assistance to small organizations that do not have the resources to send representatives to present their demands to the CRTC.

How are these costs assessed? Do you have some idea of the amount the CRTC has in mind?

º (1620)

Mr. David Goldstein: No, because specific amounts aren't listed in the bill. The CRTC retains full authority over this matter. I understand that Mr. Blais from the CRTC is scheduled to be the next witness. In any case, we don't know. We'll have to see how the CRTC responds to Bill S-7. It will establish its own criteria for...

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You said that you would prefer to see a fund established from the licensing fees paid to the CRTC. We're always hearing how the CRTC's revenues are adequate versus expenditures. Was it necessary for you to go before the Senate, given that this proposed legislation emanates from the Senate, to explain why this proposal was not retained?

[English]

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: We did explain this proposal to the Senate when we appeared before them last year and encouraged them to look at two angles of this proposal. The first, as David was mentioning, is that there is no estimate of the number of groups, the number of hearings, the number of resources that would be required to indeed award costs.

The second part of the proposal that we've identified here is really intended to provide more certainty for the organizations so that they know, ballpark, what kind of a fund could exist for them to access. They would know that intervener funding would be available before they undertake their research or legal analysis. I don't think any group, whether it's a consumer group or another public interest group, would want to undertake the research and then be turned down after completing it. In our view, that is self-defeating. So the benefits of awarding a fund in advance would be helpful to those organizations.

We've spoken to people at the Treasury Board about that as well. As David mentioned, they are of course awaiting some further investigation on the part II licence fees. I think they are awaiting the views of the committee as well on whether this bill would be seen to be in the public interest.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): Perhaps to both Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Roscoe, I understand you're not against the proposal or the intent of the proposal, but let me ask you a question. Why could not the concerns you're expressing here today--and I would like a reply from each one of you--be taken into account when the regulations are made, in consultation at that time with the minister, because in proposed section 9.1(2) it says, “The commission may order...”. Again, those are preparatory words, not mandatory words. Why couldn't both your concerns, the three concerns that Mr. Goldstein read out and, Ms. Roscoe, your concerns about the preapproval... That could be done in the regulations. Couldn't the regulations also provide that it would be taken out of the other fund?

While I can understand your concerns, and quite legitimately so, why can't they be dealt with in the regulations?

Mr. David Goldstein: There are two ways to make regulations. The Governor in Council can make regulations through sections within the Broadcasting Act. Then the CRTC can form its policy, which is de facto creating a regulation. Again, the CRTC will be up after us, and perhaps that's a question that can be put to them on the latter.

On the former, I think it would be incumbent on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to go forward if Bill S-7, as written, were to go forward. It would be our hope the minister would go to the Governor in Council with some appropriate guidelines and restrictions.

That said, I again want us to take some time to think about how this is going to change the nature of CRTC hearings. When you set up a financed competitive process, that is, one where people are going to expend a great deal of money on financial information and other information, it will become a much more legalistic process and will take thousands of Canadians out of the mix. If this devolves into a court-like situation, in the case of CBC, for example, or even a CTV licence renewal, you'll have the main interveners. And even if the CRTC decides it's going to fund half a dozen or 15 other interest groups in the process, in the case of the CTV and Global renewals there were 4,000 people. You're looking at almost 4,000 people who are eliminated from the process, because the process will no longer be as conducive to public participation as it once was.

This is a fine point of disagreement between us and the CCTA. If it were to go forward and if either the Governor in Council or the CRTC were to set up specific rules, then it should be on certain types of proceedings and there should be limits on cost.

º (1625)

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: I was just going to add to your specific question. You're right, we have concerns that could be addressed in regulations, though when any broad proposal is being brought before parliamentarians, we think it incumbent upon us to identify those issues for you going in.

If you can improve the wording of the legislation, we would encourage you to do so. Frequently private industry wants to know what the regulations are in advance rather than taking your time at another stage, for example, when a special committee of council is looking at the regulations. It's a lot more advantageous to know going in.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

Mr. Goldstein, I find it interesting--I know it's very short--reading subsection 9.1(2). There's no automatic right to an award of costs. I think that's key here, number one.

In any event, perhaps... I practised law for 18 years, and if anybody runs up costs for the sake of running up costs to the awarded costs, the commission, as a quasi-judicial arbiter, is not going to award those costs. That was another thing that went through my mind. Even looking potentially at subsection 9.1(2), costs could be awarded against an intervener and be payable to the commission conceivably. Would you not agree with that?

Mr. David Goldstein: I would, except that those are fairly rare circumstances.

To put things in context with the larger review of the Broadcasting Act that's taking place, not just us but many others on both sides of the debate have concerns about what the CRTC has become.

I know that there are parliamentarians who are concerned not just about these issues but about other areas where Parliament has ceded a great deal of authority to specialized administrative tribunals. I think that has created specific problems, which we'll raise in Bill C-48 and other places, where vague legislation or direction from Parliament is taken by those tribunals and perhaps used beyond their intent. I go to Mr. Abbott's point about what happened in Bill C-32.

What we're asking for, at least in this stage, is... If not statutory clarity, then we're going to have to go to the special committee to get Governor in Council clarity. Barring that, we're going to have to figure out a regime with the CRTC.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Given the fact that I'm the sponsor of this bill in the House, it's hardly surprising that I'm continuing to support it.

I disagree with some of the things Mr. Goldstein, Ms. Roscoe, and my good friend Jim Abbott from across the way have said.

My colleague mentioned just a moment ago that there is no automatic awarding of costs. Just let me remind you that in the year 1997-98--this is under the Telecommunications Act, of course--the CRTC processed 2,124 telecommunications-related applications. How many cost awards were there? There were 15. So I would suggest to you that this is something that's not going to go absolutely wild.

I want to go to what Mr. Abbott said. He implied that this was somehow a set-up for a cash cow or a tax grab. I must remind you, Jim, that this is not a government bill. This is not a tax bill. A private member's bill emanating from the Senate cannot go into the taxpayers' purse. This is an enabling piece of legislation to allow the CRTC to apply costs where in its opinion costs are warranted

º (1630)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, I don't think you should start a debate with your colleagues here.

Mr. John Harvard: I don't mind good political debate, but when it gets to the disingenuous, it bothers me.

I want to ask Ms. Roscoe a question. Her suggestion of one fund is an interesting one. I think you mentioned $400,000. I'm wondering if that would be workable and fair from this point of view. Applications of one kind or another are really individualistic in nature. You could have a huge company, perhaps one of your employers, come forward with an initiative that may entail a lot of costs and maybe costs awarded to respondents. Would it be fair to other members of the industry to have to pay for this initiative that was brought forward by one of your employers? I don't think so. I think that in a number of cases there would be no costs, and the applicants wouldn't be asked to furnish any costs. But for those who come forward with--I'm not suggesting negative proposals--good proposals that entail a lot of costs, they are the ones who should pay.

Let me just apprise you of the fact that under the Telecommunications Act, experience and history shows that the awards have been as little as $175 and as high as $300,000.

That also goes to this notion that somehow or other we are going to establish criteria in the legislation. Surely this is regulatory in nature. Who best, other than the CRTC in conjunction with the industry, can somehow establish a body of regulation that makes sense? Are we all going to agree with it? No. For us politicians to somehow envisage every possible detail and application and come up with an omnibus piece of legislation that can cover all those contingencies, I just don't think that makes any sense.

Anyway, I'll let you respond.

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Thank you very much.

We're not tied to the $400,000 proposed in our speaking notes in any way, shape, or form. It was an example.

As we've stated before, the part II licence fees are $47 million by the cable industry. Combined with our partners in the broadcasting sector, they are $81 million. If you take 10%, it doesn't matter. The number, I think, would need to be grounded on experience, the number of hearings projected, and the nature of the hearings as to whether they are licence applications or policy hearings.

As you've said, it is very difficult to identify an omnibus bill. Equally, it is very difficult for the private sector, when competing for either of the applications or participating in the policy hearings themselves, to know the appropriate amount. We need to have some indication. To have it as a blank envelope, or without some kind of an estimate I don't think is fair to the industry.

The second point we want to make sure is quite clear. You've talked about the different kinds of proceedings and the difference between the telecom industry and the broadcasting sector. If you watch the number of proceedings before the commission, as I'm sure you do, the majority of them these days are in the broadcasting sector. They are very open processes for public input. In many of them, there are already public interveners who are receiving funding through their own fundraising activity.

I think, for example, of the Friends of Public Broadcasting, who are themselves fundraising and identifying the hearings they want to participate in. It happens on their own accord. There are other examples we could cite to you as well.

If you believe in the principle of this amendment, providing clarity for both the commission and the industry would be very helpful.

º (1635)

Mr. John Harvard: Could I make a couple of additional comments?

The Chair: You may, very briefly.

Mr. John Harvard: Very briefly, I appreciate the comments by both Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Roscoe. They support the principle of citizen participation as a basic fundamental tenet of democracy. You've repeated cable's position on it from the Senate to here. I've heard Mr. Goldstein say it.

To my friend, David, I find it interesting when you suggest Bill S-7 “will create a robust cottage industry for lawyers and high-priced consultants”. I don't know, it sure sounds like the kettle calling the pot black. I would think your industry has some passing experience with lawyers and high-priced consultants. Would you agree?

Mr. David Goldstein: Not to that degree.

Mr. John Harvard: It is especially so for high-priced consultants. I think I'm looking at one.

Mr. David Goldstein: I work for a non-profit organization.

Mr. Harvard, I think what we're trying to address is that the experience on the telecom side is not as rosy a picture as what's happening on the broadcasting side, where you have robust debate by tens, hundreds, and, in many cases, thousands of interveners from across the country. You do not know many real Canadians who can get themselves involved in a telecom proceeding. They don't because it is like going to court. When you devolve the broadcasting proceedings essentially into court proceedings, it is where you're taking things with Bill S-7.

We do support the principles of public participation. Our point is let's call it what it is. Bill S-7 is not creating more public participation. It is creating counter-lobby groups. If that's what we're going to acknowledge, then let's call it what it is and make sure there are the appropriate accountability measures for the counter-lobby organizations you're building.

What's true on the telecom side is that there is a cottage industry of regulatory lawyers and economic consultants who make a fortune off this. If the intent of the bill is to create some check against the broadcasting industry or others, let's be clear about it. Let's not wrap it up in public participation. It's not what you're going to get at the end.

The Chair: The order will be Mr. Abbott, Mr. Gallaway, and then Madame Gagnon.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I look at history. Take a look at negative cashflow from any business through taxation, fees, service charges or whatever. These all represent a negative cashflow away from the corporation.

You remember Bill C-32, for example, where we were talking about a blank tape tax of 25¢ per cassette. When we look at what's before the Copyright Board right now, it's starting to approach $1, and in some instances it's $200 to $300 per recording instrument because of the way the Copyright Board is looking at it. This situation--$200, $300, or $400 in fees for a piece of equipment, as opposed to 25¢ for a cassette tape--really demonstrates the results of imprecise legislation like Bill S-7.

You asked why your concerns could not be taken into account when regulations are developed. I have a responsibility as a member of Parliament answerable to the people of Canada, particularly to the people of Kootenay--Columbia, to speak to specific legislation so that businesses and individuals have an ability to hold me accountable, as they should be able to hold the Government of Canada, not some faceless bureaucrats at the CRTC.

That said, I'd like to repeat Mr. Goldstein's comments and get a further expansion of them from him. You said:

While licensed interveners must provide detailed financial reports to the CRTC and the CRTC is allowed to monitor the achievement of their commitments, there are no provisions within Bill S-7 to set guidelines on who would be deemed appropriate for funding, under what circumstances, for how much, or any provisions for reporting mechanisms for the accountability of the funds used. The bill as written cedes all decision-making power to the CRTC.

In the question that was put to you about the idea of enabling the CRTC to apply costs, which is really what this blank cheque bill is about, if the committee had a submission by the CRTC as to what it was intending to do with this enabling legislation, subject to what those provisions were, would that satisfy this area of concern in either of your submissions?

º (1640)

Mr. David Goldstein: Either the CRTC, the Department of Canadian Heritage, or its minister could do this equally well.

On your first point, I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are all kinds of fancy ways to figure out what a tax is, but when you're expropriating private resources--and in the case of the CBC, other public resources--for public service, it is an expropriation or a taxing.

Again, we put the accountability issue on the table simply to ask that the interveners, who are essentially availing themselves of expropriated or redirected funds, have the same sort of accountability to the commission and to the public as anyone else would have. They should be treated no differently from any one else and should be subject to the same contracting formula or any other Treasury Board guidelines.

This goes back to Mr. Harvard's assertion that there is a way for government to put parameters on this. The Income Tax Act has parameters on charitable organizations, for example. Only 10% of their activity can be directed to lobbying. There are ways to set parameters around who gets under the fence and who doesn't, and for what purposes.

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Mr. Abbott, on your point about explicit direction around regulations, I've worked in government, and when a parliamentary committee gives broad advice as to how a bill and its regulations should be enacted, it certainly helps, whether it be with a regulatory agency such as the commission or with the Department Canadian Heritage. So any clarity this committee could provide in terms of the specifics and the accountability would be very much appreciated.

Mr. Jim Abbott: In order to get this defined specifically, let ask you this. If we saw regulations that were at least reasonable spelled out either by the CRTC or by the ministry, would this satisfy your concerns?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Yes, it would help us significantly.

Mr. David Goldstein: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway and Madame Gagnon.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia--Lambton, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Goldstein, you referred to counter-lobby groups. Can you tell us who they are? Name some.

Mr. David Goldstein: PIAC, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre is one. There are certain ones that exist now that pertain mostly to telecom but would probably cross the border into broadcasting. I named several that have participated in this Broadcasting Act proceeding that would probably be interested parties. That would probably also include the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So you regard PIAC not as a consumer advocacy group, but as a counter-lobby group?

Mr. David Goldstein: I think what we have asked is that all the organizations be able to submit financial accountability, audited statements, and governance structures, so that for those participating in that funding, there would be a transparency as to who their membership is, who they represent. Everybody is clear about who my members are, who my board of directors are, who is paying my bills. My members have the same obligations to the CRTC. I would think anybody else who's participating in the process should have the same obligations, yes.

º (1645)

Mr. Roger Gallaway: What difference would that make in terms of the hearings of the CRTC?

Mr. David Goldstein: I can only speculate, because the bill itself is vague. What I worry about is that they will devolve, as telecom proceedings have, into very legalistic affairs. That's not to say that isn't an efficient way to conduct telecom proceedings, because they are very different issues. Unfortunately, because we exist under the same piece of legislation, both industries, which are quite different, can't be treated the same way.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Now, a group like PIAC is quite open as to their financial wherewithal. I've dealt with them before. In fact, we have a history in this country of consumer advocacy groups being terminally underfunded. I know they intervene on occasion. Have you ever encountered a situation where they have been what in the legal jargon is called “frivolous and vexatious”, that is to say, they've been unreasonable?

Mr. David Goldstein: No. My beef is not with specific organizations.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Your concern, then, is about some organizations that may not exist yet?

Mr. David Goldstein: My concern, Mr. Gallaway, is that well-connected people in this town who understand the process, who know how to fill out the form accurately, who have the right connections and will understand the guidelines, will form all kinds of organizations that will gain access to intervener funding, to the detriment of some of the well-founded organizations, PIAC being one of them.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay. Let's assume that's the case.

Ms. Roscoe, I think you would agree with what Mr. Goldstein is saying. What's wrong with that?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: What's wrong with PIAC?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: What's wrong with a number of well-informed groups getting involved in the process?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Nothing is wrong. Indeed, I think you'll have heard, we're not opposed to the principle of this amendment at all. We believe in public intervention. Indeed, that's--

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right. So you agree and you disagree, then.

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: No, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. What we've clearly stated is that we are in favour of the principle behind the amendment.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay. But I'm asking you what's wrong with all these well-informed groups getting involved.

Mr. David Goldstein: Because those well-informed groups will come at the detriment of thousands of Canadians, and those thousands of Canadians will be disenfranchised from the process.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: In what way? I don't understand that.

Mr. David Goldstein: Regular, average Canadians who want to participate in the licence renewal of their local television and radio stations are not going to have the same standing or the same capacity to participate in the proceeding, which is very much going to become like going to court. Regular Canadians have a difficult time getting involved in the legal system in this country.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right. I've heard the part II proceeding described already as being very complex. Is that not what you said, Ms. Roscoe?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: No, I was referring to the parts of licence fees.

Are you talking about part II costing?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm talking about intervener. I understand the part II proceedings are very complex. Mr. Abbott--

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: You're talking about the telecom proceedings.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes, telecom. I'm sorry.

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Right. Many are.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Many are, some are, all are...

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: We intervene as an organization on a number of telecom proceedings, of which there are a variety that are very technical, some more dry than you would want, and others that are broad policy.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: In principle, then, is there anything wrong with Canadians, whether they're organized, well-informed or well-connected, getting involved?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Absolutely not. That is why I'd like to state again to you that we are not opposed to the principle.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Here is my final question.

You've looked at the act. You have a lot of people. You have a big organization. You have a lot of experts there. I want to point out to you that proposed section 9.1 of this says that the act is going to be amended so that the amount of intervener funding would be taxed. Do you know what that means, Ms. Roscoe?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: The amount would be set.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I want to read it to you. It says “The Commission may award...and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.” Do you know what that means?

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Yes, I do.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: What does it mean?

º (1650)

Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe: Well, as a non-lawyer, I'd say the taxing of the costs would be to those who would be a party to that proceeding.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Do you know what it means, Mr. Goldstein?

Mr. David Goldstein: I would agree; I too am not a lawyer. I had a grade 10 civics teacher who taught me that taxation bills couldn't emanate from the Senate, so I'm hoping he's correct in that.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I think you've answered. You've told me all I need to know. Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'm trying to understand. You claim that because an appearance before the CRTC entails certain costs, fewer people are interested in taking part in the consultation process. Currently, expenses are not reimbursed and this hasn't stopped anyone from appearing. However, this proposal would mean that some people would be reimbursed, and others not, depending on the CRTC's position. Have I understood correctly?

What I don't understand is why you think costs act as an impediment to participation in the consultation process. All that would change, as I understand it, is that some people's costs would be reimbursed, while others would not. Is that correct?

Mr. David Goldstein: I'm sorry, but I would prefer to speak English.

[English]

Again, given the uncertainty and the lack of parameters that exist in the bill, it could create a situation where the fundamental aspects of broadcasting proceedings change, where they become more court-like proceedings in which it could be very difficult or almost impossible for non-funded interveners to participate. That's our concern.

The Chair: If you have no further questions, I would like to thank the witnesses very sincerely for appearing here and giving us very clearly their point of view.

Mr. John Harvard: Can I just make one point, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Goldstein is concerned about how legalistic the process might become if this kind of intervener funding were allowed. I just want to repeat that the intent of the bill is to increase, to improve the representations before the CRTC. We're not suggesting that instead of having two or three little people, or not so little people, appearing before the CRTC, we should have 100 or 2,000. We're talking about having the resources to provide the knowledge and the expertise for a very strong representation.

The other thing, too, is that even if there were intervener funding allowed for one, or two, or three groups, that doesn't in any way prevent little people from Kootenay--Columbia or Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia in Winnipeg from providing a written submission or whatever. These are not mutually exclusive exercises.

Mr. David Goldstein: Can I answer the question? I appreciate the intent, Mr. Harvard. We agree with the intent. What we're saying is that the bill, the statute as proposed, leaves too much to the imagination of others and is not very explicit.

My larger point is that this committee has the tools right now. It is undertaking a holistic review of the Broadcasting Act. You have within your mandate right now a sense to take a look at the whole forest and not an individual tree. If you believe in that process, as the dozens and dozens of interveners who have come forward to you with all kinds of challenges and issues do, then you have the capacity to take a step back and look at the entire issue of public participation.

This is not uncommon. About two years ago there were about four or five pieces of private members' legislation pertaining to amendments to the Competition Act. Then Minister Manley, the industry minister, wanted to pick those up and ask the public policy forum to do a broader review of the Competition Act to try to deal with some of these issues.

What we're saying today is that this takes a very narrow view. It leaves a lot open to the imagination, either through Governor in Council or through the regulation machine at the CRTC. The intentions are good. Let's get it right.

º (1655)

Mr. John Harvard: My rejoinder to that, Mr. Chairman, is that we may want to redesign the car, but right now it has a flat and we should fix the tire.

The Chair: Thank you very much. While we fix the tire, I'd like to read a letter I received from Bell Globalmedia for the record. It was sent to me by fax and I think I owe it to the committee to read it for the record:

Re: S-7, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

I'm writing to ask your urgent and thoughtful intervention against the passage of Bill S-7, an Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act.

As you are aware, the proposed Bill seeks to increase the public participation in broadcast policy and licensing proceedings. It is a goal few can argue with - but public participation already exists and the Bill itself will have unintended negative consequences. Given that a substantive review of the Broadcasting Act is underway and that public participation in broadcasting proceedings is extremely high, we submit that rushing through this Bill is unnecessary and inappropriate.

In our view, the work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in reviewing the Broadcasting system and the Broadcasting Act should be completed before ad hoc changes are made.

At the same time, we argue that the CRTC broadcasting proceedings have been highly reflective of public opinion. Last year, for example, our CTV licence renewal garnered many hundreds of letters of support from members of the public and lobby groups alike.

There is a danger that Bill S-7 would cut out “real Canadians” by formalizing intervener status, and make broadcasting proceedings the exclusive domain of regulatory lawyers and high-priced consultants as is the case with telecom proceedings today.

Ruling on the requests for funding from the many interveners that participate in broadcast proceedings today may well place an unexpectedly large administrative burden on the CRTC as well.

Finally, in the past four years the CRTC has undertaken major policy proceedings to review radio policy, television policy, new media policy, ethnic media policy and specialty television policy, and has just finished major licensing hearings for Canada's largest television station groups, including CTV. Thus there are no major proceedings on the agenda today or in the foreseeable future which merit rushing this piece of legislation.

It is for the above reasons that we ask your Committee to send the issue back for further consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Sparkes, Group Vice-President, Public Affairs

A copy was sent to Minister Copps.

I will now thank the witnesses again.

I would like to call on the CRTC, represented by--

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, will the letter be translated and forwarded to committee members?

The Chair: Yes. I read it, but it will be translated and sent out to committee members.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Fine then. Thank you. I can understand the reason in the case of organizations and individuals, but for large companies...

The Chair: Madam, I agree with you entirely. I have no problem with the letter being circulated to members. It was originally faxed to me. I don't know if I will receive a translation. Perhaps you would care to make this a formal motion.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes. I move that we request a copy of the letter in French. This is a fairly important player in this field.

The Chair: I'll handle it. I don't think we need to translate the request. This organization should know that letters should be forwarded in both official languages.

I would now like to the welcome the representative of the CRTC, Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, who is Executive Director of Broadcasting.

[English]

I would also like to welcome Mr. Allan Rosenzveig, general counsel of the telecommunications directorate.

Monsieur Blais.

» (1700)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Executive Director, Broadcasting, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

First of all, I extend apologies from our new chair, Mr. Charles Dalfen, who sends his regrets. Unfortunately, he's chairing a panel in Calgary right now and he is unable to be with us this morning.

I haven't prepared an opening statement, although we did circulate the opening statement we had furnished to the Senate committee at the time when David Colville, who was then chair, presented. In a nutshell, I'll give you the commission's position with respect to this.

The CRTC supports any measure that would encourage public participation or proceedings, as this bill does. Although there is professional staff at the commission that provides advice to the commissioners, every decision will be made better if we have further participation from members of the public--informed participation.

If the bill is adopted as currently drafted, we would run a proceeding to decide the rules that would govern the regulations. We'd run a public proceeding where parties could make comments on what those rules ought to be. Although not necessarily identical--the context is a little different between telecommunications and broadcasting--certainly we have experience on the telecommuncations side of the House and we have adopted a regulation, section 44 of the rules of procedure, where we've set out the criteria for relative costs.

Basically, it's a three-pronged test that says the party asking for costs has to have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; secondly, they have to have participated in a responsible way; and thirdly, they have to have contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the commission.

So that, in a nutshell, is what the presentation was earlier. I didn't want to take up too much time because I know members may have a lot of questions on how this would roll out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I really appreciate the brevity of that. That's excellent, because it does allow us to get right down to brass tacks.

You, of course, are involved with the CRTC, and the people at the other parts of this table are involved with the political life in Canada. I don't want to draw you into the fact that our party has a lot of difficulty with the equivalent of private members' bills coming in through the back door, through the Senate, and then being dealt with in this way. Typically, a private member's bill, which basically this is, is deficient. It's really significantly deficient because it hasn't gone through the department.

I don't want to draw you into that issue, but that's where I'm philosophically and politically coming from. When I take a look at the representations that were made earlier today and the representation that was made by letter, it seems to me that perhaps there's a way out of the box we're in. Understanding that I agree with the overall premise of Bill S-7, I don't agree with Mr. Harvard in his tire analogy at all. We are involved in the process of taking individual representations with respect to the state of Canadian broadcasting in Canada, and I think the timing of Bill S-7 is just unfortunate.

I will stay there, but if we assume that the Liberals are going to put a rip on this thing, then I have to take a look at this fact. If Bill S-7 is going ahead and if it is going to be approved by the House, and if we have these legitimate complaints from the people who, after all, are going to be paying the bill for this, would you be able to convene the kind of hearing you are talking about?

In other words, and I'm thinking on the fly here, suppose the committee was to make the suggestion or recommendation to the appropriate authorities that you be given the ability to go through the kind of hearing you're talking about, and from going through that hearing...actually to come forward with the regulations that would apply to and flesh out Bill S-7. Technically, would you be able to do that?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think so. It's deciding what the regulations might say at that time. We've heard throughout the process there are concerns about public broadcasters and whether or not they should be paying fees, whether smaller broadcasters ought to also, and, because of the balancing act we have to do about the impact of these fees on smaller players, under what circumstances it would apply. Certainly I think we could examine beforehand the sorts of regulations we would put into place before the document was adopted. I'm not aware of a precedent like whereby, before the regulation power exists, we would be looking at what regulations could be put into place, but I don't see any reason why one couldn't do that.

» (1705)

Mr. Jim Abbott: One of the reasons why there isn't a precedent for that, I would think, is because of the increasing use of Senate bills coming into the House of Commons. So we're having to create something new because of the new activity that's underway in the House of Commons, or underway by the current government.

I don't want to put you on the spot, and truly if you feel uncomfortable answering this question, I would respect that. In your opinion, about Bill S-7 and with respect to the submissions that have been made today, would you feel comfortable in offering an opinion as to the advisability of helping to flesh out Bill S-7 by getting into this unusual procedure? Would you feel comfortable in responding to that question?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The commission is a statutory authority that does what Parliament wants it to and has only the rights and obligations that Parliament gives it. In a sense, whatever Parliament decides we ought to do in adopting or not adopting Bill S-7, we carry out that duty. So I think I would rather avoid getting into whether or not you ought to adopt it. I'd rather say that if you did adopt it, these are the sorts of consequences we might see in the benefit analysis. I really don't think it's our role to go much farther than that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: To put a fine point on it, what I'm really referring to is... and again, if you say no, I understand. But in your judgment, would going through the procedure that you vaguely sketched out for us so that we could understand what the concerns are, so that the concerns could be dealt with in the regulations...and then you would propose those regulations prior to our actually passing Bill S-7, which would then resolve the problem of this very imperfect skeleton that we have in front of us and we would then understand what that would be... In your judgment, would that be a benefit to everybody involved, to the broadcasters and to the potential interveners?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Short of the delay that it might cause up front, but you have to do it in any event afterwards. There are powers under the act whereby we could be asked by the department to inquire into certain matters and report upon them. That's one mechanism we could adopt in this particular case. But whether you do that analysis ahead of time and decide the sorts of regulations you might want to put into place and then adopt the bill, or the other way, you need both for this to come into fruition.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I understand. But it seems to me that the people who are going to be paying the bill after all are the broadcasters, from their revenue. Jesse James probably said it best about why he robbed banks, with his answer, “Because that's where the money is”. In this particular instance the question is why are we going ahead and doing this without any really serious concern about what the costs are going to be? And the answer is that the dollars are there so they can be taken. I think those people and companies who are going to be paying the dollars for this have a right to know what's happening, and certainly as a responsible parliamentarian I think I have a right to be able to advise my caucus as to which way we should go on this.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Regardless of the order in which we go, it would be fundamental for the commission to consult those whom this legislation would impact before adopting any regulation.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Good, thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I concur with my Alliance colleague. In the case of a bill which goes through the Senate first and then is passed by us quickly...I thought it would be a simple matter to pass this legislation because it was intended to help groups present their views or their demands to the CRTC. However, I now realize that this bill raises a number of regulatory questions. I find that we are at somewhat of a disadvantage here because we haven't heard from witnesses. It's the first time questions of this nature have arisen. I feel somewhat stymied because we're also hearing that the proposed legislation might in fact discourage some people from participating in the consultation process.

How do you respond to my question to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters? The association maintained that the proposed legislation would discourage people from making their views known and would also create a kind of panel to which organizations would apply for cost reimbursement. Certain organizations that are better prepared...There is some truth to what they are saying.

The same applies to government programs. The crafty ones manage to make the system work to their advantage. Often they can pay someone to help them out. Some non-profit groups ultimately manage to make it work for them, but only after expending considerable energy in the process. I'm not an expert on these matters, but these are the kinds of questions that spring to mind.

» (1710)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Even if we discount the theory that telecommunications hearings are far more complex today than broadcasting hearings, I believe the only way to answer your question is to relate our experience with telecommunications.

The fact that some players have come to the Commission and asked it to reimburse their expenses has not prevented other stakeholders from stepping forward. Our hearings on telemarketing drew a tremendous number of public participants, notwithstanding the fact that some more specialized participants requested reimbursement. I don't think this would necessarily stop the public from wanting to participate in the process. At least that's not the Commission's objective.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a number of questions. At first glance, supporting this bill, which was tabled by Senator Finestone, would appear to be an easy matter, if only for the sake of equity. You know my concern for community groups, organizations and small companies that are not on a solid financial footing. I thought this bill might prove helpful to them. However, if the aims are being toned down somewhat, I think I need to step back a little and seek out the views of people in the community. I'm a little stunned by your answer. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have a quick question. You've included Mr. Colville's speech when he was the acting chair at that time. It's unfortunate that we haven't had a chance to actually have Mr. Dalfen in front of our committee so we can hear his vision. Would I be correct in saying that Mr. Dalfen is in total agreement with what was said here?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: All right.

I do hope for the record, to the clerk and to the researchers, that we will find the time to have Mr. Dalfen appear before our committee during our other study.

The Chair: Please repeat that again, Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I do hope that we'll have an opportunity to hear from Mr. Dalfen on our broadcasting study.

The Chair: I met with Mr. Dalfen the other day and he definitely wants to come before the committee. I think he will make time whenever we can make time.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, thank you.

In the notes you've provided, Mr. Colville has stated what he would propose to do--the next steps--if the bill were to pass. The commission would then hold a public proceeding to determine what would be appropriate. Is that still the intention?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Absolutely. Yes, we'd run a proceeding and get public comments on what the rules ought to be. I'm sure people will make comments, as I mentioned earlier, on who ought to pay and who ought to be entitled to receive payments and in what circumstances.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't have the other thing you read off in front of me, but you said there were three criteria.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Those are the telecom criteria.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Do the telecom criteria mostly satisfy all three criteria?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's correct.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I note that in Mr. Colville's speech he says:

Our data shows that... costs were sought and awarded in roughly 1% of the commission's telecom proceedings. This reflects the fact that many proceedings are not of interest to public interest groups, or require little effort to participate in.

Wouldn't it be quite the contrary on the broadcast side? You almost can't compare it.

» (1715)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think because of our rules on broadcasting and the visibility of broadcasting issues--they're in our homes, cars and everywhere, on radio, television, cable, DTH--people traditionally quite easily participate. I mentioned the fact that Mr. Dalfen was at this Calgary hearing. In that hearing we had over 400 interveners, 25 of whom have decided to appear at the hearing.

We have a tradition of a very open process. There's been less public participation individually, although there are exceptions on the telecom side. Has that been because organized groups have represented those interests? Are there other factors? I don't know.

As I was saying earlier, I don't think having the sort of regime that helps organize groups to participate at a higher level with more research and added value would prevent ordinary citizens from participating in our proceedings.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: While the intent of this is to encourage more participation, I'm hearing you say, “We know the public already participates”. You do a good job of getting people involved in all the consultations you have, so don't see that as a criticism. But if we truly want to encourage more participation, how are we encouraging more participation through this bill?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I think it's the quality of the participation.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That was my next question: define “value-added” and “quality”. So I'm almost hearing that if the telecom rules for costs are applicable--assuming they would be applicable, and we're not saying they would be--ordinary Canadians or community groups, like Madame Gagnon is talking about, won't be compensated because they can already be heard. You're really just allowing costs for additional research.

I guess I'm a little concerned that that's what the whole intent of this seems to be. It won't discourage the public from participating, but who's going to get paid for their costs?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: From our experience in telecom, we have these factors, but in certain instances we have helped defray travel expenses to get people to the hearings so they can participate.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Under telecom.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: That's why we have amounts going from $100 to $300,000. So it depends.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, that's fine. That clears things up for me. I understand it goes from $170... Mr. Harvard read those figures into the record earlier.

I just want to make sure it isn't just for large groups that hire researchers to come up with fancy papers. If it's truly for people to participate, you'll get the average citizen who truly has some value-added. They may not be an expert in the area, but they should be compensated for their expenses.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: I don't think anything would prevent anyone from seeking costs. The reality is that organized groups monitor public interest or consumer groups, like PIAC. They monitor what's going on, what's on the website at the commission, and the proceedings, so they're more likely to be involved in these proceedings. But nothing would prevent others from seeking this. At least I don't see that, the way it's presented now.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard is next and then Christiane Gagnon.

Mr. John Harvard: I have one point to make, and one small question for Mr. Blais.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, perhaps this goes to some of the things Mr. Abbott has spoken about. I think one thing we are missing in this debate is that a proposal of this kind, or of Bill S-7, takes our democracy, at least insofar as the Broadcasting Act is concerned, to a higher level. It does provide, or give promise to, a better kind of debate, a quality debate, before the CRTC. I would think the CRTC would appreciate it.

If I may use, for example, Jim's constituency of Kootenay--Columbia, it seems to me this is the point we might miss. If some broadcasting colossus comes forward with an initiative that may have an impact on a number of communities in Jim's riding, and they want to express concern, in our democracy is it right that those people, far away from the centre of the country, should bear the cost of an initiative proposed and triggered by someone else? Should they bear the cost all by themselves? Should the initiator of the proposal, of the application, bear some of the cost? It seems to me it is fair in our democracy, especially when you are dealing with entities worth billions of dollars in value whose work may have an impact on people with very little in the way of financial resources.

I'm not saying this in a pejorative way at all. I think if we look at this as almost democratic egalitarianism, it is only right that the applicants should bear some of the cost. I'm not asking them to cover the entire cost.

» (1720)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, I don't want to interrupt you, but if I see it correctly, you'll have a chance to appeal to the witness. Maybe you could make the points then.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll ask my question of Mr. Blais.

Under the Telecommunications Act, by having this cost award provision, do you find it brings the level of debate or discourse to a higher level? Does it make your job easier or contribute to better decision-making on your part?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: The simple answer is, yes, it does contribute to better decisions and better processes.

Mr. John Harvard: That's all I want to know.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Harvard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...with just a few words. I was really disappointed.

The Chair: I'll come back to you.

Madame Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Non.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I wasn't trying to say that opening of floodgates here by...

My concern, Mr. Blais, in listening to you, is if we use that kind of criteria or any criteria at all, the individuals who want to participate, the community groups that we think should be compensated for coming from Iqaluit to see what broadcasting is like, what they get and what they don't get, aren't going to qualify. If the criteria are as stringent and then we get value-added and define value-added....

My concern is that we do encourage individuals, and not only the largest group. But if I apply your criteria, we're going to pass something here for which we have good intentions, but no one will quality, so what was the point of going through this exercise in the first place?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais: Again, I can only invoke the telecom experience as a guideline. About 12% of applicants for costs come from individuals, as you mentioned, who want to participate because there will be an impact. Of the applications we receive, a very small percentage is denied. It is only about 8% or 10% historically, and those are for particular reasons. I'm saying it's not necessarily the case that individuals who want to participate won't have the chance to use costs.

Now, you mentioned distance and travel. I know you know this, but it's important to repeat it. The commission has used teleconferencing and video conferencing, and has actually moved around the country to help these people out. It's also of concern, however, and you need some criteria because you have to define how people are going to apply and get it.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Do you have any further questions, Ms. Gagnon?

[English]

Monsieur Blais and Mr. Rosenzveig, we thank you very much for appearing today. We appreciate your input and we'll be back in touch if necessary. Thank you.

Mr. Harvard.

» (1725)

Mr. John Harvard: Members, I want to put a few remarks on the record and I don't think these remarks are going to come as any great surprise. I think what I should do is just go through a couple of pages as quickly as possible to really tell you what Bill S-7 is about.

This bill would of course amend the Broadcasting Act in order to enable the Canadian Radio-television andTelecommunications Commission to make regulations establishing criteria for the awarding of costs and to give the commission the power to award and tax costs between the parties that appear before it. You should understand that under sections 56 and 57 of the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC has the power to compensate organizations or individuals appearing before or during proceedings on telecommunications. The act also authorizes the CRTC to establish refund criteria and determine who's eligible for a cost award and who will pay for the cost award.

However--and this is the reason for Bill S-7, Mr. Chairman--the Broadcasting Act does not envision such provisions. Consequently, the CRTC has no power to either award costs or establish the criteria of awards under such an act. I believe this is an imbalance that causes concern and requires immediate rectification.

I think you are perhaps familiar with most of the details of Bill S-7. I don't really think I have to go through all the points. I have a number of points here, but I think that if anyone is uncertain, I'll open it right up to questions. It looks like a fairly friendly crowd, so I might be able to get through this process without undue untoward incident.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have any questions, Ms. Gagnon?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a question for you. The fact that you're not familiar with the regulations or that you have no idea of the amounts that will be reimbursed does not reassure me. I have no way of knowing that the most deserving groups or individuals, or the ones with the smallest budgets, will be considered. A bill such as this leaves us wondering. We said that we agreed on the principle of the Copyright Act and the Internet, but that we were anxious to see the regulations. The fact that we're presented with a bill like this without having had an opportunity to hear from witnesses or getting any indication whatsoever that... You seem fully confident that the CRTC will be able to assess costs and establish criteria. However, we could have proceeded another way, namely adopted legislation for which regulations have already been made.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: All I would say to that is that I don't think we're really buying a pig in a poke here, to use an English cliché. I think we have the experience under the Telecommunications Act. If you take the CRTC at its word, and I think you have to, they seem to be quite comfortable with what has happened under the Telecommunications Act. I would foresee a similar experience under the Broadcasting Act.

The other thing is that it's not strange around here to have a lot of regulation set and debated or debated and set outside of these four walls or outside of committee rooms. There is a process in place. I think the CRTC can handle the regulatory process, or at least the setting up of it. We would want the industry to be full participants in setting the criteria, establishing the regulation. I have absolute full confidence that it can be worked out and that a full process will be in place. I just think that as legislators, it's incumbent upon us to provide a level playing field for both applicants and respondents to applications before the CRTC. This is what Bill S-7 is all about.

» (1730)

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Apparently, it won't affect the Telecommunications Act the same way. As I understand it, fewer witnesses are affected by this problem. The Broadcasting Act has much more of an impact on consumers and small organizations. Do you have an idea of the kinds of requests or applications the CRTC is likely to receive for cost reimbursement and of how the selection process will work? We don't have any idea.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: No, and I don't think we can predict the future, at least not in that detail. It could be that the experience is somewhat different, but remember we will have criteria. Those who want to intervene will have to have particular interest, particular standing. They won't get it if they don't meet the criteria. If the telecommunications experience is a guide, you're not going to have runaway costs. You're not going to have that many respondents who will qualify. I just don't see this as some kind of a train that's going to run off the track.

The other thing is that I think the real legislators have to try these things. If we unleash some kind of an experience that perhaps needs some refinement five or ten years down the road, we're not paralyzed. I don't think we should be afraid of the future. I think what we're trying to do here is to strengthen democracy. That's the intent of Bill S-7.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): I'll pose the question that I think is on the mind of most committee members.

Mr. Harvard, are you now or have you ever been a member of a highly paid, well-connected lobby firm?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Harvard: Well, I worked for the CBC for 18 years. That's hardly a lobby firm. The answer is no.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I want to ask Mr. Harvard the question that was in part created by Mr. Abbott, who has departed.

Mr. Harvard, did this bill emanate from the Senate as a government bill?

Mr. John Harvard: No, it emanated from the Senate as a private member's bill under the name of Sheila Finestone.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any more questions for Mr. Harvard?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a question. How much time do we have to adopt Bill S-7? We have to deal with it by next week. That doesn't leave us much time.

The Chair: Once we're finished here, Ms. Gagnon, we will proceed with a clause-by-clause study of Bill S-7 at our next meeting. Then, it will make its way to the House for the report stage. As for how much time this will all take... The report stage will be followed by third reading of the bill.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, the witnesses' understanding is that we will deal with this clause by clause next Wednesday; in other words, a week from today. That's my understanding.

The Chair: That is right.

Mr. John Harvard: Wonderful.

The Chair: Are you going to claim expenses against the committee?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I thank all the members for their patience and understanding.

The meeting is adjourned.