“THE STATION APPEARS to be in non-compliance with its regulatory obligations relating to the filing of… If found in non-compliance, this would be the third consecutive licence term in which the station would be in non-compliance.”
“According to our records, it appears the station is in non-compliance with its regulatory obligations relating to… If found in non-compliance, this would be the second consecutive licence term in which the station would be in non-compliance.”
“The station appears to be in non-compliance with its obligations relating to the filing of complete and accurate radio monitoring materials. As well, it appears that it did not devote the time required for Indigenous programming.”
“At this hearing, Allarco will have to demonstrate why the Super Channel licence should be renewed and not suspended, revoked or renewed for a shorter term with or without the imposition of mandatory orders.”
This is the kind of language we heard from CRTC chairman Ian Scott at the beginning of both hearing days last week in Gatineau which dealt with license renewals of a handful of radio stations and pay service Super Channel.
Sitting through two days of hearings with gut-wrenching testimonies from people who have poured their lives and millions of dollars into their businesses – but with the ostensible inability of the CRTC to bring some licensees into compliance – gives the impression that some licensees may well legitimately think they are immune from the ultimate CRTC punishment for non-compliance: non-renewal or revocation.
The profound discomfort on the part of Commission in dealing with some less sophisticated players is patent. Repeated instances of non-compliance are the bane of the regulatory agencies that are often ill equipped to deal with them and the Regulator is very reluctant to apply the ultimate penalty.
It is slow, costly, time consuming, frustrating and not always efficient.
Various chairs have suggested, asked, begged, privately and publicly for better enforcement tools to deal with non-compliance issues. The latest instance was the submission by the CRTC to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.
“The CRTC is of the view that the enforcement powers under the Acts could be improved by amendments implementing the following changes:
- Create an AMPs regime for the Broadcasting Act
Implement a general AMPs regime under the Broadcasting Act, applicable to all compliance matters and harmonized with a single, streamlined regime under the Telecommunications Act. - General Condition of Service Power for the Broadcasting Act
Create a new regulatory power allowing the CRTC to impose general conditions of service relating to subject matter and parties within its mandate, similar to sections 24 and 24.1 of the Telecommunications Act.”
AMPs, of course, are administrative monetary penalties, or fines. Unless the Commission starts using their atomic bomb more often, which would be a too-blunt deterrent, we don’t foresee much change when it comes to certain licencees taking compliance more seriously. There have not been very many instances where licences were revoked, except for egregious, repeated, problems.
CHOI-FM was once a case of non-renewal back in 2006 but it survived and is still on the air. Recent revocations, in 2011 of a Ryerson Campus radio station and in 2015 of four Aboriginal radio stations, were only done after an exasperated Commission, after facing years of non-compliance, felt there was no other recourse.
We will see in January 2020 if the BTLR panel endorses that CRTC proposal and then if the government follows up with legislative change, but in the meantime the CRTC will continue to operate under the existing regime, using short term licence renewals and some stricter reporting requirements as its only sort-of punishment.
