Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
www.crtc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Institutional links
Privacy and Security
Completed Access to Information Requests
Proactive Disclosure
Speech
Notes for an address
by Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C.
Chairman, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Ottawa, Ontario
May 13, 2008
(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
Good afternoon.
My name is Konrad von Finckenstein and I am the Chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). I am here today with Namir Anani, Executive Director of Policy Development and Research, and Scott Hutton, Executive Director of Broadcasting.
Thank you for your invitation to appear before you today. I understand that you wish to discuss two topics: Internet content and Administrative Monetary Penalties.
I will begin by addressing the topic of Internet content.
Regulatory background on New Media
Unlike many other jurisdictions in the world, future technological developments were taken into consideration when drafting our Broadcasting Act. It does not refer to any specific technologies. As such, all types of broadcasting fall within the Commission's mandate.
Ten years ago, we examined New Media services that deliver broadcasting content over the Internet. After holding a public hearing, we concluded that these services were not having a discernible impact on conventional radio and television audiences and that regulation was not necessary to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
Consequently, in 1999, we issued an Exemption Order for New Media services.
In April 2006, we determined that broadcasting services received through cellphones, personal digital assistants and other mobile devices should also be exempted for similar reasons.
The world has changed tremendously in the past decade. In particular, the broadcasting and telecommunications industries have converged and there have been significant advances in technology.
In December 2006, we submitted a report to the government on the future technological environment facing the Canadian broadcasting industry. Our report found that New Media services had yet to have an impact on conventional radio and television audiences. However, the report advised that public policy action would have to be taken in the next three to seven years.
Given the rapid pace of change, we felt that it was high time the Commission take another look at the impact of New Media services on the traditional broadcasting system.
When I joined the Commission in early 2007, I immediately launched a New Media Project Initiative. The purpose of the Initiative was to investigate the social, economic, cultural and technological issues associated with broadcasting in New Media.
Consultation on broadcasting in New Media
In two days, we will be issuing a document titled Perspectives on Canadian Broadcasting in New Media, which is a compilation of research we have commissioned and views we have obtained over the past year.
As you will read in the document, recent studies show that Canadians are spending more time accessing all types of broadcasting content over the Internet and through mobile devices. The perspectives highlighted in the document also tell us that there are very different opinions on how to promote and support Canadian content in this environment.
Broadcasting in New Media is becoming an increasingly important element of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is having an impact on traditional broadcasters. But is it a positive impact or a negative impact? Do the Exemption Orders continue to be appropriate?
We have decided to ask the public to help us in answering these questions and in defining the issues related to broadcasting in New Media. We will be launching a public consultation on the same day as the release of the compilation document.
We are seeking guidance from the public to:
- verify that we have correctly identified the issues and that we are on the right track, and
- help us structure a framework for a public hearing that we plan to hold in early 2009.
I would like to be clear on one point. Our interest primarily lies in the distribution of professionally-produced broadcasting content. That is, the same kind of high-quality Canadian content you would normally watch on television or hear on the radio. Our ultimate aim is to ensure that broadcasting in New Media contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
So, once Canadians have had a chance to weigh in with their views, we will issue a notice of public hearing – towards the end of the summer – outlining the details of a hearing on broadcasting in New Media.
I would gladly return after our documents have been made public on Thursday to tell you more about our plans for the public hearing.
AMPs
I would now like to move to the topic of Administrative Monetary Penalties, or AMPs. I was pleased to learn that your Committee recently passed a motion to study our request for the power to impose AMPs.
I appeared before you in March when you were studying Bill C-327. At that time, I mentioned that the Telecommunications Act currently provides the Commission with such powers, which it can use to enforce its policies in limited areas. In the case of the National Do Not Call List, for example, we have the power to impose penalties on individuals and companies for each violation of the telemarketing rules.
The Commission does not have AMPs powers under the Broadcasting Act. This creates a significant gap in our regulatory toolbox, as we can only impose penalties that are either relatively light or excessively heavy.
As you know, the Commission grants licences and there are usually terms and conditions associated with them. If a licensee commits an infraction, we have at our disposal three recourses:
- At the light end of the spectrum, we can wait until the end of the licence term and then impose more stringent conditions of licence during the renewal process. Given that licence terms can extend up to seven years, there can be a significant wait before we are able to act, especially if the infraction occurred early in the term.
- At the more severe end of the spectrum, section 12 of the Broadcasting Act allows us to issue mandatory orders, which effectively require licensees to abide by the rules, and which we can file in court. If the licensee refuses to abide by the order, we can launch contempt of court proceedings. Of course, the standard provision for criminal offences is that you must demonstrate proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
- Finally, if we find that the licensee is still not in compliance, we can hold a hearing to determine whether we should suspend or revoke the licence.
This is simply not an efficient way to make the system work. We need intermediary civil penalties to induce licensees to abide by the rules, without having to elevate their non-compliance to criminal behaviour. We should only have to resort to the courts in the most extreme of cases.
Following my last appearance before you, we submitted a draft of an amended Broadcasting Act. I would encourage you to refer to it as you carry out your study.
A modern regulator needs AMPs powers in all areas under its mandate. If we are to regulate with a lighter hand, and to provide broadcasters and BDUs with more latitude, then we must have the tools to ensure that licensees live up to their responsibilities.
It is my hope that you will support our request for the power to impose AMPs at the conclusion of your study. I would now be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
- 30 -
Media Relations:
MediaRelations, Tel: 819-997-9403, Fax: 819-997-4245
General Inquiries:
Tel: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: 819-994-0218
Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
On-line services
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date Modified: 2008-05-13
