Government Operations Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

It goes to the two competing impulses that have been identified and that we've talked about. That is, you as legislators can use the instrument of a piece of legislation or regulation, or you can count on discretion and judgment. I think you've opted for a bit of both. You have some statutory and regulatory instruments, including some definitions—although I would say imperfect definitions—of non-partisanship. But you've also given the ASC a bit of discretion, and my advice would be to give them, or the body that is adjudicating them, greater discretion.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I'd also add, to repeat a point Professor Rose made earlier, the importance of reporting to Parliament. For me, whichever body is reporting to Parliament, the principle is really important because it can't just be the government reporting to itself, or some body reporting to government. It needs to be to Parliament. That would be my general comment.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Okay, I'm on that same stream. What happens, for instance, if a party in government puts out a major ad campaign that is so blatantly partisan it's ridiculous. But it's launched. It's out there in the public.

Again, I put this to Professor Rose first. Obviously you'd want some legislation or some power to say that has to stop. What's the solution to actually getting something done right away as opposed to doing a report six months later and saying, “Yes, that was partisan, and you shouldn't have done that”?

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

Under the proposed changes, Advertising Standards Canada has the ability to say, in this hypothetical example, that the ad cannot be broadcast. I presume they give the ad a number, and that number is the only thing that can be used before it goes to the agency of record and is purchased. It wouldn't get beyond that step that enables the purchase of air time or print space.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I would quickly add that if we had these principles that were very open and publicly accessible, then journalists and the opposition could look at this and fairly easily render their own judgment. I would argue that the government would then say, “Wow, we're getting all this negative press about this issue. Maybe we should voluntarily relinquish what we're doing, because it's not worth all the negativity.” So in some ways, there's an opportunity for self-regulation.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Under the proposed changes, or even as it exists now, what would happen if, right now, there were an ad campaign that went national and it was obvious that it was not right, that it was too partisan?

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

There is an opportunity, as you know, for departments to pre-screen it, so my guess is that, if a department thought an ad campaign might violate one of the principles, they would give it to ASC to pre-screen it, and ASC would provide them advice.

If they didn't make the requisite changes, then presumably ASC would deny them the right to broadcast that campaign, although I haven't been able to find the details. It's a very important question you ask. I don't know what lever the ASC has over the government—which is your question, I think. I read in one transcript from somebody there that they would tell the government, but I'm not sure what that means.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Do you have any thoughts on that, Professor?

[Dr. Alex Marland]

For me, the immediate thing is.... It's almost like what feeds a media story. If the previous government had done this sort of thing in early 2015—just to answer your question about what would happen if an ad came out now—there would have been a lot of discussion about how this was bad, because for many years there had been that type of conversation. If the current government did it, as it is still a relatively new government, I don't think it would get anywhere near the amount of media coverage or scrutiny. This is why, to me, it's really important to make sure that we have very open public principles that people themselves, especially journalists, can render judgment on that is not exclusively relying on another body to affirm that particular position.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Should there be a watchdog appointed saying that all campaigns have to go through somebody, that there is no question and it has to be done?

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

It should be done through an advertising commissioner, because that way it would be a centralized place for citizens and political parties to lodge complaints or raise questions, and there would be a clear accountability to Parliament. To me, that line of accountability is very clear and unequivocal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Marland, go ahead.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I would add that, if your focus is to say that government advertising should be principally about information, then, yes, you would need to have some sort of body such as Dr. Rose mentions. If the idea, though, is to have effective advertising, that becomes a bit of a challenge, because we can have advertising that provides information but ends up not giving very good value for money. You do actually have to try to provoke an emotional response or get people to pay attention to it.

Frankly, I've seen some government advertising in the last couple of years that is terrible. It's so bland and bad that I think it shouldn't even be on the air. We just have to be careful what we wish for.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Which ads are you talking about?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Do you have any examples, I think is what—

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Do you have any examples?

[Dr. Alex Marland]

You can contact me separately.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Oh, come on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Professor, you should have been in politics rather than academia.

Mr. Diotte, I'll have to cut you off there and go to Mr. Weir, for seven minutes.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thanks very much.

One of the issues we've been grappling with is what's included under this or any other advertising policy. I wonder if either or perhaps both of you have a definition of advertising to offer us.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

I think the definition you have is good, except I would say “proposes to pay for media” instead of “pays for media”, because it would make items reviewable if governments gave a donation to community groups or organizations that, then, subsidized an event and it resulted in an advertisement.

I would also include householders. We haven't talked about householders. Bulk mail is now, as I understand it, excluded from their definition of advertising, and that's a problem as well. That's a big loophole. That's not a definition, but—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I guess householders would be excluded from the government's policy. They are subject to all sorts of rules from the House of Commons.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

Sorry, I am not referring to members' householders, but rather government householders about a specific policy.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I understand what you're saying, kind of broadening the definition of advertising to include sponsorship as well as those types of government householders.