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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer McGuire  General Manager and Editor in Chief, CBC News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Michel Cormier  General Manager, News and Current Affairs, French Services, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Troy Reeb  Senior Vice-President, News, Radio and Station Operations, Corus Entertainment Inc.
Wendy Freeman  President, CTV News, Bell Media Inc.
Stéphane Perrault  Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Michael Craig  Manager, English and Third-language Television, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Peter McCallum  General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

12:45 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

During an election there may be situations where there may be conflict regarding the purchase of time, whether a broadcaster makes available the right time at the right moment, or there may be issues between the broadcaster and the party, and he would serve as an arbitrator in that context. Those are his two roles.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

You said it's very episodic too. That one is episodic as well as the boundary commission, so the nature of this other one would not be a shock to your system.

12:50 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

That's correct. It's very similar.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Chair, I'm good. I appreciate it. Thank you very much for the answers and thanks for the excellent presentation.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

Now we're moving on to Ms. Tassi.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thanks to each of you for your participation today, your presence here, your testimony. Mr. McCallum, with respect to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision you referenced, was that 1993 or 1995?

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

I think it initially was 1993, but the current reference is to 1995.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay.

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

Just for your information, leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was subsequently refused.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay. That was part of my question.

Let me ask you this. Do I understand correctly, from what you said, that it was determined by the court of appeal that debates are not political or partisan in nature, and therefore, don't need to ensure that all parties participate? Is that right?

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

Effectively, yes.

What happened was that there was a prosecution under the Broadcasting Act, instituted by the exclusion of the Green Party from election coverage. It was an interpretation of section 8, I believe, of the TV regulations, which uses the expression “partisan political character”. The court determined that debates do not fall within partisan political character. Therefore, section 8 is not engaged and the equity requirement in the regulations is not breached.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

I see.

Leave was made to the Supreme Court and was not granted.

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

Leave was denied. That is correct.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay.

With respect to the relationship between this commission or commissioner and CRTC, how do you see that working? How do you see a relationship with a potential commissioner established?

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

I can't really answer that vis-à-vis a going-forward basis.

I can say something about the broadcasting arbitrator, and that is that it's recognized in the Canada Elections Act. There is a requirement for the CRTC to publish, for example, the results of the allocation of the 390 minutes among the parties. The CRTC duly publishes those results. It's a section of the Canada Elections Act. That is fairly episodic, but it also happens quite frequently during the period between elections, because some parties are registered and others are deregistered, which triggers a change in the allocation among the parties. The requirement to publish is in the act, and the CRTC duly publishes and follows the obligation as a result.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

It's just ensuring that those procedures are followed.

With respect to that, is there often a breach of the requirements?

12:50 p.m.

General Counsel, Communications Law, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Peter McCallum

I haven't been made aware of any breach.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Very good.

Now I'll go over to Mr. Perrault.

You've spoken about the importance of Parliament establishing the criteria, and you've expanded a little on that. When you talk about the importance of Parliament establishing the criteria—taking that away from the commissioner and making sure Parliament establishes it—what criteria are you referring to?

12:50 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

These are not my criteria, but there have been proposals made regarding the percentage of votes received in the last election or the number of candidates who ran, these kinds of objective criteria. I like the idea that was suggested by Mr. Fox, who came last week, that if you meet a number of the criteria but not all, you may qualify to participate in the debate. This could provide some flexibility, for example, for non-parliamentary parties.

Those are the kinds of criteria that I would see set out in legislation.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

That would be conducted by Parliament.

What authority would the commissioner have with respect to establishing any criteria? Would the commissioner or commission have any authority?

12:50 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

My recommendation would be that he or she not have any authority. He or she would be applying fairly mechanical criteria set out by Parliament. There may be situations where you need to have some form of residual discretion, but I would remove that from the commissioner to all extent possible.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

How valuable do you think the role of the commissioner or commission is?

12:50 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

It depends. Again, that is why, at the outset, I asked what objectives you are trying to pursue. I think you have to work from the objectives up, and see how a commission can assist in pursuing those objectives.

In my view, I do not see the commissioner as having a role in carving out which parties are excluded and which are included.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

What about other criteria, for example the number of debates, the language of the debates, or the content of the debates?

12:55 p.m.

Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Stéphane Perrault

I see no reason why the commission or commissioner would not have broad latitude. To the extent that the commission is involved in editorial aspects of the debates and so forth, it must be equipped with the proper expertise. We were talking earlier about the broadcasting arbitrator. He has knowledge of the industry, but he is not a journalist and does not have the full range of expertise.

That is why, in my remarks, I said that if that were the model, he would either be supported by other members or have an advisory committee that he would create to reflect the interests of parties and civil society, and to speak to the media. I think the commission would need to have some expertise if it is going to be making content and format decisions.