Government Operations Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

Yes. The reason I didn't mention any of that in my comments is that, post-Gomery, I think it's being done very well. Canada I think has become among the leaders in the world in making sure there's a coordination of the different units in the federal government that are dealing with advertising.

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

To my mind, a big part of that would be the value-for-money perspective you talked about.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

That's right.

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

I think that's important. I think taxpayers want to make sure of that when it comes to advertising. I know that a lot of people think advertising is inherently bad, but if you get past that, you want to make sure that at least you're getting value for the dollars we're spending on it. I'm glad to hear that you think there's a robust regime in place for that.

I have so many questions on the things you brought up. I want to talk a little about photo ops, Professor Marland. I find that quite fascinating. It seems to me—or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth—that a logical extension of your position would be that photo ops as well ought to be broadly characterized as advertising, and that, therefore, they should have some sort of regulatory requirements as well. Clearly, a strong component of the directive that we have now bans members of Parliament and leaders, etc., from being in the advertising, which would render it partisan immediately.

How can media or any of my colleagues here as members of Parliament, if we have announcements to make in our riding, or if there's stuff that we want to make sure our constituencies are aware of.... It seems to me that if those photo ops are caught by this, then we wouldn't even be able to take part in any government announcements. To me, that undercuts my prime role as a member of Parliament, which obviously is to represent my constituents.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I'm glad you raised this. My point is simply that we need to know how much money is being spent on these.

I'm not passing a value judgment that says we shouldn't have elected officials communicating with members of the public. That's obviously an essential role of the job. What I'm saying is that incredible amounts of resources are put into these events, many of which we don't even know about.

The reality is that we hear very little about this. We're focused very much on dollars on advertising because that's in front of us, when really, I think, we should be questioning how much money and resources are going towards these events.

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

Looking more at the resources.... Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you for bringing that up.

Professor Rose, there were a lot of things you brought up that are very important as well. I want to follow up a bit on that “first click”. You're more familiar with the process in Ontario than I am. If there's a television ad with a link, and it links to perhaps a social media campaign or anything that could be on the website, are you saying that those expenses are also caught by the act or regime in Ontario?

Is this a way for us to perhaps make sure social media campaigns are caught by this ad? If the link is part of a $500,000 campaign, it should be subject to any review as well.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

Yes, that's exactly correct.

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

Okay.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

Frequently we're seeing advertisements as mere directions to websites, so there's the idea that if this is the case, then those websites ought to be reviewable.

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

Do you think the federal regime that we have captures that? Or do we have to tailor the language a bit to make sure it does?

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

I think that's a big hole in the changes that have been made. I think it really goes around what you mean by placement in media. I think Ms. Baird and others last time said that it's about government paying somebody else.

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

Right.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

In Ontario, we grappled with this. We said that if they are paying or propose to pay, then it's advertising. It's advertising if a government gives money to a local theatre for sponsorship of the program. That's advertising because they're paying money to have the Government of Canada logo in the theatre program. That would be reviewable.

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

Okay. I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Peterson, I'm afraid we're slightly over time.

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

Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciated that. It was very interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Diotte, please, for five minutes.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

In terms of one of the interesting things, obviously we're all trying to get the best possible system because parties switch, etc., but we have to serve the public. Professors, in your view, are there stars out there? Are there jurisdictions anywhere in the world that really get this right? Or are there other provinces that might get it right?

Maybe Professor Rose could lead off with some thoughts on that.

[Prof. Jonathan Rose]

As I said in my comments, I think the pre-2015 amendments in Ontario were really the paragon, if you will, of how it should be done on regulating government advertising. That did so because it banned partisanship, but it also mandated reasons for government advertising, and it made it fully transparent.

The U.K. also has a good model that is fully transparent. Again, Australia is useful, I think, in the state of Victoria, where they post all details related to the advertising campaigns.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

What I can add to this is that I've often seen New Zealand as quite good. Also, some of the material I've seen in the United Kingdom is almost shockingly transparent.

As for here in Canada, when I think about the different jurisdictions, Dr. Rose is right to say that things are prone to change. I think one comment that hasn't come up and that this made me think of is the fact that we now have fixed-date elections. That's actually a very profound element of what is going on in Canada, not just at the federal level, but at the provincial level, with the exception of one province.

I've just co-edited a book, Permanent Campaigning in Canada, and the idea that a number of us as scholars identify is that governments are in a constant state of campaigning. Every day is about trying to win the media cycle or trying to make sure that they're not being treated in a negative way. It's almost like the campaigning never stops. This is a phenomenon that we see all over the world. It really seems to have emerged out of the United States in the early 1980s.

Your comment made me think of the effect of fixed-date elections and the idea of permanent campaigning, which is not something that has come up till now.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Just to follow up on that, what's the solution? I think we all know that if the party's in power and they can call an election at any time, it's to their advantage. So fixed date is seemingly fairer, but you're saying this causes a problem.

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I wish I could tell you. It's actually quite challenging. Even if I were able to do it, I'm not suggesting we get rid of the fixed-date election. I think it provides an opportunity for a committee such as yours to have a degree of certainty when it comes to planning so you can say you cannot have government advertising or other certain activities this much in advance of an election campaign, or in the final year. I think we need to think more than just 60 days or 90 days. Maybe it should be a year. Again I'm not suggesting that all government communication grind to a halt. That would not be in the best interest of Canadians or the government. But it does allow a degree of certainty that might not have existed when you only have an era where people are calling snap elections.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

The photo ops are interesting because I notice in Alberta I think the premier is probably on the front page about every day going to a light bulb factory or something on solar panels. They're very good at that. To both of you, I'm wondering what the solution is to that, because the media are obviously being sucked in on some of these things. They're not thinking that this was announced a year ago, but if a premier of a province is there, the media is going to show up regardless of whether it's news because it's a photo op. Is there a solution? Do you have any thoughts on this?

[Dr. Alex Marland]

I'll just respond quickly. My opinion is we need to start by recognizing there are expenses and resources associated with this. To get to my point about permanent campaigning, if you think about it, an election campaign is what the leader is doing on a regular basis, which is constantly engaging with the public, and there are lots of good reasons for that. We wouldn't want a leader who doesn't, but the difference is when you happen to be in government, again no matter what party you happen to belong to, you're using public resources to do these things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm afraid we'll have to cut it off there. Professor Rose, I know we'll have other opportunities for you to respond, in addition to Professor Marland, perhaps in the next round, or perhaps now because we're going to Mr. Ayoub.

Mr. Ayoub, the floor is yours for five minutes.