Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 2nd, 2019

[David Johnston]

Our communication manager Jill Clark is right here. Jill frequently reminds us that she doesn't have a television set in her home and she doesn't need it, and she's more informed than any one of us on what she does. She and Jess Milton have been leading this exercise in reaching out and making contact.

One of the seven members of our advisory board is Craig Kielburger. If you haven't seen the WE headquarters near King East and Parliament in Toronto, do so. It's absolutely extraordinary. They have a digital media studio to figure out how to reach.... I guess they go from about 9- to 21-year-olds with these various programs.

Today we were discussing this very question: what was the number? We've had about 40 consultations, Jill, but how many groups did we have on our list. I think 120 or so, 140.

With more to come, to whom we will reach out and say that they are interested in election debates, in election politics, what can we do to assist you, to engage the audience to which you have a catchment area, in a very positive way and reinforce that? I dare say that of the 40 or so consultations, we probably had eight or ten that would be specifically focused on that kind of—

[A voice]

Twitter, Facebook, Google as well. We all met with them as a part of our initial consultations.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Those are some of the folks who come in to see us too.

[David Johnston]

Your questions would be, what about this budget, and what does it cost to put on debates?

A good portion of it will be to explore exactly that, and to stimulate that broader new social media area, and then to do an evaluation of what worked and what didn't work out of that with the metrics and so on, and in our report, try to do a little future gazing to say here are the paths we're going down. We're trying to approach it very systematically, and I think I may be just smart enough to say, rely on people who have a whole lot less grey hair than I do.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear you.

I have two quick things. I know the chair is about to close in on me.

I wanted to compliment you on the political choices—Megan Leslie, John Manley and Deb Grey. All of them would be seen as highly capable of being non-partisan, putting the interest of the election ahead of their own. They are all cross-party respected, so good choices there.

[David Johnston]

Thank you for saying that, because we were particularly anxious to have people who would be seen as statespeople, and people with the wisdom, and so on, as well as having the contact that was put in our mandate.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think you did an excellent job and succeeded.

My last question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It better be pretty short.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is.

When you're doing your review, will it go all the way to things like looking at whether your method of doing the production was the most effective?

[David Johnston]

Yes.

Very broadly, it will be to do a post-mortem on these two debates—what was good, what was bad and what metrics are we setting up to try to do that in some sensible way? Then more broadly, is this experiment of a debates commission good, bad or indifferent—something your committee will look at—ranging from nice, tried, good thing, one time, now put it aside, let life go on, continue along this mode or do something even more adventuresome? And then it's to try, without writing an encyclopedia on it, to look at some of the tough issues, the directions, and what we learn from other experiences, and to provide some thoughtful ideas on that. We will not write a lengthy report, but we hope it will be quite informative and that we'll learn from this experience.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's excellent, great.

Thank you so much, sir.

Now my payout.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have a fiver on me, so I'll call you “Commissioner”.

My question is essentially around your role. I understand that your independence gives you that moral authority to get reluctant participants to take part in the debate. I think that's one of the most important aspects of your role. It's quite a complex role, and you have quite a complex machine with an advisory council and a consortium and using the government to help choose the right producers and so on.

In a nutshell, how would you describe your role? What will you have a direct say in? What are those things where you're overseeing a process that will unfold—

[David Johnston]

We go to our mandate. It's an important question, and we debated this a lot, the degree to which you are standoffish and let the players in the field participate and the degree to which you are pre-emptive.

When we go to our mandate, it asks us to carry off at least two national debates in two official languages that are engaging, as accessible as possible and meet high journalistic standards. We don't say that we will be the people who create those specific rules.

In the response to the proposals, we will expect some detailed commentary on what the consortium winner will in fact do to meet the standards set out in our mandate and make some judgment on that. Having made that judgment, and to be sure that we're not just standing back and saying, “You won the bid, go ahead; we'll see you in late October,” we'll engage first in biweekly discussions and then weekly discussions. Then, in the 10 days leading up to the debate, there will daily discussions, all of which will provide us with information on what they're doing. Also, without becoming too much of a schoolmaster, we'll be in a position to say, “When one thinks about it, perhaps a somewhat different approach on this particular matter might be appropriate.”

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

I do have a fiver, actually.

Your Excellency, thank you for your answer. I'll split my time with my colleague.

[David Johnston]

Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to invite me back monthly?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Johnston]

I have not given you a thorough answer to that question.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, that's a very good answer. I appreciate it. It helps me understand better.

[David Johnston]

It's under continuous consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, your Excellency.

You mentioned in your opening comments that you talked to the leaders of several parties. I do know that it was only parties that have seats in the House. Is that by design? Is that the intent?

[David Johnston]

Can you say that again?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In your opening comments, you listed a number of parties that you've been in consultation with. They reflected the parties that have seats in the House. Is that the intention and is that the approach?

[David Johnston]

Our consultations have not concluded as of yet. We, with the assistance of Elections Canada, have begun to reach out to an all-party advisory group that may, in fact, be appropriate for further consultation.