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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Again, the commissioner will need to decide how this will be done.

We've heard, not only from committee members, but also from people across Canada, that we must ensure that Canadians know the process and how the debates work, the reason that some leaders participate in the debates and others don't participate, and the criteria for determining this decision. The important thing is to ensure a transparent process for creating the debates.

As a result, one of the commissioner's mandates is to ensure that the debates proceed in a transparent manner. The commissioner will also have the mandate to inform Canadians about the debates so that they know when the debates will take place and how they can access or participate in them.

[Linda Lapointe]

Thank you.

Earlier, you mentioned the participation criteria for the parties.

The criteria are to have a member of Parliament, elected as a member of that party, in the House of Commons at the time the election is called; to intend to run candidates in over 90% of electoral districts; and to have obtained 4% of the vote in a previous election.

In the current political context and given the composition of the House, which parties would be allowed to participate in the leaders' debates in 2019, based on these criteria?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Based on these criteria, that would be all the parties currently represented in the House of Commons, namely, the Liberal Party, Conservative Party, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Québécois.

Of course, the third criterion is a little open-ended. If there's a political change and there's a new party or new party leader, they can ask to be included in the debates. The decision would again be left to the commissioner's discretion.

[Linda Lapointe]

Okay.

I gather that, when it comes to a new party or new parties, the commissioner must decide whether the third criterion—to have obtained 4% of the vote—applies?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes. The commissioner could refer, for example, to opinion polls or other information that shows a real possibility that the new party will win seats in the House of Commons.

[Linda Lapointe]

Okay.

It will be left to the commissioner's discretion. The commissioner, together with the commission, will need to implement these criteria. Is that correct?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Linda Lapointe]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Next is Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. It's always a pleasure to have you here. I always enjoy your testimony and your insight.

I wanted to say, however, that I am disappointed by the way in which the proposal is being structured. I'm particularly disappointed by the way in which the three criteria have been set up. Under the rules, parties must meet two of the three criteria listed by the government in order to participate in the leaders debate. In setting up these criteria, the government has abandoned the proposals made by the majority in this committee, and has also ignored the advice of Stéphane Perrault, our Chief Electoral Officer.

Let me start with Mr. Perrault's comments, which are paraphrased on page 28 of our report. It says:

Mr. Perrault told the Committee that it was, in his view, preferable for Parliament to decide the criteria [for participation in the leaders debates] and have the independent debates organizing entity apply those criteria in a mechanical fashion, with no room for discretion. The reason for this was that should a debates organizing entity be created as a federal body, it would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Perrault noted that past legal challenges to decisions surrounding leaders' debates under Charter failed on the basis that the debates were essentially private events, and not subject to Charter scrutiny.

It's hard to escape the belief that the purpose of setting up this quasi-private entity to oversee the debates is to create a situation in which the debates commission and its decisions will be exempt from charter scrutiny, meaning it may well be the case that the debates will be organized in such a way as to violate the charter and no one will have recourse. Is that not, in fact, why it was set up this way?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It was set up this way because this committee recommended that we should ensure that criteria were established well in advance. We wanted to ensure that the commissioner, as Mr. Perrault stated in your quote that you stated right now, was able to implement them in a mechanical way that would take that individual out of the political decision-making process—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

If I may interrupt, there's nothing mechanical about the fact that when Mr. Johnston was here, I asked him a question about what criteria he would use to establish whether a party leader would qualify or not—would they have a realistic chance of winning seats—and he said he'd look into it. I believe he'll be thoughtful, but the fact is that the criteria will be set up too late for any action to be taken to protect charter rights. Moreover, they are absolutely not transparent. It is the opposite of mechanical. There is one hundred per cent absolute discretion on his part.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We had to allow for some discretion because, as political contexts can change rapidly, we need to ensure that if there is a surge in support for a candidate or an individual across the country, they are not excluded from leaders debates. That is where it is important to ensure they would still need to—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right. If you'll excuse me again, I apologize. In the committee's report, it stated that we should “meet a threshold of aggregated public opinion support six months (or at another time) prior to a scheduled general election”. You could have said six months, three months or picked a number so that it would be applied mechanically. You did not do so.

The next question I wanted to ask is this. With regard to the criteria that are being used, I note the criteria state that a party leader will be permitted to be in the debate if that party won 4% of the vote in a previous election, not “the” previous election but any previous election.

This is designed perfectly to ensure that the Green Party, which won 3.7% of the vote in 2015 and only 3.9% in 2011, gets to be grandfathered in forever because they won 6.7% of the vote in 2008. The Bloc Québécois will be grandfathered in forever because it won 4.6% of the vote in 2015, even if it's down to one MP. We're going to have a separatist party coming to every debate, including the English ones, forever, because of the fact that they historically won that percentage of the vote.

Why on earth did you pick that criteria, other than to win Ms. May's support so that you could pretend you had multi-partisan consent to this approach?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Reid, as you will note, actually, in number three it says, “the party's candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 4%” of the vote, so I have to just correct the record there. It's two out of three criteria, so it could be 4% at the last general election, or have a member who was elected to the House at the time of election under that party and/or run candidates in 90% of election—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Look at your website. That is not what it says. Your website says, item three, “Have either obtained four percent of the vote in a previous election”—this is your website—“or a legitimate chance to win seats in the upcoming election”. Criteria number one is the one that refers to having “a Member of Parliament elected...in the House of Commons at the time the election is called”. This is your website, so what you just quoted to us is not what your website says.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

This is the mandate that was given to the debates commissioner, and we will share that—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Why does your website say something different from what you just quoted? I'm reading it right now. I'm online at your website for the leaders debates commission, Government of Canada. Right this minute it says something different from what you are saying. Why is that?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I will share the actual OIC with you, and if that's the case, we will correct it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Maybe you could correct your website, too. If what Canadians have been reading up until now is not what your position is—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes, we will correct it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

—then maybe you want to get that straightened out.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

We will absolutely correct it, but this is the OIC that I have here in front of me. That is the correct language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was an interesting exchange. It's not like Mr. Reid to not want the participation of more parties, more thought and more opinions. That's what we've mostly heard on this committee in the past, and I've always respected that opinion before. I can understand the perspectives coming from the other side, but I don't want us to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

What I do want to find out from the minister right now is if you could just remind us—I know you've touched upon it a little bit before—how the commission you've announced has aligned with a lot of the recommendations the committee has put forward, what kind of consultations you engaged in and what kind of consultations the government engaged in to ensure that stakeholders were heard before you made this commission.