Allocation of broadcasting time during Election
Elections Canada has posted the allocation of broadcast time for the past election.
Reprinted from the supplied pdf located on the Elections Canada website.
The Best News that can be gleaned from this information is that the Conservatives
should get more Allocation of Broadcasting Time in a future election!!
Reprinted from the supplied pdf located on the Elections Canada website.
The Best News that can be gleaned from this information is that the Conservatives
should get more Allocation of Broadcasting Time in a future election!!
2005 ALLOCATION OF PAID TIME
Reasons for Decision
Under section 335 of the Canada Elections Act
(the Act), every broadcaster in Canada is required to
make available for purchase by registered political
parties six and one-half hours (390 minutes) of air
time in each federal general election. The Act provides
that the allocation of this time among the parties is to
be made by agreement among them, or failing such
agreement, by the decision of the Broadcasting
Arbitrator.
The parties having met and failed to agree, I
am now required to make a binding allocation of the
390 minutes of paid time among the parties. This
document sets out my reasons for the decision in that regard.
I was reappointed as the Broadcasting
Arbitrator on December 6, 2004. In accordance with
section 336 of the Act, I convened a meeting of all
registered parties on March 10, 2005. The registered
parties who were invited are listed below.
• Bloc Québécois
• Canadian Action Party (Canadian Action)
• Christian Heritage Party
• Communist Party of Canada (Communist)
• Conservative Party of Canada (Conservative)
• Green Party of Canada (Green Party)
• Liberal Party of Canada (Liberal)
• Libertarian Party of Canada (Libertarian)
• Marijuana Party
• Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
• New Democratic Party (N.D.P.)
• Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party)
• Bloc Québécois
All twelve parties sent representatives to the
meeting. Following the meeting, I also received a
supplemental written submission from the Green Party.
Prior to the meeting, I circulated to all the
parties a table setting out the calculations of various
factors that could be considered in arriving at an
allocation. I also circulated a copy of my Reasons for
Decision of November 27, 2001, which included a
discussion of various approaches that could be taken,
the views expressed by the political parties in 2001,
and the reasons for my ultimate decision.
The starting point for any allocation is section
338 of the Act, which sets out a number of factors to
be taken into account. Using statistics based on the
2004 general election, one can directly apply the
statutory formula in section 338, as follows:
(a) equal weight is given to the percentage of seats
in the House of Commons and the percentage of the
popular vote garnered by each of the registered parties
in the 2004 general election;
(b) half weight is given to the number of
candidates endorsed by each of the registered parties
as a proportion of all candidates so endorsed;
(c) the resulting ratio is then applied to the total of
390 minutes and the result for each party rounded to
the nearest half-minute.
Table 1
Min:Sec
• Liberal 141:00
• Conservative 111:00
• Bloc Québécois 50:30
• N.D.P. 49:00
• Green Party 21:30
• Marijuana Party 4:00
• Marxist-Leninist 4:00
• Christian Heritage Party 3:30
• Canadian Action 2:30
• Communist 1:30
• PC Party 1:00
• Libertarian 0:30
TOTAL 390:00
Since my first appointment in 1992, I have
ruled that an approach using just the statutory factors
was not in the public interest. Nor was it fair to all the
registered parties, because it did not give the smaller
parties enough time to make a meaningful case on the
broadcast media to their potential supporters.
Accordingly, I have generally adopted what
has come to be known as the “one-third modified
allocation approach.” Under this approach, one third
of the available time is allocated equally among the
registered parties. The remaining two thirds of the
time is allocated on the basis of the statutory factors,
i.e. on the basis of the statutory approach described earlier.
This approach has now been used in four
federal general elections, namely the elections of
1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004.
If this approach is taken, based on the statistics
of the 2004 general election and after rounding to the
nearest half-minute, the results would be as shown in
Table 2.
Table 2
Min:Sec
• Liberal 105:00
• Conservative 85:00
• Bloc Québécois 44:30
• N.D.P. 43:30
• Green Party 25:00
• Marijuana Party 13:30
• Marxist-Leninist 13:30
• Cristian Heritage Party 13:00
• Canadian Action 12:30
• Communist 12:00
• PC Party 11:30
• Libertarian 11:00
TOTAL 390:00
This approach significantly increases the
number of minutes allocated to the smaller parties, but
still gives predominant weight to the statutory factors.
The result is that even the smallest parties receive an
allocation in the 10–20 minute range, which I have
previously found is a threshold within which a paid ad
campaign can be effective.
Two other approaches were discussed at the
meeting. Under the “two-thirds modified approach,”
two thirds of the available time is allocated equally
among the registered parties. The remaining one third
of the time is allocated on the basis of the statutory
factors, i.e. on the basis of the statutory approach
described earlier.
Finally, a number of smaller parties urged that
an “equal-time approach” be used. Under this
approach, the time would be handed out equally to all
the parties. Thus under the approach, each of the
twelve parties would be allocated 32 and one-half
minutes.
Each of the foregoing approaches was
discussed at the meeting, and each had its supporters.
The discussion focused on many of the same points
noted in my 2001 Reasons for Decision and I will not
repeat them here.
The Green Party, both at the meeting and in its
subsequent written submission, raised a new point,
namely that the 2004 amendments to the Canada
Elections Act, conditioning an annual public subsidy
to the parties on a minimum threshold of 2% of the
popular vote, should be taken into account. In
particular, the Green Party felt that the parties’ share
of the popular vote should weigh more heavily in any
allocation formula. It also suggested that it was no
longer a “smaller party,” given the fact that it had
exceeded the 2% popular vote threshold in the 2004
general election, although it still lacked representation
in the House of Commons.
Following the discussion at the meeting, I
asked each party to indicate which allocation approach
it would be prepared to accept. To facilitate
compromise, I urged the parties to vote for more than
one allocation approach.
In the end, only two of the parties supported
the statutory approach. Eight parties supported the
one-third modified approach. Eight parties supported
the two-thirds modified approach. And finally, seven
parties supported the equal-time approach.
Accordingly, no allocation approach discussed
received the support of all the parties.
Thus, I am required to make an allocation
based on my best judgment as to where the public
interest lies.
Over a decade ago, the allocation of paid time
had a major consequence for parties receiving a small
allocation. That was because the allocation operated as
a maximum “cap” on the amount of time a political
party was permitted to purchase from any radio or
television station or network during the election
period. However, this aspect of the allocation regime
was struck down in the courts in the Reform Party
case and no longer applies. Accordingly, parties are
free to purchase time in excess of their allocation if
they choose to do so and the station or network agrees.
Does this mean that the allocation regime no
longer has any significance? This is not the case, for
two reasons. First, once an allocation is made, it
provides a party with an entitlement to purchase time
at the lowest applicable rate at the time of the party’s
choosing, even if it pre-empts other commercial
advertising. Second, the paid time allocation sets the
ratios which the Act applies in regard to the provision
of free time to the political parties on certain networks.
Thus the paid-time allocation process continues to
play a useful role.
In previous allocation decisions, I have noted
that I should depart from the statutory approach only
to the extent that the statutory formula is unfair to the
parties. In those decisions, I adopted the one-third
modified approach, using the reasoning noted in my
2001 Reasons for Decision.
Based on the discussion at the meeting, and
taking into account the further written submission I
have received, I have concluded that the one-third
modified approach continues to be the best approach
to take at this time. This approach represents a middle
ground in that it seeks to provide a higher minimum
amount for all parties than the statutory factors
generate, but still gives greater weight to the parties
that are represented in the House of Commons. As I
have noted before, while giving a fair opportunity to
the smaller registered parties to make a meaningful
case, it also gives predominant weight to the statutory
factors and I believe it best meets the public interest
test. I also note that the Green Party, while pressing for
a formula that gave more weight to the popular vote,
was prepared to accept the one-third modified
approach as well.
That being said, I am certainly
prepared to hear evidence at future allocation meetings
on whether 10–20 minutes of paid time per station or
some higher or lower number is adequate for a party to
get its message out to the public. This is the kind of
information that would be most useful in adjusting the
allocation at any future review.
I wish to conclude, as I have done before, by
thanking the registered parties for their participation in
this exercise, which was useful and constructive.
Original signed by/Original signé par
Peter Grant
Peter S. Grant
The Broadcasting Arbitrator
APPENDIX “A”
ALLOCATION OF BROADCASTING TIME TO
BE MADE AVAILABLE BY
EVERY BROADCASTER UNDER SECTION 335
OF THE
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT FOR PURCHASE BY
REGISTERED PARTIES,
AS DETERMINED BY THE BROADCASTING
ARBITRATOR
UNDER SUBSECTION 337(3) OF THE ACT
Toronto, April 8, 2005
Political Party Number of Minutes:Seconds
• Liberal Party of Canada 105:00
• Conservative Party of Canada 85:00
• Bloc Québécois 44:30
• New Democratic Party 43:30
• Green Party of Canada 25:00
• Marijuana Party 13:30
• Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada 13:30
• Christian Heritage Party 13:00
• Canadian Action Party 12:30
• Communist Party of Canada 12:00
• Progressive Canadian Party 11:30
• Libertarian Party of Canada 11:00
TOTAL 390:00
posted by Fighting for Democracy at 9:18 PM
0 comments
