Evidence of meeting #82 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Ms. May.
The Conservatives have a couple of minutes. Do you have any questions?
1 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I guess to our folks in the CRTC, this follows up on the question Mr. Graham had in regard to the idea or concept of mandating that debates be carried. I was still a little bit unclear after the response. Would it be possible to do that under the current legislative framework, or would new legislation be required?
1:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
We believe it's not really possible under the current framework just because of the way in which the act is set out with objectives and balancing requirements and so on. There's also the fact that the courts said that debates were not of a partisan political character, so you'd need some other measure to get there.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Putting aside political debate, is there any type of broadcast that now exists that's mandated? Is there anything through the CRTC or otherwise that you're aware of that's mandated and must be carried by television networks?
1:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
There are a lots of conditions of licence. My colleague Mr. Craig can speak to the conditions of licence that have mandatory requirements in them. There are quotas for Canadian content and so on and so forth.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Canadian content aside, is there a specific event or one specific thing that's required to be broadcast by the networks? I get the Canadian content requirements, but I'm talking about one specific event or such thing.
1:05 p.m.
Manager, English and Third-language Television, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Our content requirements really are related to much broader things than a specific event. At the risk of sounding a little bit like a broken record—I do apologize—the notion is that the CRTC is not going to dictate editorial decisions or business decisions made by broadcasters. When we're talking about specific events, “You must carry x”, that's what it would be boiling down to.
As Mr. McCallum said and as I think I have repeated a few times, this is not something that we do currently.
November 30th, 2017 / 1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay.
I know you don't have an opinion on this, and you're not wanting to offer one. That's fine. I'm not asking you to, but if it were determined—I'm certainly not necessarily advocating, either, that it be done—by this committee and then by the government that it was something they were going to do, and would require these things, how would you envision that being enforced? Can you see a way that could be enforced?
1:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
I think it depends on the measure that's put in place in the first place, the content of the measure, and the specifics of it. It's a little hard to answer that. As I say, right now the election coverage is determined over the entire election period. Whichever measure it would be would have to be sufficiently specific in order to determine what the remedies might be. The Broadcasting Act does create certain remedies for situations where the broadcasters do not adhere to the regulations or the act, or to their conditions of licence, so it would have to be in some instrument that's possible to be enforced through the other instruments that exist in the Broadcasting Act.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I get the sense that you're suggesting that this might be incredibly difficult to do.
1:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It's up to Parliament, frankly. We have no opinion as to what the measure might be and how it would be implemented. That's up to Parliament. If Parliament decides that some measure is required, the CRTC will do its best to administer it.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you.
Again, if the committee would indulge me for a minute, I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Richards said on making it mandatory.
In 2015, as Mr. Nater said, there was a poor turnout and the broadcasters didn't agree. One of the broadcasters suggested that you have to mandate everyone, such as Netflix, Google, Facebook, and all the dozens of channels in Canada, the Food Networks and so on. I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this. If not, I'm sure PCO will look it up.
Would the broadcasters have a legal case against the government if all these people I mentioned were also forced to carry the debates?
1:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
It's kind of hard to answer that. Right now certain entities are exempt from regulation in the sense that the Broadcasting Act has a provision in which they may be exempted from regulation. Broadcasting over the Internet is generally an exempt activity, so it would have to be thought through very carefully as to how to accomplish something like that. We have no view on how that might be accomplished, but it could be difficult. It could be difficult to enforce, depending on whether the entity is carrying on a broadcasting undertaking in Canada, which is another concept that's in the Broadcasting Act.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Finally, who decides the subjects or topics? As regulators of the broadcasters, would you get a sense that the broadcasters may pick topics that would, if they had a say or controlled it, increase the number of viewers, increase their profile, or be in the interest of the broadcasters—as opposed to the independent commissioner who would decide the topics in the best interests of Canadians?
1:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Again, I find that a little bit difficult to answer. The Broadcasting Act does, independently of the charter, recognize the journalistic freedom of expression of broadcasters, so that's one thing that would have to be taken into account. The only thing I can offer is that when the broadcasting arbitrator makes decisions on the allocation of advertising time, the broadcasting arbitrator convenes the different political parties in front of him and hears representations on those before making a decision. That's the only thing I can offer on that.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much.
We really appreciate your coming. Your wise counsel, as a number of people already mentioned, is very helpful. It gives us lots to think about.
Committee members, there's a little bit of homework for the weekend, if that's okay. There's a list here of all our witnesses for the rest of the study. They may not be in this order, but these are the ones who have agreed to come. We've agreed that if we're going to have anyone else before the given time for the report, we will have an extra meeting or an extended meeting. Let me know if there's anyone else you would like. Some of the people who were on the original huge list have declined to come. If there's someone you want who's not on this list, check with the clerk to make sure that they were asked and just declined. Then we'll sort that out on Tuesday.
Is there anything else? No.
The meeting is adjourned.