Government Operations Committee on June 11th, 2018

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Ratansi, for thinking my intervention could inspire such wonderful art. I'm touched.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Keep going.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's one way that you could do it. You could say, “Look, as a matter of fact, you're required to be here, and if you're not here, then that's a criminal offence.”

Another way that you could do it would be to do it under the Canada Elections Act. If you did it under the Canada Elections Act, particularly if the punishment for not showing up was some kind of fine, then you would actually be generating revenue. If we knew that a new process for federal election leaders debates was going to be revenue generating, then we would have to consider that as we consider this price tag of $750,000 because perhaps then the costs both of developing and then implementing this new process would be offset by revenue. We can imagine that federal leaders would be likely to want to show up and not incur that cost, but it would be an open question as to whether or not they do.

Even as we think about that, another question comes up. Which leaders of federal parties would be eligible or would be required under the legislation? Would it just be leaders of official parties within the House of Commons prior to the last election? Would it be leaders of any registered political party that would then be part of this debate? Would it be leaders of federal political parties that are polling at a certain amount on the eve of the debate? I think there would be some considerable debate about what the qualification is. The reason this might have a cost implication is simply that if we're looking at whether or not a fine structure would generate revenue, it's going to matter how many federal political party leaders are required to be at the debate. If there's a whole bunch of them that are required to be at the debate, it's more likely that this will be a revenue-generating proposition than not.

Of course, there's another question that comes up with respect to trying to forecast revenue and, therefore, what it's appropriate for Parliament to approve if every leader of a federal political party is required to be at this debate. Of course, we know that some parties have more resources than others, and there may be a number of small parties without the means to fund their leader getting to that debate. In that case, they're going to have to undergo or submit to the fine. That is a question that bears on this.

Those are just the some of the most extreme versions where you have the government say that it's going to set the date and that it's going to require that they be there as a matter of criminal law, in which case we're amending the Criminal Code, or as a matter of administrative requirement under the Canada Elections Act, in which case there may be fines that could generate revenue. The government in Bill C-76, in the omnibus election reform bill, has actually used this mechanism as a penalty for other measures. In that bill, the government has proposed that if political parties fail to live up to the privacy policy that they post on their websites, a potential outcome of that could be that the party would be deregistered. That's pretty severe, but that's a consequence that's been put on the table by this government already. If it was inclined to use some of the mechanisms that it is already suggesting for certain important breaches of the election law, then we might see a scenario where if leaders of federal political parties don't show up to the federal election leaders debate, the party itself ends up deregistered. Again, that's quite extreme, but it's certainly something that is within the realm of the possible.

I'd remind you, Mr. Chair and the committee, that the debate we're having on this particular initiative is so wide-ranging because when we had the departmental officials here and we asked questions about what they wanted to do with the money, they left virtually every possibility open. They in no way restricted our thinking in terms of what they may or may not be doing with that money. That's why I think it's quite relevant to be exploring some of the possibilities of what they might ultimately come up with.

Certainly, if I can think of these things, and if we hear other suggestions from other members of the committee, then it's by no means beyond the ability of government to contemplate these things as well. That would be the issue if they were contemplating legislative changes in the most basic, strict way.

Another way they might introduce legislative changes that would be relatively complex and I think actually require more funding.... Although as I said,, I think it would be important for them to make those legislative changes and then ask for the funding. This is another reason I think we can in good conscience support this amendment and remove this money from vote 40.

One other kind of legislative change would be not to have government decide the dates of those leaders debates but to actually constitute, through legislation, some kind of independent commission that would then be the organization that does that and does it in a way that's arm's length.

You will recall, Mr. Chair, some of the complaints—and this was kind of an important discussion in the last election but some of these grievances certainly predated the last election; the last election wasn't the only time they came up—had to do with a media consortium without any particular mandate or authority deciding when and where these debates would take place as well as how these debates would unfold. That's something that any new legislation establishing a commission would want to address. We don't know that it would because we don't have the proposed legislation. We don't even know if the government is really contemplating that legislation. It does say in the budget, and if somebody ever wanted to find the page.... Maybe I'll look for it as I speak, Mr. Chair, because I think it would be beneficial, and I do have a tab here that does mention it. The problem is that there are so many tabs. I was trying to identify programs where there was an issue with not having sufficient information about a budget item before providing approval, and the PCO is definitely in here because that was one of them.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, in relation to your previous inquiry, I think if you canvassed the table, there might be some consensus to suspend for question period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I would like to get unanimity but if we don't, we'll continue on.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I prefer to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

There is no unanimity so we will continue.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Peterson. That allowed me to find the reference to the page that I was contemplating before. If you look at the budget entry for a new process for federal election leaders debate”, members of the committee will find this on page 186 of the budget document, “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”. For those who don't have a copy of the budget handy, I'll just read this into the record:

Leaders' debates play an essential role in Canada's federal elections by engaging Canadians in the election campaigns and helping to inform their voting decision. Over the past 50 years, the way leaders' debates have been negotiated has put at risk the structure and potential usefulness of leaders' debates. The Government proposes to provide $6 million over two years....

Just by way of an explanatory note, what you see there is that with the government asking for only $750,000 this year, they are anticipating quite a large expenditure next year. That money would be used to support a new process that would ensure that federal leaders debates are organized in the public interest and improve Canadians' knowledge of the parties, their leaders, and their policy positions. The budget also states:

In the coming months, the Minister of Democratic Institutions will bring forward potential approaches to leaders’ debates. The Government may introduce legislation to implement the approach taken to establish the new process for leaders’ debates.

You see there quite clearly that legislative changes of some kind are being contemplated. It's just that they don't commit to actually making any legislative changes but they are clearly contemplating them. We also hear that the Minister of Democratic Institutions will bring forward potential approaches, but again, it's not clear if she is going to consult and then develop some approaches. At that point, does that just go to Parliament? Does it go back out to Canada? What's the nature of consultation? What's the cost of consultation, or does she have something ready-made that they are considering, that they are just going to bring forward? At that point, either we will—

[An hon. member]

I find it quite interesting what you're saying.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Well, I do find it interesting that all of the Liberal members of the committee have just left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

They most certainly have, and what that means is that we do not have quorum. It also means, accordingly, that we are adjourned. I will be reconvening the meeting, if possible, after votes, and we'll see who shows up.

Now for the record, I'd like to make sure that we indicate in the minutes exactly who is left at the time of adjournment: Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Kelly, Mr. McCauley, and me.

Since we don't have quorum, we are currently adjourned.