|
September 6, 2004
DELIVERED BY COURIER
The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Dear Prime Minister Martin,
Review of CRTC ethics and decisions
This letter is to notify you of unethical conduct by senior officials at the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC);
specifically, activities undertaken by the CRTC in relation to its introduction
of subsection 18(6.3) of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (Diversion
Clause) and the subsequent incorporation of the effects of the Diversion Clause
into the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations. At issue is the integrity of
the CRTC's quasi-judicial process and the legality of hundreds of millions of
dollars in fees charged to cable television subscribers by monopoly service
providers since January 1995.
In addition, senior CRTC officials gave false and misleading evidence to the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on 16 May 1995 and 25 April 1996 in
relation to the Diversion Clause and my opposition to the regulation.
I am a Canadian citizen residing in Canberra, Australia. At the present time I
am the President of Mental Illness Education ACT, a Policy Officer at the
Mental Health Council of Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory
representative for a national bipolar disorder program associated with beyondblue;
the Australian depression initiative.
From 1987 to 1994 I was an insider in the Canadian broadcasting industry. As a
result of the managerial positions that I held in the industry during that
period of time, I acquired knowledge of the CRTC, its quasi-judicial process,
and its regulation of cable television fees.
It is a matter of public record that in 1995 and 1996 I lobbied as a private
citizen for a review of decisions made by the CRTC. My campaign included
lobbying elected representatives, holding Parliament Hill press conferences,
appearing as a witness at CRTC hearings, initiating precedent-setting public
interest litigation, and filing a formal complaint against the CRTC, pursuant
to s.12 of the Broadcasting Act. The objective of my campaign was to
raise awareness of wrongdoing by the CRTC in order to exert pressure on the
federal government to reform the quasi-judicial regulatory agency.
To this end, I retained the services of Barrister and Solicitor Christopher
Leafloor in early 1995, due to his knowledge of administrative law. Mr.
Leafloor had worked with the Honourable R.F. Reid, Q.C., a former judge and one
of Canada's renowned experts in administrative law. After reviewing my
evidence, Mr. Leafloor volunteered his legal expertise to assist me in my
effort to try to hold the CRTC accountable for its actions. During 1995 and
1996 Mr. Leafloor contributed approximately $50,000 in pro bono legal services
to assist my campaign, including writing a 101-page submission (Leafloor
Submission), filed to the CRTC on 20 May 1996. The Leafloor Submission alleged
that the Diversion Clause was illegal on several fronts.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the
 Leafloor
Submission (242k). Given that Mr. Leafloor is presently legal counsel
in the public law section of the Department of Justice Canada, the merit of the
legal arguments contained in the Leafloor Submission may be easily verified by
the federal government.
Furthermore, the Hon. Dan McTeague played an instrumental role in trying to
resolve these issues in the public interest during 1995 and 1996. As a result,
the Hon. Dan McTeague is in a position to comment on the subject with
significant knowledge.
As documented in the Leafloor Submission, CRTC officials designed and
implemented an elaborate system of accounting that used the Diversion Clause to
enrich shareholders of cable television companies for unspecified purposes,
commencing January 1995. In addition, the Diversion Clause was used to
financially benefit companies involved in the business of producing television
programs, by raising funds from cable television subscribers for these
companies.
In the process, the CRTC sanctioned monopoly service providers to misrepresent
the purpose of fees collected pursuant to the Diversion Clause, apparently to
facilitate the introduction of the Diversion Clause without public knowledge.
Background of issue
On 3 September 1992 the CRTC announced that it was holding a "Structural
Hearing" concerning the structure of the broadcasting system (CRTC Notice of
Public Hearing 1992-13).
On 5 February 1993, on the last day for written interventions to the CRTC prior
to the "Structural Hearing", the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA)
filed a submission to the CRTC. The CCTA notified the CRTC that the cable
industry was prepared to contribute up to $100 million to a fund, to encourage
Canadian programming, if the Commission changed its consumer fee regulations to
financially benefit in the industry (Submission to the CRTC Structural Policy
Hearing, NPH - 1992 - 13, Canadian Cable Television Association, 5 February
1993).
During the "Structural Hearing" CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer addressed the fact
the CCTA proposal would allow the cable television industry to overcharge basic
cable subscribers in order to subsidize other business ventures that had
nothing to do with broadcasting, and that subscribers would probably not even
notice this happening. The CRTC Chairman, however, did not object to the
industry's unorthodox proposal. He did, however, object that the $100 million
amount to be diverted to the Canadian production companies under the industry
plan was inadequate in his opinion.
"First we saw $100 million and then we found out very
quickly it was over five years. It was only up to $100 million. We learned
yesterday it's voluntary. I appreciate that your company made a firm
commitment. ...
Still, we haven't got money on the table, numbers on the table that we can
count on. I don't think you would ever sign a business deal in which the other
guy had to give you $100 million but on a voluntary basis.
"You are asking us to soak -- well, let's say to invite the Canadian
subscribers to come up with quite a lot of money for your industry to
build an infrastructure which would be used no doubt to defend Canadian
programming, but also down the road five years a whole lot of other services
that have nothing to do with what normal people call television what with home
shopping, banking, and things in which the industry will make some honest
money, and good for them. But we should know what we are asking these people to
pay for.
"It seems to me the quid pro quo is not as firm as the demand you are making
upon the subscriber. Your industry wants the subscribers commitment to the
industry to be absolutely firm and to come right off their cable bill. They
probably won't even notice it. But the industry's commitment to the
subscriber and to Canada and to the creative community, which will be the
immediate beneficiary, is very shaky.
"We have to take that into account. If there is anything you can do within the
industry to firm up that commitment, that major quid pro quo which I say in the
name of my colleagues, we find extremely promising. It's a new door that you
have opened. We think it is a very useful and exciting path for the industry to
consider. But if we are going to really consider this range of
proposals you are putting forward, that among other things would have to be
firmed up very considerably." [emphasis added]
Transcript of CRTC public hearing, CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer, 4 March 1993, p.
1153-54
On 3 June 1993, a few months after the conclusion of the "Structural Hearing",
Public Notice CRTC 1993-74 was issued, proposing several amendments to the
Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations) to financially benefit the
cable television industry at a significant cost to consumers. One of the
proposed changes was the introduction of the Diversion Clause.
In its decision, the CRTC proposed the creation of a $300 million programming
fund to be financed through the use of the Diversion Clause. The CRTC proposed
to raise money from basic cable subscribers to pay for this major initiative.
However, in order to raise $300 million for the production companies, Canadian
consumers would be charged $600 million in cable fees, plus taxes. The monopoly
cable television companies were to retain their 50% of the proceeds for
unspecified purposes, with no accounting on the use of these funds by the
statutory monopolies.
The decision of the CRTC to create the Diversion Clause was strongly opposed by
three CRTC Commissioners. Commissioners David Coleville, Beverley Oda and Rob
Gordon issued a strongly worded dissenting opinion that addressed numerous
fundamental deficiencies with the Diversion Clause, including that it was
unprincipled, unwarranted and inequitable.
"In this case, funds related to capital expenditures
are redirected to program production. Cable rates should be justified on their
own merits, not used as a lever to extract revenues for other purposes."
Minority decision of the CRTC regarding the Diversion Clause, resulting from
the "Structural Hearing" decision, Public Notice CRTC 1993-74, dated 3 June
1993 appendix
Public Notice CRTC 1993-105 was issued on 15 July 1993, calling for comments as
to what would be the most appropriate policies for program eligibility, access,
specific funding mechanisms and administration of the new Cable Production
Fund.
In response to CRTC Public Notice 1993-105, Friends of Canadians Broadcasting
issued a strongly worded submission against the introduction of the Diversion
Clause, describing it as the imposition of a "tax" by the CRTC upon cable
subscribers, and stated that its introduction was "a breach of faith with seven
million Canadian households." Furthermore, the group asserted that if the
Diversion Clause was "properly understood by consumers" the result would be
general public mistrust of the CRTC, "and thereby threaten public support for
broadcast regulation in general" (
Document 1 109k).
On January 25, 1994, the Diversion Clause was added to the Regulations by the
CRTC.
SOR/94-133, January 25, 1994, Canada
Gazette, Part II, Vol. 128, No. 3, p. 995, at pp. 999-1000
During August 1994 my mental health deteriorated, without my knowledge, while I
was negotiating distribution agreements for CHUM Limited's specialty television
stations with the cable television industry. I started to suffer delusions of
grandeur that I was able to fix the broadcasting system for Canadians.
In this state of mind, I resigned from my position as national Affiliate
Relations Manager on 6 September 1994 to publicly oppose the $3.1 billion
acquisition of Maclean Hunter Limited by Rogers Communications Inc.
On 1 January 1995, pursuant to the Diversion Clause, millions of cable
television subscribers started paying for the Cable Production Fund. At the
same time, regulated cable television monopolies started retaining millions of
dollars each month for unspecified purposes, pursuant to the Diversion Clause.
Cable subscribers had been given written notice that the fees collected to
finance the Cable Production Fund and the unlimited options for cable
television companies were to partially offset eligible capital expenditures
required for the provision of their basic cable television service, an entirely
different purpose.
In early March 1995 I requested legal opinions on the Diversion Clause from
lawyers Neil Milton and Christopher Leafloor.
On 25 March 1995 Christopher Leafloor notified me that the CRTC had exceeded
its legal jurisdiction when it created the Diversion Clause (
Document 2 251k).
On 27 March 1995 Neil Milton notified me that there were very credible
arguments that put the legality of the Diversion Clause in serious doubt (
Document 3 279k).
On 29 March 1995 MP Simon de Jong, NDP Critic Canadian Heritage, MP Jan Brown,
Reform Critic Canadian Heritage, and MP Dan McTeague, Liberal Member Canadian
Heritage Committee, joined Mr. Leafloor, Mr. Milton and myself at a Parliament
Hill press conference to discuss the Diversion Clause. At that time we called
on the federal government to review the Diversion Clause.
Shortly after our press conference on 29 March 1995 the CRTC issued a news
release that contained false and misleading information designed to discredit
my claims about the Diversion Clause and the process used to implement the
regulation without public participation
(
Document 4 39k).
On 30 March 1995 MP Jan Brown raised questions related to the Diversion Clause
in the House of Commons. MP Jan Brown's questions were left fundamentally
unanswered by the federal government.
On the same day, MP Dan McTeague issued a press release addressing the
misleading nature of the news release by the CRTC on 29 March 1995 (
Document 5 50k).
On 31 March 1995 MP Dan McTeague was quoted calling "for a review of the
commission, its methods and accountability to average Canadians" in The Toronto
Star in an article by journalist Robert Brehl (
Document 6 78k).
On 15 May 1995 I personally initiated a legal proceeding in Ontario Court
(General Division) against Rogers Cablesystems Limited (Rogers) to settle the
legal right of cable television subscribers to notice of the Cable Production
Fund and its impact on their monthly rates. Mr. Leafloor acted as my lead
counsel, assisted by lawyers Mr. Milton and Blair Drummie.
On 16 May 1995 CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer gave false and misleading evidence to
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to the Diversion Clause
under questioning by MP Dan McTeague (Evidence, Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, 16 May 1995).
On 17 May 1995 I served Rogers with my Application Record for my legal
proceeding. Rogers never disputed the accuracy of any of the substantial
factual material that I presented to the court.
On 9 July 1995 journalist Antonia Zerbisias' article on my legal case against
Rogers was the front-page feature story in The Toronto Star
(
Document 7 56k). At that time I called for the CRTC to be reformed.
"There's already a high level of suspicion about the
integrity of the CRTC process and I believe it's time to change it. When people
get to the real heart of how close the relationship has been between the cable
industry and the CRTC, they'll want a public inquiry."
On 25 August 1995 Rogers filed a motion to dismiss my legal proceeding on
jurisdictional grounds. The motion asserted that the CRTC had exclusive
jurisdiction over the matter.
On 3 October 1995, Mr. Justice Sharpe heard the motion on jurisdiction.
On 4 October 1995 Sharpe J. decided that the CRTC has exclusive jurisdiction
over the dispute raised in my legal application. Accordingly, Sharpe J. did not
make any ruling on the merits of my case. Sharpe J. concluded that,
"... the task of deciding this case has been
specifically assigned by Parliament to the CRTC. ... Assumption of jurisdiction
by this court would not only evade the CRTC, it would also remove the case from
the authority of the Federal Court of Appeal which is mandated to review the
CRTC." Re Mahar and Rogers Cablesystems Limited (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 690
(Gen. Div.), per Sharpe J., at pp. 701
Rogers subsequently requested an order of costs against me in the amount of
$55,485. Rogers reported to the Court that it had retained six lawyers,
including Mr. T.G. Heintzman and Mr. R.J. Buchan, and that these lawyers had
spent a combined total of 328 hours on my case.
On 30 October 1995, Mr Justice Sharpe made a precedent-setting decision in my
favour when I was not required to pay any of Rogers' legal costs.
"In my view, it is appropriate in this case to
exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant [Keith Mahar] and to make no
order as to costs. The issue raised was novel and certainly involved a matter
of public interest. While I decided the jurisdictional point against the
applicant, I am satisfied that the application was brought in good faith for
the genuine purpose of having a point of law of general public interest
resolved. ... An unrelenting application of those [costs] rules to public
interest litigants will have the result of significantly limiting access to the
courts by such litigants. Such a consequence would be undesirable with respect
to proceedings such as the present one which was, in my view, brought on a bona
fide basis and raised a genuine issue of law of significance to the public at
large." Re Mahar and Rogers Cablesystems Limited (1995), 25 O.R. (3d)
690 (Gen. Div.), per Sharpe J., at pp. 704-5
On 28 November 1995, pursuant to the direction of Mr. Justice Sharpe, I
initiated a complaint against the CRTC and cable television companies in
relation to the Diversion Clause, pursuant to s. 12 of the Broadcasting Act.
The complaint was lodged under the name Cable Watch Citizens' Association. (
Document 8 160k) MP Dan McTeague and I appeared together at a
Parliament Hill press conference to discuss my complaint, which included the
request for consumer rate refunds totalling $100 million. At that time MP Dan
McTeague stated, "[t]he federal government has an obligation to investigate
what has occurred between the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission and the cable television industry" (
Document 9 53k).
NDP Canadian Heritage Critic Simon issued a press release at the same time
calling for the CRTC to be reformed into "a genuinely responsive and democratic
institution" (
Document 10 33k).
"The matters Mahar has raised have serious
implications for cable subscribers and carriers, consumer advocates and
government. By continuing to protend that the CRTC - as it exists - is meeting
contemporary market needs, this government is denying consumers their rights."
NDP Canadian Heritage Critic, Simon de Jong,M.P., press release, 28 November
1995.
On 30 November 1995 the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) notified the
Hon. Michel Dupuy, Minister of Canadian Heritage, that PIAC considered my
complaint against the CRTC "of such importance that the government should
swiftly take steps to initiate an independent review of [my] complaints and to
take appropriate action if necessary." PIAC's request for an independent review
of my complaint was copied to the Hon. John Manley, Minister of Industry, and
Keith Spicer, CRTC Chairman (
Document 11 88k).
On 1 December 1995 I informed the Hon. Michel Dupuy, Minister of Canadian
Heritage of the serious problems with the CRTC, and the Diversion Clause, and
requested a review of the issues raised in the 28 November 1995 complaint (
Document 12 111k).
On 19 January 1996 I received confirmation from Ms. Betty MacPhee, the CRTC's
Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator, as to the exact cost of the
Diversion Clause to cable television subscribers in one specific system,
Newmarket, Ontario (
Document 13 49k). For illustration of the precise mechanics of the
Diversion Clause, please consider the following case.
"The January 1996 cable rate for Newmarket, Ontario
would be $22.65 if Rogers contributes to the Cable Production Fund and $17.61
if it doesn't."
Rogers made the decision to voluntarily divert 50% of the $5.04 monthly premium
to the Cable Production Fund for January 1996 and charge its Newmarket cable
television subscribers the higher rate of $22.65. Pursuant to the Diversion
Clause, Rogers, a regulated monopoly service provider, retained $2.52 per
subscriber for unspecified purposes. The CRTC did not require Rogers to account
that this revenue was being spent on anything related to its cable television
service in Newmarket, thereby promoting the cross-subsidization of other
businesses owned by the company, and creating unfair competition to the
detriment of its competitors. The cable television subscribers paying the $5.04
monthly premium had been notified in writing by Rogers in the past that the
$5.04 levy was specifically being charged to be used to partially recover
eligible capital expenditures that were necessary for the provision of their
basic cable television service, and that these eligible capital expenditures
had been approved by the CRTC.
On 24 January 1996 the Minister of Canadian Heritage informed me that the CRTC
had procedures in place to respond to my complaint against itself. The Hon.
Michel Dupuy declined to initiate a review of the CRTC as I had requested (
Document 14 34k).
Similarly, the Hon. Michel Dupuy declined to initiate an independent review of
my complaint as requested by PIAC.
On 30 January 1996 Fernand Belisle, the CRTC's Vice-Chairman Broadcasting
appeared at an Insight Information Inc. and The Globe and Mail conference
in Toronto and stated that the CRTC had determined that it disagreed with my
complaint. The CRTC had not informed me of its determination against my
complaint.
Insight Information Inc. and The Globe and Mail
conference, "The Changing Role of the CRTC", at the Four Seasons Hotel,
Toronto, on 30 January 1996, CPAC 1996 Cable Parliamentary Channel, Tape 4
On 30 January 1996 the Consumers' Association of Canada notified the CRTC that
it supported my request for a public hearing into the Diversion Clause (
Document 15 27k).
On 31 January 1996, CRTC Vice-Chairman David Coleville accused me in the press
of "creating a false impression that the money (being retained by cable
television companies for unspecified purposes was) being used surreptitiously
by the cable companies." He also downplayed the total lack of accounting for
the estimated $300 million to be retained under the scheme over the first five
years by the monopolies, stating simply, "the commission does not know where
every nickel is being spent by cable companies" (
Document 16 84k).
On 8 March 1996 the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs
sent a fax to the CRTC asking for confirmation as to the status of my complaint
and highly criticized the introduction of the Diversion Clause. Prime Minister
Chrétien, Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Copps, Minister of Industry John
Manley, and MP Dan McTeague were faxed a copy of the letter (
Document 17 37k).
Later the same day, and contrary to Mr. Belisle's statement on 30 January 1996,
the CRTC notified my lawyer Mr. Leafloor that it had not yet determined the
merit of my complaint. The CRTC, however, declined to review my complaint in an
open process as I had specifically requested. Instead, the CRTC adopted a
restricted process, and only requested input from Rogers and CCTA to comment on
my complaint (
Document 18 63k).
On 29 March 1996 Rogers filed its submission to the CRTC. According to Rogers,
neither the cable television companies nor the CRTC had violated the law in
relation to the Diversion Clause (
Document 19 243k).
On the same afternoon, CCTA filed its submission to the CRTC. CCTA also
asserted the position that neither the cable companies nor the CRTC had
violated the law in relation to the Diversion Clause (
Document 20 224k).
On 15 April 1996 Mr. Leafloor filed a response to the CRTC that fully addressed
all of the issues raised in the submissions by Rogers and CCTA. Mr. Leafloor
informed the CRTC that the submission was only a preliminary version of the
detailed evidence to be provided to the CRTC in the anticipated public hearing
that I had requested (
Document 21 47k).
On 25 April 1996 CRTC officials gave false and misleading evidence to the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to the Diversion Clause
under questioning by Reform MP Jim Abbott. Part of the false and misleading
evidence was provided by CRTC Vice Chairman Fernand Belisle. Mr. Belisle
informed the Parliamentary Committee that the CRTC had determined that it
disagreed with my complaint and that I was "taking legal action against the
commission to determine if the production fund was legally constituted." Mr.
Belisle's statement was pure fiction. I was not challenging the CRTC in court
at that time, I was waiting in good faith for the CRTC to notify me of its
determination of my complaint. (Evidence, Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, 25 April 1996)
On 17 May 1996 Public Notice CRTC 1996-69 was issued by the CRTC to initiate a
process to review and update its regulatory framework for broadcasting
distribution undertakings. The CRTC was proposing to eliminate the Diversion
Clause by name, but effectively incorporate its cost to consumers into the new
regulations. Essentially, all that the CRTC was doing in regard to the
Diversion Clause was altering the scheme's 50% - 50% revenue sharing formula,
to the financial benefit of the monopolies changing consumers the highest rates
pursuant to the Diversion Clause, such as Rogers Cablesystems.
On 20 May 1996 the
Leafloor Submission (242k) was filed to the CRTC.
A few weeks after the completion of the Leafloor Submission I experienced a
severe depression for the first time in my life. At that time I was diagnosed
with bipolar disorder, a major mental illness formerly named manic depression.
On 24 June 1996 the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, solicitors for the
B.C. Age Pensioners' Organization, West End Seniors' Network, and the
Consumers' Association of Canada (British Columbia Branch), notified the CRTC
that its clients fully supported my application for a public hearing into the
Diversion Clause. Furthermore, these organizations wished to intervene and
participate in such a public hearing (
Document 22 78k).
On 25 June 1996 the CRTC rendered its decision that neither the cable
television companies nor the CRTC had violated the law in relation to the
Diversion Clause, and that the legal issues raised in the Leafloor Submission
had no merit. The CRTC's decision, file 1000-121, (
Document 23 351k) was never published by the CRTC for public viewing or
comment.
My poor mental health at that time did not permit me to appeal the CRTC's 25
June 1996 decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, as planned, within the
required time limit.
On 9 September 1996 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Sheila Copps announced the creation of the Canada Television and Cable
Production Fund, described as a "government-industry partnership." This joint
venture relied upon the proceeds of the Diversion Clause for part of its
funding.
Pursuant to Public Notice CRTC 1996-69, the CRTC held a hearing in October 1996
in relation to its proposed new regulations. MP Dan McTeague and I appeared as
witnesses together at this hearing and stressed that the proposed new
regulations were unethical, inequitable, and probably unlawful on several
fronts due to the incorporation of the cost of the Diversion Clause into the
proposed regulations. At that time, we urged the CRTC to simply tell Canadians
the truth about their monthly cable television rates.
In November 1996 my mental health started to deteriorate while I was working on
a comprehensive document that I intended to submit to Canadian Heritage
Minister Sheila Copps and Minister of Industry John Manley. On 14 November 1996
I suffered psychosis and required two weeks in hospital, and several years of
psychiatric rehabilitation to recover from the trauma of the experience.
On 11 March 1997 the CRTC proposed its Broadcasting Distribution Regulations,
incorporating the cost of the Diversion Clause to consumers into the new
regulatory framework.
The CRTC subsequently adopted the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations.
On 12 October 2001 I immigrated to Australia, where I waited for an appropriate
time to address the outstanding issues with the Canadian federal government.
The Canada Television and Cable Production Fund became the Canadian Television
Fund. The website for the Canadian Television Fund notes that "approximately
$108 million from the Canadian cable companies" was generated to the Fund in
the current year through its Licence Fee Program. All of this money has been
collected from cable television subscribers under the false pretence that it is
being used on capital expenditures required to upgrade the basic cable service
infrastructure. Consequently, since 1996 the federal government has been
participating in a partnership that might be obtaining funds illegally from
Canadian citizens. At a minimum, there are ethical issues involved.
On 20 March 2004 Financial Post journalist Ian Jack wrote an article
about the end of a long-standing practice of CRTC Commissioners attending
private dinners paid for by the companies that they regulate. It was noted,
however, that CRTC commissioners intended to continue to meet company
executives in private "to stay informed about the issues before them." (CRTC
ends private dinners, The Financial Post, Ian Jack, 20 March 2004)
The legality of the Diversion Clause and its ongoing effect in the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations remains unresolved. Consequently, several million
Canadians might be legally entitled to retroactive refunds dating back to
January 1995. Based on figures obtained from the CRTC, the total potential
consumer refund exceeds one billion dollars to date.
Request
As you are aware, the CRTC operates at arm's length from Parliament, possesses
extensive statutory authority, regulates billions of dollars a year in consumer
fees, and regulates the broadcasting industry; a cornerstone of Canadian
democracy. It is not in the public interest to knowingly condone the CRTC's
unethical activities or accept its grossly deficient decision-making process.
Accordingly, I respectfully request the establishment of a Parliamentary
Sub-Committee to review the highlighted activities of the CRTC and to determine
the legality of specific decisions made by the federal government body.
Furthermore, it is my belief that it is in the best interest of Canadians that
the Hon. Dan McTeague play a prominent role on such a Sub-Committee.
Finally, in your reply to the Speech from the Throne in February 2004 you
stated that you wanted a Canada where no individual "is denied the opportunity
to fully participate in the building of an even greater nation." The existing
social stigma of mental illness is a major barrier to people fully
participating in societies around the world. Please take this opportunity to
send a clear message to Canadians that your vision of Canada includes the
participation of people with a mental illness, and that such citizens are able
to contribute to building a better nation when provided a fair opportunity to
do so by members of the public and government.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Keith Mahar
P.O. Box 3263
Weston Creek ACT 2611
Australia
|