Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 4 - Evidence - February 11, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 11, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-8, to amend the Broadcasting Act, met this day at 9:33 a.m.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are meeting today to continue our consideration of Bill S-8, which was presented to the previous of session of Parliament and is being re-presented in this session of Parliament.
Our first witnesses today are from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, a group working to express the concerns of low-income people in Canada. I believe that material on the organization has been circulated to all of your offices. You should have received that yesterday.
[Translation]
Today, our committee welcomes Ms. Linda Lalonde, President of the National Anti-Poverty Organization. With her are Ms. Guen Wood, First Vice-President, and Ms. Paulette Halupa, Second Vice-President.
Thank you for coming despite this terrible weather.
[English]
Ms. Lalonde, please begin.
Ms. Linda Lalonde, Member of the Board of Directors, National Anti-Poverty Organization: Honourable senators, thank you for having us here. As you have heard, our organization is the national voice of poor people across Canada. We have been in existence for 33 years, still working on that getting-rid-of-poverty thing; nothing has worked so far.
We have a national board of 22 people elected by province and territory across the country, most of whom are working, either on a voluntary or paid basis, with different antipoverty or social justice movements in their various home provinces or territories.
We have a national office here in Ottawa with a staff of five people. We produce a quarterly newsletter. We do these kinds of appearances, obviously. We also make representations in front of tribunals and various courts. You may be familiar with the case of Kimberly Rogers, the Sudbury woman who died while under house arrest for welfare fraud. We intervened in that case and in various other cases where the interests of poor people were involved. We have a track record of having being involved in a variety of court or tribunal processes over the years. That is what brings us here today.
We have been involved, under the Telecommunications Act, with things like telephone rates. We are currently involved in the proceedings around the existence or non-existence of pay telephones. We have been involved in a coalition that is represented by the public interest advocacy group with several other consumer advocacy groups.
We are here to support Bill S-8. This proposed legislation will ensure all Canadians the opportunity for input into regulatory proceedings. It will level the playing field, thereby enabling all parties to participate; it will not be necessary to have deep pockets, as is often the case with other parties to the proceedings.
Let me give you an example of our situation. Our total budget is under $400,000. When fixed costs are removed, such as salaries and rent, we are left with about $42,000 for other activities. Obviously, that amount will not allow us to intervene in any kind of meaningful way in many proceedings.
We have participated in the Telecommunications Act hearings for a number of years, as have several other consumer groups. I have been on the board for six years, and our participation in front of the CRTC goes back to before that, at least three years and perhaps longer. We could not do this alone. In a group with other similar organizations, we need some assistance to be able to do that. Thus far, we have been able to be represented partly because we have been able to recover some costs.
Depending on whose figures you use and who is measuring poverty this week, we represent one in four to one in seven Canadians, which is a fair chunk of the population. With the increasing size and convergence of various media companies, their pockets are getting deeper, while in many cases individual consumers are less and less able to pay the ever increasing fees for services themselves, let alone try to participate in regulatory hearings that would govern the size of those increases that they are being asked to cover on an individual basis. They are depending on consumer groups such as ours to be able to represent them. We feel that one of the only ways that can happen, as things that fall under the Broadcasting Act such as cable rates and so on are being increased, is for there to be a way for costs to be able to be recovered.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned that you have participated in telecommunications hearings with other associations. What hearings have you been involved in?
Ms. Lalonde: We are currently involved in ones around pay phone rates. We have previously been involved in hearings dealing with rates for telephone services, the long distance rates. Those have taken place in the last couple of years.
Senator Callbeck: Under this arrangement with telecommunications, you still do not know until you go through the whole exercise whether you will get funding. Is that a major problem?
Ms. Lalonde: It has not been for us, because in the end we have always received it. There is always a concern at the beginning of the process about whether costs will be covered in part or in whole; however, we are fortunate to have been involved with organizations that have had funding and that are able to pay some or all of the costs, so that if we did not get 100 per cent reimbursed another organized has been able to step in and reimburse us.
Senator Callbeck: I see. It has not been a major problem. What about broadcasting, per se. Have you been involved at all there?
Ms. Lalonde: Not up until now.
Senator Callbeck: Why is that? Is it because there is not a issue that you are interested in, or is it something else?
Ms. Lalonde: It is partly because of the costs. Some of these issues are regionally based. For example, when Shaw cable increases rates, it does not affect people all across Canada; it is not a countrywide issues. However, as more and more convergence takes place, that is getting to be less the case.
Senator Callbeck: Therefore, you do not get involved in an issue unless it is national; is that correct?
Ms. Lalonde: In the past, we have gotten involved in issues where, by dealing with it on local or provincial issue, we would have an impact on what would become an issue across the country. Let me use the example of panhandling. We intervened in a case in Winnipeg related to a city bylaw, not provincial legislation. Within six months, similar legislation came up in five other cities across the country. We then applied what we had done in Winnipeg to those other cities and, as such, were able to change the legislation that was proposed in other communities.
Senator Callbeck: Are there issues right now under the Broadcasting Act that you would be intervening in if you had the funding?
Ms. Lalonde: At the moment, no, because we are unable to do more than we are doing right now. However, there are issues that have come up that we should be intervening in.
Senator Callbeck: Can you give me some examples?
Ms. Lalonde: One is the issue of cable rates, and particularly the convergence of cable companies with other providers of various services. That has been a problem for people. For example, if telephone, cable and so on are all under the same provider, an individual who falls behind in his or her payments loses the whole package of services instead of just the one utility he or she has fallen behind in. That is becoming increasingly an issue across the country.
Senator Day: I want to explore a parallel with the court system and the award of costs you would be happy with, or content with. In the court situation, the discretion is with the judge. In this instance, we are saying, ``Leave it with the CRTC.'' In the court system, the award of costs may go for or against a party. Would you be content with the CRTC having that kind of discretion, such that, if the CRTC felt that an intervenor in the proceedings had not added anything to the process, had just prolonged the hearing, costs should be awarded against that party?
Ms. Lalonde: In the past, whether before a tribunal or at the court level, prior to intervening in a process we have been sure that we were bringing something vital to the table, something that was not otherwise going to get to the table. We do not come forward with frivolous things. Therefore, for us, we would not be discontent with the CRTC having that discretion, because we would not be concerned that, at the end of day, it would not be seen as an important invention.
Senator Day: NAPO would be content if the rules provided that, in the event the CRTC did not agree that the point an organization brought forward was a valid one, an organization would pay costs to the CRTC and the other party; is that what you are saying?
Ms. Lalonde: We would not be prepared to pay the other party's costs. We would not be in a position to do that. We have $42,000 at the end of the day to cover everything that is not fixed costs.
Senator Day: You would like to have a process and would like to be in a position to get costs but you do not want to be in a position where you might have to pay costs; correct?
Ms. Lalonde: It is not a process of not having to pay costs and being able to get them. It is a process of allowing everyone to come into the room and be at the table in the same way.
Senator Day: We cannot draw the parallel with the cost process in a regular adversarial court system, then. That is helpful.
What you are really looking for is some means of support for bringing forward the point of view of the intervenor?
Ms. Lalonde: Quite often, we are going up against someone who has a research department and whose research budget is more than our entire budget. Often, we have to get an outsider to represent us because we do not have the technical, fine point knowledge. NAPO's researcher does poverty issues; as such, we cannot send our researcher to a hearing to represent us in any kind of meaningful way.
Senator Day: I understand. It is a specialized field and very expensive to hire lawyers and consultants to represent you. It could amount to quite few dollars. To answer the question that I put, what you are looking for is a means of putting forward possibility a contrary point of view to the applicant?
Ms. Lalonde: Yes.
Senator Day: You would like, somehow, to have that funded.
Ms. Lalonde: Yes.
Senator Day: You are suggesting that it should be funded by the applicant as opposed to the government. There should be some other means for intervenors, not necessarily opponents, wanting to bring forward a different point of view from the applicant or to change the applicant's presentation somewhat. Have you considered another way to bring forward that point of view, other than by having the applicant pay for it?
Ms. Lalonde: For the applicant, it should be part of the costs of doing business to allow the rest of the story to come to the table. I do not see it as a role for the government. The applicant is the only other one in the room, as it were.
Senator Day: The other one in the room would be your group, for example, but neither NAPO nor its constituents has the money to pay for it. Thus, the cost must be borne by the applicant as a cost of doing business, which would then be passed on to all of the cable subscribers. Alternatively, if the government were to bear the cost, the taxpayer would then be paying for it. Those would be the options. Would you agree?
Ms. Lalonde: Yes.
Senator Day: Do you know how many intervenors there might be under the Broadcasting Act for any particular application?
Ms. Lalonde: It is difficult to know, because if were funding or the potential of funding people would approach it in a different way. For instance, I cannot think of an instance where we would go in alone. There would be one representative at the representing multiple groups. In other words, one intervention may incorporate the concerns and requirements of different groups. At the end of the day, there is only one bill for a much broader representation.
Senator Day: How do we guarantee that? If each group knew it were to receive funding for its intervention, how would we know that they did not all get together and hire 15 or 2,000 lawyers?
Ms. Lalonde: That would be part of the conditionality of paying the costs. A group would be expected to get together, to make one intervention, to represent similar stories. I will use the Kimberley Rogers inquest as an example. Five national organizations intervened under one legal team. The provincial groups had two intervenors, but they collaborated to present as one. Instead of those eight groups having eight different teams of lawyers, there were actually only two teams of lawyers in the room. A condition can be put in place, as such; in other words, if you have not done that, you will not receive the funding.
Senator Day: Do you believe that this committee could reasonably put a set of regulations in place, or should we leave that to the CRTC to bring people together?
Ms. Lalonde: You can make a general regulation, without saying that if they all have pink hair they have to have the same lawyer. You may not want to be that specific, but you could put words of guidance in place to the commission, such that, as a condition for application for funding the applicants would be expected to unite with similar intervenors.
Senator Day: You can appreciate that, if there were 2,000 intervenors, it would become pretty onerous, especially if each one knew its organization would be paid for its expenses. Unless there is something to bring them together, that could be a pretty onerous expense for the applicant. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Lalonde: Yes, absolutely, I agree. To use the coroner's inquest process as an example, the coroner had a meeting before the inquest whereby anyone who wanted to intervene was invited. The coroner told a couple of groups that he would not hear their interventions until they grouped with someone else. Obviously, they have the same idea, and I think that is fine. Certainly, it shortens the length of the hearing and, therefore, keeps down the costs alone.
Senator Day: Would either of your colleagues care to comment on any of these points?
Ms. Gwen Wood, First Vice-President, National Anti-Poverty Organization: I agree with Ms. Lalonde's comments, but I wish to emphasize that it is important to have a level playing field. That should be a primary concern.
Senator Day: Do you accept Ms. Lalonde's position that it should not be, under any circumstance, at the discretion of the CRTC to award costs against the intervenor?
Ms. Wood: Absolutely.
Ms. Paulette Halupa, Second Vice-President, National Anti-Poverty Organization: Prince Edward Island is a small and poor province. As was raised earlier in relation to costs, would the company then pass those costs on to the people receiving their services? That would be bad for P.E.I because it is a luxury to have cable in the first place, let alone face increased costs for the service. We need cable because the CBC is dwindling each year. It is imperative for us to have access to outside stations, just to stay abreast of the news. We have a half-hour program from P.E.I. and another half- hour program from the rest of the country. Without cable, people are not able to access to it. Also, lack of cable creates a hindrance for our children in their schoolwork. Often, teachers require students to watch a certain television program and report back on it. If the children do not have cable, they cannot do the assignment.
Most taxpayers are on the higher end of the scale, so I would prefer, from the P.E.I. standpoint, to go that way. Maybe the cable companies would have to pay a portion to the government, but I would hope that the government would not pass that on to the constituents.
Senator Day: You know that they would, as a cost of doing business, if they have to pay the costs of all intervenors. Whatever costs they pay, they will pass on to you, if they are given what they have asked for.
Ms. Halupa: We would have to keep the number of intervenors reasonable. As the document stated, when you compare the amount of money they are making with the amount of money that is paid for the intervenors, it is not a large cost.
Senator Day: Have we seen this document before us?
The Chairman: To which document did you refer?
Ms. Lalonde: I referred to Senator Kinsella's comments when he was introducing the proposed legislation.
Senator Phalen: We have been hearing about the costs from the other side of the argument — the difference between the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcast Act. We have been told that the interventions to the Telecommunications Act are long; that they have formal cross-examination stages, which do not exist on the broadcast side; that the issues are often complex and technical; and that the costs are much higher because they have lawyers.
Are there significant differences in the kinds of groups intervening under the Telecommunication Act versus those intervening under the Broadcast Act?
Ms. Lalonde: First, you have just made a wonderful case for supporting a process whereby other people could intervene. If they are, in fact, long, complicated processes with detailed cross-examination and so on, consumer groups or individual consumers, obviously, do not have a way of participating in that process unless they can be represented. Part of the difficulty with comparing the number of intervenors and the depth of the intervention is that one has the ability to obtain support to do it and the other one does not have that ability.
You are comparing a system in which people are enabled to go to the table with a system in which people are not enabled to go to the table. It is not possible to say that you can compare the numbers of people that appear today in process A with process B, when the door is slammed and locked in one process but an ability to open the door in the other process.
Senator Phalen: You are saying that the interventions under the Telecommunications Act are more complex and more technical. Why would you need the services of a lawyer under one act and not under the other act? Their claim is that, if I made a presentation under the Broadcasting Act, I would not necessarily need a lawyer; however, if it is under the Telecommunication Act, where it is more complex and technical, I would need legal counsel. Is that your view?
Ms. Lalonde: I am not sure we would go into a Broadcasting Act hearing without some kind of professional advice or representation, whether it was a lawyer or someone who is an advocate. I do not know that we would go up against the CBC, with their phalanx of researchers, on our own.
The Chairman: You have appeared before the CRTC in telecommunications proceedings. How much do you usually get in terms of financing?
Ms. Lalonde: We normally act in coalition with other groups. The award would go, in our case, to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which represents a coalition of groups. I do not know the actual dollar amount. The award is not made to us; it would be made to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
The Chairman: I am trying to understand the system. It is not a perfect parallel, but it is the only parallel that offers itself. You would meet with the people from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre to discuss issues you would like to see put forward. Then, they would take care of preparation and legal and technical work.
Ms. Lalonde: We would sometimes appear as a witness called by them, but we spend a great deal of time in advance of the actual appearance developing the position. Sometimes, where there are four or five groups in a coalition, there is not always the same point of view. Hence, some time is spent beforehand working out what our position will be. On occasion, we will submit a separate application, if there is a particular point that others are not willing to put forward. We will have a slightly different application, but it will be represented by one group. As we go through the process, they consult with us, but they are the actual representatives.
The Chairman: Does it ever occur that you, singly or in groups, to intervene in favour of a given application before the CRTC, or are you almost always in opposition?
Ms. Lalonde: In terms of the ones I am aware of, we have always been in opposition. That may not have always been the case.
The Chairman: I suppose you would not need much technical help to go forward and say, ``We think this is a good idea.''
I wonder if I could ask you to see what you can find out about actual sums of money and to write to this committee. I do not mean a detailed brief, for which you would have to seek financial help from some source, although not from this committee. I would like, if possible, a brief letter explaining whatever you can, because we are trying to understand how things work in order to assess the possible implications of this proposed legislation.
Senator Ringuette-Maltais: I wish to put forth a ``what-if'' scenario. I have been listening to all the possible costs involved for all parties involved, as well as the need to have expert opinions and expert information for parties that do not have easy access, for whatever reason, to sources of expertise. What if the CRTC, for a given request, were to assign third-party expert, from outside the CRTC, for any group of interveners to be able to contact and request particular information? There are those groups of consumers or users who would require data, be it on a financial, linguistic or regional angle. What if one person or expert were assigned, and that person could be contacted by you to obtain specific data and help you in presenting your point of view? I am not necessarily talking about a professionally prepared brief, but there is value to the input from groups like you, in your own words and from your own perspective, which is not necessarily the ``expert perspective.'' What if we had that kind of scenario to help you in preparing?
Ms. Lalonde: I think there is also a benefit to different like-minded consumer groups getting together and presenting a common position. It might be helpful in the pre-position stage to have a source within the CRTC. I am processing this as I am talking, because I have never thought of that avenue before.
Would I go in and say, ``Here are our concerns and questions,'' following which the expert would provide analysis of the other party's position to us?
Senator Ringuette-Maltais: It could be whatever kind of information you would be requesting. It would not hinder your ability to decide to put forward a common front or common paper or position on an issue. It would not hinder that flexibility.
Ms. Lalonde: Certainly, it would mean we would not have to retain some kind of expertise on a one-off basis every time. The other thing is that it does not develop that expertise in the community. It is a balancing act, I guess.
Senator Ringuette-Maltais: Okay.
The Chairman: Before we thank you formally, I think I need to correct the record, I introduced you Ms. Lalonde as a member of the board; however, I think you said you were the president.
Ms. Lalonde: I am also a member of the board.
The Chairman: Let the record state that I made a mistake. I apologize to you for that. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Lalonde: Thank you.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses are Mr. Neil Morrison, president of the Telecommunications Workers Union, and Mr. Ron Carlson, Administrative Vice-President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. As you know, our practice is to have introductory statements from the witnesses and then go to questions.
Mr. Neil Morrison, Vice-President, Telecommunications Workers Union: Actually, I am vice-president of the TWU. Our president is a good friend of mine, and I am retiring in April, so he will not feel threatened.
The Telecommunications Workers Union, or TWU, represents approximately 15,000 workers in the telephone and cable TV industry. With me is Mr. Ron Carlson, who is the Administrative Vice-President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, CEP, based in Regina. CEP represents 40,000 members in the media, telephone and cable industry, and supports the TWU's submission here today.
The Telecommunications Workers Union supports Bill S-8, the same as we supported Bill S-7, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved. The bill has been revived. We also support the position of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which appeared before this committee on December 12, 2002.
Our submission today concentrates on the cable TV industry. We do not represent members in the broadcast media, per se. In this day and age of convergence, with the blending and melding of technologies, the cable TV industry and POTS, plain old telephone service, the traditional lines are being blurred. For example, you see across Canada fierce competition between companies offering Internet access, high-speed Internet access and those types of things. The cable TV companies continue to experiment and run trials looking for a way to go into voice communication. In fact, in the United States, the technology is there, and Cox Cable Systems in the U.S. is a fairly large carrier of voice traffic and local switching.
Also, the telephone companies are involved in this also. In Saskatchewan, where Mr. Carlson comes from, SaskTel has signed about 5,000 subscribers in rural Saskatchewan to cable TV services. Again, there is a blurring of convergence.
The hearings and regulatory systems have become more complicated. There has always been a rule in place that there should not be cross-subsidization within companies. For example, if the cable companies were to go into the telecommunications business, they should not be using the money they received from subscribers for that service to prop up and unfairly subsidize the other side of industry.
As we know, corporations, not intentionally but for tax purposes or business reasons, can weave a tangled web where their corporate tree, financial undertakings and arrangements are concerned, and subscribers need expertise to be able to interpret that. I have read previous committee proceedings, where senators have expressed the wish that this will not just provide another stream of revenue for lawyers. Some sort of expertise is needed. I would remind honourable senators that corporations usually use lawyers when they come for regulatory changes. Sometimes it is necessary to level the playing field.
When the corporations come for regulatory changes and suggestions, where does their funding come from for that? Their funding comes from the very subscribers they are trying to change the rules for. The subscribers pay for the service providers' suggested changes and appearances before hearings. To make this David and Goliath thing a level playing field, the subscribers need subsidization to ensure that these things are in the public interest.
We must remember that the cable TV industry started out as a ``mom and pop'' operation in many municipalities. In many areas, a cable TV license was granted, and that evolved to where the small business owners have been bought up by the large corporate giants — for example, VidéoTron, Rogers, Shaw — where they have developed economies of scale and have almost province-wide cable TV licenses in that area. They have become much more sophisticated and have much more expertise. To that end, the subscribers deserve some funding to ensure that things are kept on the level too.
To get a bit patriotic, we all believe in this room that the best democracy is a participatory democracy, and that is how we would truly get a participatory democracy and bring expertise to these hearings. I would leave it at that and welcome any questions. Thank you for allowing us to appear at the hearing.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Morrison. Mr. Carlson, did you wish to add anything?
Mr. Ron Carlson, Administrative Vice-President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union: To add to what Mr. Morrison said, clearly the telephone companies, the cable companies, the TV companies and the media committees are all joining together. They are joining at the hip. Before too long, BCE, CTV and The Globe and Mail will all be one massive company. Going the other way, the telephone companies are now supplying cable subscriber services to customers. On the other hand, cable companies are supplying local services in some areas.
The mix and match and convergence in this field has resulted in there no longer being differentiation among the small operations of a business. They are very large conglomerates and in order for the customer to have an opportunity to have some say in the matter there must be an ability for them to get professional help to give proper representation, understanding how those businesses are melded together.
Clearly, in order for that to happen there must be some assistance, and that assistance ought to come from those applying for the changes.
Senator Day: Mr. Morrison, could you clarify your point that subscribers need a bit of a break? I will lay some groundwork for my question. You talked about subscribers being the ones who pay for the applicant and whatever experts it takes along to make its application. If we were to pass this amendment to the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC would have the right to require the applicant to pay the intervenors' costs as well. If that order is made and the applicant has to pay some money to intervenors, from where within the applicant would that money come? It would come from the revenue that the applicant generates from subscribers, would it not?
Mr. Morrison: That is correct.
Senator Day: Therefore, if we were to recommend this amendment, would we not create another burden on the subscriber?
Mr. Morrison: That would depend on the regulatory change that the service provider proposed. Sometimes the rate increase that the service provider is proposing can be much more of a burden on the subscriber than a successful intervention to protect the subscriber.
Senator Day: I now understand that the primary thrust of your point, that the subscriber needs a break, is your anticipation that the subscriber would be able to prevent the rate increase being applied for by the applicant.
Mr. Morrison: It may not necessarily be a rate increase. It may be some sort of regulatory change. As you know, in the cable TV industry there are often tiers of service with a basic group of TV cable channels to which an individual can subscribe. If a subscriber buys four more channels, it costs another $5 or $6 a month, et cetera. It may be regulatory changes with regard to the bundling of services.
Senator Day: Presumably, the applicant cable company would make the application because it believes their business would improve, that their subscribers want that, or that there is another group of subscribers that it would like to attract by making this change, and the company will pass on its cost of making the application to existing or potential future subscribers. However, if the applicant company were awarded costs against it and had to pay extra costs to the intervenor or intervenors who resist the application, those costs would be passed on as well, regardless of whether or not the application were successful, correct?
Mr. Morrison: The service providers' rates are set based on a proper rate of return on investment. The service providers have to prove that they are running an efficient business and show their costs. Capital investment must be worthwhile and not reckless. They cannot simply take the position that the more they spend, the more rate increases they get.
On December 12, 2002, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre appeared before this committee and that issue was explored thoroughly at that time. I think the amount of money we are speaking of in the whole scheme of things is a drop in the ocean. We are not talking about big dollars, and of course it is groups that fall under the CRTC regulations for funding.
Senator Day: Are you proposing that with this amendment we put a limit on the amount of costs that can be awarded by the CRTC?
Mr. Morrison: During Bill S-7 proceedings, Mr. Coleville from the CRTC said that the CRTC would not be overburdened and felt they could administer this system under the Telecommunications Act without a problem. The history of funding under the Telecommunications Act versus the Broadcasting Act, which this bill proposes, is not a disaster in any way, shape or form. It works quite well.
Senator Day: You are supporting this based on the dollar figures that have been involved under the Telecommunications Act. From that point of view, you are assuming that the history would likely be the future if we make this amendment with respect to the Broadcasting Act, in terms of how much it will cost.
Mr. Morrison: Yes. I believe it would be the same groups acting as intervenors, and I think the road has been paved and well travelled.
Senator Day: Have you thought about other ways of financially supporting intervenors other than through the discretionary cost awarding system? Have you considered the public purse or an application to a government agency or to the CRTC beforehand to be paid for from the general revenues as opposed to by the applicant?
Mr. Morrison: Yes. No matter which way you come at this, the subscriber will pay; it is just a question of how broad a base the payment is spread over. If it comes from the public purse, the subscriber is ultimately paying, although it is shared by every taxpayer in Canada. Some of the advocacy groups and other interested consumer groups raise their own funds, so that is still the subscriber paying. It is just a question of how widespread it is. My personal belief is the wider the better. We must find some way of levelling the playing field because we currently have a David and Goliath situation.
Senator Day: The wider the better, meaning that you would prefer something other than this bill, but since this bill goes part way to what you are hoping to achieve you are supporting it?
Mr. Morrison: My organization is supporting this bill because it provides the subscriber with the level playing field to which I referred earlier. I have no objection to it in its present form.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Morrison, has your union participated in telecommunications hearings?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, it has.
Senator Callbeck: Have you always been able to get intervenor funding?
Mr. Morrison: We have never applied for intervenor funding to my knowledge.
Senator Callbeck: Why is that?
Mr. Morrison: I am not absolutely certain, but I do not believe that trade unions are eligible under the legislation.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, if this amendment were made you would not be eligible under the Broadcasting Act either?
Mr. Morrison: That is true; the same rules would apply.
Senator Callbeck: If this bill passes, what impact will it have on your members?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know that it would have an impact on them as subscribers. It would have an impact on their families. Trade unions, as I am certain you are aware, have long been and always will be believers in social justice. We quite often line up with consumer and advocacy groups because they consult us as trade unions in the industry. We have a lot of technical expertise in the industry and sometimes what you see written in a large brief is very well disguised from what really happens in these organizations or with these employers.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, I think it was you who said that we are not necessarily talking only about lawyers. What kind of experts are we talking about other than lawyers? Are you looking at economists or at sociologists? You see what I am driving at here. I assume that members of the clergy would be less expensive than international business consultants.
Mr. Morrison: Trade union leaders would also be cheaper.
It would depend on the situation. It may be some sort of telecommunications engineer, if technological matters were involved. Corporate structures can be very complex, with financing arrangements, tax write-offs and tax retirement, and it may require someone with a good knowledge of accounting to decipher. For the average person, it can be more confusing than helpful. It would depend on the situation.
The Chairman: I think you are saying that it is very difficult to get a one-size-fits-all picture of what would be involved in the application of this bill.
Mr. Morrison: That is true, but I believe that under the present Telecommunications Act the CRTC has the right to say that the fees of the retained expert are exorbitant.
Senator Phalen: You said that unions cannot apply for funding for interventions under the Telecommunications Act. Has your union made such interventions?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, we have, senator, as has Mr. Carlson's union. We have an unofficial umbrella group in Canada called the National Association of Communications Unions. We have no constitution or structure. We have also made interventions.
Senator Phalen: Do you pay for them yourself?
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
Senator Day: The CRTC has a mandate, when a company or an individual makes an application under the Broadcasting Act, to look out for the public good. There is a huge bureaucracy there, with several commissioners who have various backgrounds, for the reason that their mandate is to look out for the public good as opposed to the judicial adversarial system, where the judge alone listens to the arguments of both sides and chooses the one he or she likes. By inviting a change in the system to get more intervenors to put forward the point of view that should be developed by the CRTC and the commissioners, are we not inviting the commission to move toward more of a judicial- type system where they would just listen to what is being said rather than being proactive and ensuring that the applicant puts forward something that is in the public good or they will not approve it? Are we not moving them into a more neutral position by creating the possibility for many more intervenors?
Mr. Morrison: I do not believe so. However, if it did, that would be a good thing, senator. This is a very diverse, large and beautiful country. I have had the pleasure, on behalf of our membership, of being in every province. I know that there are cultural differences across this country and the commissioners of the CRTC represent and are connected to regional interests, which is good. Although we like to think so, I do not necessarily believe that this is a one-size-fits- all country. I enjoy the diversity of Canada. I do not think that has harmed the CRTC's administration of the Telecommunications Act with regard to funding, and I do not believe it would harm the administration of the Broadcasting Act.
Mr. Carlson: I do not have an example at my fingertips, but it is my understanding that these kinds of rules are not new to this kind of industry. In much of the United States, for example, they apply rules similar to what is being suggested here for the broadcast side.
Senator Day: Would you support a reduction in the bureaucracy in the CRTC due to the fact that the points of view that they would normally dig up would now be presented through the intervenor process?
Mr. Carlson: No. To add to Mr. Morrison's point, obviously the CRTC has a fair amount of diversity, but it is limited to some degree in where it holds hearings. That in itself points to the need to allow people from other areas of the country to attend those hearings and give a proper representation.
The Chairman: Thank you both very much. This has been very helpful. Your input will be extremely useful as we proceed with our study.
The committee adjourned.