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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The meeting is called to order.

Good morning.

Welcome to the 133rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is being televised.

We are pleased to be joined today by the Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions, who is here to provide a briefing on the creation of an independent debates commission.

You've been here many times, Minister, and we appreciate your time.

The minister is accompanied by Allen Sutherland, from the Privy Council Office. He is the assistant secretary to the cabinet, machinery of government.

Members will recall that the committee did an extensive study on the matter and that our 55th report was presented to the House on March 19, 2018.

I will now turn the floor over to you, Minister, for your opening statement.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to the committee, for inviting me here today. I am delighted to appear before you with Al Sutherland from PCO.

I appear before you today to discuss our government's commitment to establishing an independent debates commission. We all agree that leaders debates provide Canadians with the opportunity to compare and contrast party leaders' policies, positions and characters.

Canadians, whether they have limited accessibility, live in a rural or remote area or are part of an official language minority community, have the right to access vital information about their choice of leader, party or platform.

Since the 1980s, at least two debates in each official language have been held during the federal election campaigns. These debates are normally broadcast by the mainstream traditional Canadian media. We all know that leaders' debates play an essential role in Canadian federal elections.

Unfortunately, in 2015, this tradition was abandoned, resulting in a debate about the debates. When one party could not agree with the consortium of broadcasters, a signature English-language debate was cancelled.

Unfortunately, in the last election, this process was held hostage by political parties and their partisan interests. Canadians paid the price. In camera discussions and back room deals created an environment that made it impossible to know whether there would actually be a debate, or who would participate in the debate.

An independent leaders' debates commission will ensure that the interests of Canadians are central to how leaders' debates are organized and broadcast.

In 2015, many Canadians were not provided with the opportunity to hear from those seeking to be the next Prime Minister, as the televised debates were not made accessible to all. With the creation of the leaders debates commission, we are ensuring that leaders debates remain a predictable, reliable and stable element of future election campaigns, produced in the interests of Canadians and not political parties.

We did not come to this decision lightly. It was informed by a thorough consultation process that included online consultations with Canadians; a series of round tables with over 60 specialists, broadcasters, academics and stakeholders from across the country; and a study by this committee.

During the consultation period, five roundtables were coordinated by our departments and the Institute for Research on Public Policy. These roundtables took place in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Montreal. Based on these discussions, recommendations were made, including the recommendation to create an independent body to oversee leaders' debates during federal election campaigns.

As previously mentioned, the creation of the debates commission was also informed by the report submitted by this committee. I want to thank each of you for your contribution to this study. I am reminded that many on this committee supported the idea of an independent body to oversee federal debates.

This report, together with our consultations and discussions, helped to provide a framework guided by the principles of independence, impartiality, credibility, democratic citizenship, civic education and inclusion. The message from Canadians was clear. Leaders' debates need to be accessible to as many Canadians as possible on a variety of platforms.

Moreover, they should be organized first and foremost with the interests of Canadians in mind, and not driven by partisan advantage.

With that, we announce the creation of an independent leaders debates commission, which will be lead by a commissioner and supported by a seven-member advisory board. The commissioner will be mandated to produce two signature debates, one in each official language. The production feed will be made available free of charge to those who wish to distribute it.

The stakeholders also told us that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that it would be prudent to consider developing a process that could take into account lessons learned in order to avoid being boxed into an inflexible structure.

This is why the proposed commissioner has been mandated to provide a report to Parliament outlining findings, lessons learned and recommendations to inform the potential creation in statute of a built-to-last debates commission.

The Right Honourable David Johnston has been chosen as the government's nominee for Canada's first leaders' debates commissioner.

He has served as the Governor General of Canada from 2010 to 2017 and has had an illustrious career. Among his especially notable academic credentials he has served as principal of McGill University, dean of law at the University of Western Ontario and president of the University of Waterloo. He has chaired commissions at the federal and provincial levels on a wide range of public policy matters, including the environment, learning and broadband access.

He has also moderated several leaders' debates, including during the federal elections in 1979 and 1984 and the Ontario provincial election in 1987. He was also the host of public affairs programs on CBC News-World and PBS.

I have no doubt that as the commissioner he will execute his role in a manner that is neutral, fair, principled, and importantly, with the interests of Canadians at heart.

The commissioner will also be mandated to engage with political parties to negotiate the terms of the debates, with the media to ensure broad distribution, and most importantly, with Canadians to raise awareness about the debates.

His mandate will be to produce two debates that reflect the highest journalistic standards. By contracting out the role of content creation and format to a production entity, the themes, topics and questions will all be in the hands of the production experts, not the commissioner.

Regarding who can participate in national televised leaders debates we have established clear criteria that will need to be met by political party leaders. In 2019, debates would include leaders of political parties that meet two of the following three criteria: one, have a member of Parliament elected as a member of that party in the House of Commons at the time the election is called; two, intend to run candidates in at least 90% of electoral districts; and three, have either obtained 4% of the vote in a previous election or a legitimate chance to win seats in the upcoming election.

These participation criteria reflect the broad parameters already used by the broadcasting consortium for past elections. They take into account the feedback from the consultation process. The commissioner will be mandated to finalize and apply the use of these participation criteria for 2019, and will provide recommendations for participation criteria for future debates.

Leaders debates are a fundamental exercise in democracy and the independent commission will make debates a more predictable, reliable and stable element of federal election campaigns.

I firmly believe that the leaders debate commission will ensure that all Canadians will have access to televised debates during the 2019 election campaign.

Thank you again for having me here today and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we're going to set a mini-precedent in history. The Liberals have generously given up the first slot. For the first time in history, the leader of the Green Party will have the first slot, for seven minutes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all my colleagues.

I know how happy you are, David. It's really a good thing.

[David Christopherson, Hamilton Centre, NDP]

[Inaudible—Editor] and save us time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I will ignore that as unworthy of you.

Hello, Madam Minister.

It is the case that, as you said, the 2015 election campaign fell apart in terms of the leaders debates when the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the New Democrats both refused to participate, which was sad for me. As you know, the consortium had said that under their rules the Green Party was now in the national leaders debates. It was at that moment, unexpected—and one would say, speaking of precedents, unprecedented—that a sitting Prime Minister and the leader of another opposition party would work together to deprive a space in a debate to a party that had won a seat in the House of Commons.

I'm glad to see this, as you know, I welcome the creation of a leaders debate commission.

Can you, for clarification purposes, outline what today you're presenting to us that is new information over the proposal last time? Is David Johnston now not a nominee but the official debates commissioner? The details around the content creation being done by a contracted-out entity, that strikes me as new. Could you just highlight what you're presenting today that is new information?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

There is actually no new information that I'm presenting today. The part around content creation was something that came up in the media afterwards, and we felt it was important to clarify this, that it is not in fact the debates commissioner who will be creating the debate. It is his mandate to ensure that the debates happen and to contract them out to a production entity.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If I can pursue what might be done that might have been new information, last time I asked you, you hadn't had any conversations with what's known as the consortium. I referred to it a moment ago. It was CBC, Global, CTV, TVA and Radio-Canada. Those five news organizations have organized the debates ever since the late 1960s. Has there been any consultation with them as to whether they are prepared to work with the debates commission, or whether they see this as a good thing?

Over the years, they're certainly told me, individuals who are the heads of the news bureaus of those networks have said, being the consortium was rather a thankless task and something that they would love to have someone else run. On the other hand, they've been pretty clear that this is their turf and they know how to organize and produce good debates. I'm wondering if any of what we're presenting now is based on talking to individuals or the consortium as a group.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I would say that all of the consortium members were part of our consultation process and participated in the round tables that my department along with IRPP organized and their information and their perspectives were certainly taken into consideration through the consultation process. What we did hear was that there was absolutely interest in continuing to play an important role. However, the commissioner will decide based on proposals that are submitted through a call for proposals as to the organizing entity, but we fully expect that there will be interest on their behalf to participate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Of course, Madam Minister, one of the key things, the fly in the ointment with this, would be if, having prepared and produced and provided a live feed, the large national networks didn't pick up on that opportunity to broadcast, and there's nothing here that compels them to broadcast. What's your level of confidence that they will broadcast what the debates commission produces?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

In our consultations, I would say that every participant reiterated the fact that if a feed were to be made available free of charge, it would be their public service to share that feed. There was absolutely a sense from everyone who participated, whether they were a broadcaster, a smaller organization, ethnic media, social media, really everyone we spoke to, that if there was a possibility to share the feed, they would look for ways to share it publicly, because they felt it was part of their public duty to share that with Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm quite relieved to hear that.

If I go back many years ago, there was a report on leaders debates produced by the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University under the leadership of Tom Axworthy, at the time. It pointed out that in Westminster parliamentary democracy, we don't elect a prime minister and we don't have a presidential system. The leaders debates in some way ape what happens in the U.S. and can lead to Canadians forgetting that they're actually choosing their own member of Parliament in a representative democracy in a constitutional monarchy, in the Westminster system, and not voting for a leader.

I'm wondering if there's any way that the mandate for the debates commission can be broadened to meet some of the recommendations that come from that study from the Centre for the Study of Democracy of having debates, say, between a minister of immigration and each party's immigration critic, a minister of finance and each party's finance critic. The advice from that committee was let's bring into sharper focus for Canadians that we are not a presidential system.

Is there any scope for more than the main two signature debates?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We intentionally left it so that there was a minimum of two main leaders debates, enabling the commissioner to have flexibility for those kinds of creative ideas and to support organizations, if they are interested in hosting other debates throughout the country, either with leaders or others. That is a decision that would be left in the commission's hands, but that is why we said a minimum of two national debates, with one in English and one in French.

Throughout the consultations, we heard lots of new creative ideas on how to engage the Canadian public in debates in a broader way and all that information is available to the commissioner, but it's also available publicly in the IRPP's public report on the round tables.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I think that's my time, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Now we'll go on setting precedents, so we'll have the next round begin with the NDP for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson]

What you didn't explain is that it would normally go to the Conservatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, the Conservatives—

[David Christopherson]

They handed off their lead to me. If anybody ever needed to know where the expression “politics makes for strange bedfellows” came from, this would be exactly that scenario. I thank my colleagues in the Conservative caucus for an opportunity to jump ahead in the order of precedence.

Let me begin, first of all, by expressing my personal respect for you, Minister. We're in neighbouring cities, and for a while you were our regional minister and you did an outstanding job in that capacity. I enjoy working with you, and everything I have to say is about your government in your capacity as the minister and not as a person or as an MP, because, on that front, you have an impeccable reputation with me.

Having said that, I have to tell you, if the Conservatives had attempted a move like this, the whole country would be enraged, but somehow, because they are the Liberals, it's not as horrible a thing. I have to tell you, this is a disgraceful expression of lack of democracy, again, on the democratic reform file. Let's remember, too, that there's a context to this. There's a history and a pattern.

This government said that the last election we had would be the last one we would have under first past the post. They broke that promise and set that aside. Then they brought in a whole series of draconian changes to our House Standing Orders, moves that Stephen Harper would never even dream of, and they had to retreat on that because of the backlash.

On Bill C-33, we were in the middle, this committee, of doing a major intensive review of the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. That report was supposed to help advise the government, because they had promised that committees were going to matter from now on. We were going to go back to respecting the independence of committees and allowing committees to do their good parliamentary work. That was trounced on by virtue of Bill C-33, the Liberals' major reform bill to the election laws, which was dumped on the floor of Parliament while we were still in the midst of reviewing that report. That lead to a filibuster by a certain somebody that tied us up for goodness knows how long until we managed to get that mess the government caused unravelled.

Now here we are again on a major issue, and I don't disagree with its importance as underscored by the minister and by my friend Madam May, but the process matters. This is a democracy. We spent a lot of time working hard on that report, and two of the key things, the biggest rubs that we had the greatest difficulty with, were how we decide who the commissioner will be and what the criteria would be for who's in debates.

None of us at the committee level—and I'll include my colleagues in the Liberal caucus for this part of it—felt adequate to make that decision as a committee made up of members from all the parties. Now this government has come along and here's its rationale; here's the thing. I claim the reason they had to do this was that they've mismanaged this file so badly that they didn't leave enough time. In fact, we just barely got the last major bill through, again, because of the government's mismanagement. In their own backgrounder for justification for ignoring this committee and running roughshod over democracy, here was their rationale:

In the interest of time, and as a starting point for the upcoming 2019 debates...

It's as if nobody had talked about it yet, as if nobody was paying any attention, and the government went, “Oh, wait a minute. We should do something, and there's really not enough time to do it, so we'll just make that decision.”

This is so important, and I am so profoundly disappointed that the government has been so undemocratic in their approach here and so unilateral.

My only question, I guess, would be, at this point, where on earth do the Liberals—never mind government—get off believing that they have the almighty power and right to unilaterally appoint the commissioner and unilaterally decide who's in the debates and who isn't in the debates?

Where do the Liberals get off believing they have the right to make that decision when we, collectively, at the committee level, which the government was supposed to respect, have said that we need to put it into a process so that it's fair? How do the Liberals justify saying, no, they know better and they'll just set aside what the committee said?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Minister.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, David.

We did listen to the committee, and in fact 10 of the 12 recommendations are directly reflected in this proposal.

You and I both agree that leaders debates are crucial for Canadians to be a part of. We also listened to the committee and appreciated the fact that this is a challenging process, which is why we have put forward a two-step process, to have something in place for this election, to see how it goes and then to have the commissioner, who is independent of government, come back and report to this committee on how best to make this a permanent process.

I firmly and strongly believe that Mr. Johnston is absolutely the right person for the job. He is above partisanship. He has an incredible amount of personal integrity and he has consistently served this country and put public interest above everything else. Ultimately that's what this process is about. It's about ensuring that Canadians can see their main political leaders debate each other and they can appreciate their policies and their characters, so that Canadians can make a decision and a choice for who they want to govern them in 2019.

[David Christopherson]

Minister, those are your talking points. You didn't answer my question.

How do the Liberals believe they have the right to unilaterally make decisions that we at this table, collectively, felt shouldn't be made unilaterally and ought to be put into a democratic process? That was my question. Where do the Liberals get off believing that you have the right to make those decisions when this committee...? You said that your government was going to respect committees. This committee said we don't feel right making that decision. You didn't answer my question.

The macro thing I'd like to know is how you are going to fix this state, because right now an important element of the next election is clouded in, at least, concern and debate? How are you going to legitimize this without first having it go through this committee? How are you going to do that?

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Minister, be very brief, because the time is up.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We did listen to the committee because one of the recommendations from the committee was to ensure that criteria were established well in advance. That is precisely what we are doing.

[David Christopherson]

Not by the Liberals....

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We are doing that, and the commissioner will have the ultimate discretion.

I think that all those around the table would agree that Mr. Johnston has an absolute level of integrity. We strove to ensure that the person appointed initially, our nominee, would be above the fray and would always place the interests of Canadians at the heart of every decision that he is making in this context.