Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Ruby, for those questions.

As I stated earlier, we engaged quite widely in the consultation process. We had an online consultation process. Over 14,000 Canadians submitted to that. We organized round tables with my department and also with the Institute for Research on Public Policy. We had over 60 different stakeholders from traditional media, new media, academics, indigenous representation, disability groups, minority language groups and women's groups. Really, we tried to reach out as broadly as we possibly could.

What we heard from them was the importance that Canadians place on leaders debates, that leaders debates for Canadians are key decision-making moments in terms of who they want to be governed by, the policies they hold dear, and understanding how they are going to react and interact with each other in tough decision-making moments.

One of the things we heard time and time again was that it was one of the few opportunities during an election campaign to spontaneously engage with a political party leader. It demonstrated character, and it demonstrated how that leader was going to act as a potential prime minister. It was so important for Canadians across the country that in 2015, although there were more debates, fewer Canadians across the country were able to access them. That was something they felt needed to be rectified.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

From the criteria that have been talked about here today, it seems to me that they have been formulated in such a way that we would be able to provide more of an opportunity to more parties to be able to participate in this process. Is that correct?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The idea with these participation criteria is to ensure that those who have a legitimate chance of entering into the House of Commons and forming government will be able to engage with other political leaders, and Canadians will be able to interact with them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You spoke a bit earlier, Minister, about Mr. Johnston's qualifications. I've looked at a lot of the work that he has done, and also there have been a lot of statements made by prominent people about the work he has done and how well he served, even as Governor General. I'd like to point to a quote by the RIM founder, who said Mr. Johnston:

...has led the University of Waterloo during the most prolific growth period in its history. He has worked tirelessly to position the University of Waterloo as a world-class institution of math, science, engineering, health and the arts.

David's strong understanding of law and the Canadian Constitution, combined with his great communication skills, charm and real ability to achieve consensus amongst stakeholders, will serve him well in the role of Governor General.

Now I would think that those qualities, those skills that were listed in that quote, would be essential to a commissioner in this position. Can you elaborate about how being able to achieve consensus and being somebody who can bring people to the table may avoid the situation we had in 2015?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Please answer in 20 seconds.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think that being a consensus builder, someone who is above partisanship, someone who places the interests of Canadians at the heart of every decision he has taken, will absolutely serve him well in what is a very challenging position but one that is vital to the health of our democracy and to Canadians in the upcoming election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll go to Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.

I would just note my concern that what's being told to Canadians on your website differs from what is included in the order in council. I think it's a significant concern and an affront to Parliament, but also to Canadians, that different information is being provided to different people.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We will rectify that, so thank you for bringing that to our attention.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I appreciate that.

I'm not an expert on the operations of government, so I do look to you and your departmental staff for guidance, but I'm curious. When the debates commissioner was appointed by the tabling in the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), it was considered the debates commissioner. I'm just curious. Where in enabling legislation does the concept of debates commissioner exist? By what legislative authority does that come to be?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

This is an order in council position, so it does not require legislation.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The order in council takes note of the establishment of the leaders debates commission and the secretariat. Is there no process by which Parliament granted approval for that?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Legislation is not required to make an order in council position. That's the prerogative of the government.

However, we did encourage this committee to engage with the commissioner, and as I have mentioned before, we see this as a two-step process. We're keenly looking forward to seeing how this process rolls out over the coming year and, of course, receiving the recommendations from the commissioner following the 2019 election, at which point there is a possibility that it could be recommended to be in statute.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Again, I'm no parliamentary historian, but I do remember something from a few hundred years of history, going back to the power of the purse, about the supremacy of Parliament where government cannot do that which Parliament has not authorized. I do find it curious that in this sense it is the government, without parliamentary approval, going ahead and establishing this entity.

I want to follow up on something that is in your order in council. It states very clearly:

5(1) The Leaders’ Debates Commission is an agent of Her Majesty and, in that capacity, may enter into contracts or agreements with third parties in fulfilling its mandate.

When we think of an agent of Her Majesty, we may think of the former governor general serving in that capacity, but in this sense, would you not agree that an agent of Her Majesty actually refers to being an agent of Her Majesty's government? Is that not correct?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We needed to establish an entity by which the commissioner would be able to enter into contracts. That will be something that is entirely up to the debates commission, how it does that. He will operate independently.

As has been said, he will be choosing the seven-member advisory panel and deciding how his office will be staffed. We are simply ensuring that he will have the resources and tools at his disposal to be able to conduct his work.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

As an agent of the government, is that correct?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As an independent actor who will have the tools and resources at his disposal. However, beyond providing those resources, all decisions will be his own and he will be acting independently.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It doesn't mention that in section 5(1) but we'll carry on.

You mentioned that the feed would be taken and provided to all broadcasters free of charge. In the last election, I noted that all five debates were carried by CPAC, our public broadcaster, which did an exceptional job. I would note that other broadcasters did not do so, despite the feed being provided for them. We saw reruns of Coronation Street, so I would comment that I think you're being overly optimistic to think that the major broadcasters will automatically jump on board when they did not do so in the last election.

I want to end there. I will give my last minute to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Chair, I move:

That the Committee immediately begin reviewing the government's announced leaders debate commission and make any necessary recommendations in a timely report to Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

That motion is open for debate.

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I agree with Mr. Christopherson's motion. It makes perfect sense. This type of entity ought to have been established by legislation. That would have been the appropriate thing to have done. It would have gone through the legislative process, through Parliament. It would have given us the opportunity to have a meaningful debate on how this entity ought to function. As a committee, we did an extensive report. We didn't agree on all the points. We provided a supplementary opinion from the Conservative opposition but our biggest concern from the start was very much what's happened here, that the government would act unilaterally. That was the concern of the Conservative Party, and that's exactly what came to fruition.

Barring the fact that I don't see the government being eager to table legislation to implement this program, I think Mr. Christopherson makes a good point. Let's work as a committee and review what's been proposed, review the order in council and the appointments, and bring in the proposed appointee to discuss. We had an opportunity to discuss his qualifications with him but his qualifications did not allow us to talk about his proposals for the entity.

Rightfully you, Mr. Chair, kept us from going in that direction as is the right of this committee and outside the scope of that presentation, but we have not had the opportunity to discuss with the appointee what his proposals are, what the options are, and who might and ought to be on the seven-person advisory panel, who ought to be the appropriate people there, what mechanisms may be in place to ensure a wide broadcast and wide beyond simply broadcasters. I've mentioned this before in this committee, that individuals in my generation, and your generation as well, Minister—our collective generation—do not turn to the major broadcasters for their news. I saw a poll recently that it's fewer than 50%.

I'm not going to speak any longer, Chair, I just wanted to put it on the record that I think this is an important, worthwhile discussion to have. I think Mr. Christopherson made a perfectly reasonable explanation. If we're not going to have legislation, let's look at this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Carry on the debate on the motion, Mr. Christopherson, keeping in mind the minister will be here for two more minutes.

[David Christopherson]

Yes, and I don't want to filibuster my own motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

[David Christopherson]

In doing this it would help provide at least some modicum of legitimacy to the creation of this commission as opposed to where we are right now.