Radio Reference

Last updated

Radio Reference
Vintage Philco Junior Cathedral Radio, Model 80B, AM Band, 4 Vacuum Tubes, Made In USA, Circa 1932 - 1933 (32539094944).jpg
A radio from the 1930s
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameThe Attorney General of Quebec v The Attorney General of Canada and others
Decided9 February 1932
Citation(s)[1932] UKPC 7 (BAILII), [1932] AC 304, [1932] 2 DLR 81, [1932] 1 WWR 563, 39 CRC 49
Case history
Prior action(s)Reference re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication, 1931 CanLII 83, [1931] SCR 541(30 June 1931)
Appealed from Supreme Court of Canada
Court membership
Judges sitting Viscount Dunedin, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Merrivale, Lord Russell of Killowen, Sir George Lowndes
Case opinions
Decision by Viscount Dunedin
Keywords
Broadcasting

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Radio Reference, is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that determined that broadcasting fell within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867 . [1]

Contents

Background

When the British North America Act, 1867 was originally drafted, broadcasting had not yet been invented. By the 1920s, Canada had already entered into international agreements on the subject, and there was intense debate as to which level of government in Canada had jurisdiction to regulate this field. Quebec decided to pose reference questions to its appellate court on the matter, and the federal government decided to preempt that hearing by posing the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada:

  1. Has the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction to regulate and control radio communication, including the transmission and reception of signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by means of Hertzian waves, and including the right to determine the character, use and location of apparatus employed?
  2. If not, in what particular or particulars or to what extent is the jurisdiction of Parliament limited?

Initial ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada

In a 3–2 decision, [2] the SCC held that radio communication is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament. In his opinion, Anglin C.J.C. supported the statement by Newcombe J. that:

I interpret the reference as meant to submit the questions for consideration in the light of the existing situation and the knowledge and use of the art, as practically understood and worked, and, having regard to what is stated in the case, assumed as the basis for the hearing. Therefore I proceed upon the assumption that radio communication in Canada is practically Dominion-wide; that the broadcasting of a message in a province, or in a territory of Canada, has its effect in making the message receivable as such, and is also effective by way of interference, not only within the local political area within which the transmission originates, but beyond, for distances exceeding the limits of a province, and that, consequently, if there is to be harmony or reasonable measure of utility or success in the service, it is desirable, if not essential, that the operations should be subject to prudent regulation and control.

and thus noted:

On the other hand, if the Act is to be viewed, as recently suggested by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Edwards v. Attorney-General of Canada as a living tree, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits, and if it should be on all occasions interpreted in a large, liberal and comprehensive spirit, considering the magnitude of the subjects with which it purports to deal in very few words, and bearing in mind that we are concerned with the interpretation of an Imperial Act, but an Imperial Act creating a constitution for a new country, every effort should be made to find in the B.N.A. Act some head of legislative jurisdiction capable of including the subject matter of this reference. If, however, it should be found impossible to assign that subject matter to any specifically enumerated head of legislative jurisdiction, either in section 91 or in section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, it would seem to be one of the subjects of residuary power under the general jurisdiction conferred on the Dominion by the opening paragraph of section 91.

Therefore, radio broadcasting could not be considered to be a matter of a local or private nature, but more properly fell within the definition of "telegraphs" in Section 92(10).

Smith J. also concurred. In dissenting opinions, Rinfret J. and Lamont J. held that the Parliament of Canada did not have jurisdiction to legislate on the subject of radio communication in every respect. It fell within the primary legislative jurisdiction of the provinces either under property and civil rights or under local works and undertakings of section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, except in cases where the Dominion Parliament has superseding jurisdiction under some of the heads of section 91 and under section 132 (relating to treaties) of the B.N.A. Act.

Appeal to the Privy Council

The Privy Council, in a ruling delivered by Viscount Dunedin, held that the reasoning of the majority at the SCC was correct. He noted the following reasons why the minority opinions failed:

  • unlike in the Aeronautics Reference , the treaty power under section 132 was not relevant, as the international agreements in question were not treaties of the British Empire, but only entered into by Canada
  • Canada's obligations under its agreements in this field required it to pass legislation that would apply to all the dwellers in Canada
  • no distinction can be made between the operation of the transmitting and receiving instruments
  • radio broadcasting could be seen to be similar to "telegraphs" and to "other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province", both of which are excepted matters reserved to federal jurisdiction under section 92(10)
  • as the Section 91 claims were preeminent, it was unnecessary to consider whether broadcasting could fall under property and civil rights or matters of a local or private nature under Section 92

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Impact

Federal jurisdiction over radio broadcasting was later held to include television broadcasting and cable television systems. [3] However, broadcasting has been held not to include the operations of internet service providers. [4]

The question of whether federal jurisdiction over broadcasting includes control of the content of broadcasting has also been answered by the courts. In Re C.F.R.D. and Attorney-General of Canada et al., [5] Justice Kelly affirmed the federal government's authority to regulate programme content. Chief Justice Laskin delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Capital Cities Communications v. CRTC . The Court concluded that programme content regulation is inseparable from regulating the undertaking through which programmes are received and sent on as part of the total enterprise. [6]

It appears, therefore, that the decision handed down in the Radio Reference case has subsequently been interpreted to include federal government authority to regulate all facets of the broadcasting industry, including content. Parliament, through its regulatory agency, has used this power in an attempt to create and maintain a national broadcasting system that would"contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity" [7] The Canadian content regulations are merely one aspect of the means accepted to achieve that end. [6]

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Margarine Reference</i> Canadian constitutional decision

Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (1949), also known as the Margarine Reference or as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG), is a leading ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on determining if a law is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada's powers relating to criminal law. In this particular case, the Court found that a regulation made by Parliament was ultra vires. Though the regulation contained sufficient punitive sanctions, the subject matter contained within it was not the kind that served a public purpose.

<i>Russell v R</i> 1882 Canadian constitutional law case

Russell v R is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the federal Parliament. The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The Judicial Committee held that the Canada Temperance Act was valid federal legislation under the peace, order and good government power, set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The case expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.

<i>Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The case decided a significant issue of the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The approach taken to provincial power, as advocated by Premier Oliver Mowat of Ontario, began to set the constitutional framework for broad provincial powers and a reduction in the centralist vision of Confederation espoused by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.

<i>Local Prohibition Case</i>

Ontario (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Local Prohibition Case, is a significant Canadian constitutional decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. It was one of the first cases to enunciate core principles of the federal peace, order and good government power.

<i>Board of Commerce case</i>

Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919, commonly known as the Board of Commerce case, is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the "emergency doctrine" under the federal power of peace, order and good government was first created.

<i>Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider</i>

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council struck down the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precursor to the Canada Labour Code. The Court identified matters in relation to labour to be within the exclusive competence of the province in the property and civil rights power under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision is considered one of the high-water marks of the Council's interpretation of the Constitution in favour of the provinces.

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the works and undertakings power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada unless otherwise noted in section (c), the authority to legislate on:

10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

<i>Aeronautics Reference</i> Canadian constitutional law case in the JCPC

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG), also known as In re the Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada and the Aeronautics Reference, is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution. Lord Sankey decided in the case that the federal government has the authority to govern the subject of aeronautics, including licensing of pilots, aircraft, and commercial services and regulations for navigation and safety.

<i>Fish Canneries Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v British Columbia (AG), also known as the Reference as to constitutional validity of certain sections of The Fisheries Act, 1914 and the Fish Canneries Reference, is a significant decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canada. It is also significant, in that it represented a major victory in the fight against discrimination aimed at Japanese Canadians, which was especially prevalent in British Columbia in the early part of the 20th century.

<i>Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd</i>

Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd is the last case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that affected Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of Canada case, from which it arose, is also notable for summarizing the essence of Canadian citizenship.

<i>Labour Conventions Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.

References

  1. ↑ The Attorney General of Quebec v The Attorney General of Canada and others [1932] UKPC 7 , [1932] A.C. 304(9 February 1932), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
  2. ↑ Reference re Regulation and Control of Radio Communication, 1931 CanLII 83 , [1931] SCR 541(30 June 1931)
  3. ↑ Capital Cities Communications v. CRTC
  4. ↑ Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4, Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
  5. ↑ (1973) 38 D.L.R. (3rd) 335
  6. 1 2 Brenda M. McPhail (1986). "Canadian Content Regulations and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". 12 (1). Canadian Journal of Communication: 41–53.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ↑ Broadcasting Act, 1968, s. 3(g)(iv)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.