Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It obviously depends on what the entity would look like—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Well, of course, but you indicated that you—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

—and that's something that I'm seeking input on, so—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You have already indicated that you've given some thoughts to what those might look like, so I would assume costs would have been considered in that as well.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I know, but we have to have a conversation about what that would look like before we have a conversation about costs.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That's the conversation I've been trying to have here.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We can't just avoid that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Simms is next.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, I would agree. It's hard to figure out how much a vacation costs if you don't know where you're going yet.

I wanted to talk about some of the models that are out there. I always look at the Americans for the model to do that, the not-for-profits—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

—and that sort of thing. I look at the neutrality around it in doing it, but there are always rules that go in that a lot of people take issue with. Obviously, the smaller third parties in America have a big problem with some of the rules, like the 15% rule and so on, in terms of the capability of getting a majority. It's probably similar to what Elizabeth May brought up earlier.

Obviously, you have to cast some pretty broad parameters and ideas out there to do this. What kinds of discussions have you had? Have they been mostly about who is involved in setting this up, as opposed to what it is we're looking at? Have you looked at other models and said “That's a good idea, and that's a good idea, and not so much this one”, and that sort of thing?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I think what's interesting is that we have an opportunity to create something new, so we can look at different models. What's interesting about the U.S. model is that it is a bipartisan NGO that sets up leaders' debates and organizes them for each federal election. That may or may not be a model that works here in Canada.

I do think it's important that we have input from political parties. I do think it's important that we have input from parliamentarians. I do think it's important that we have input from broadcasters, both traditional and new, to ensure that we're getting as wide an audience as possible.

When it comes to criteria, I think it would be very useful to hear from this committee. My initial thought is that it does make sense to participate if you have a seat in the House or 5% of the national vote. There is also an argument to be made to have a separate debate for, perhaps, smaller parties as well. That could be something.

Spain's model, I think, is very interesting. They have a public entity that funds and organizes the debates and then enables the transmission across different channels. We have an opportunity to create something Canadian that fits within our own democratic engagement and process and fits what's important for voters here in Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, I like this idea very much. I liked this idea long before it became a platform commitment, because I've been here 14 years and I've seen it time and time again. Most of it was played out within the media. Most recently the discussion has shifted from who should be involved to what platform we choose in doing this. There are so many platforms by which you could do it. Therefore, they have to make that decision.

Another reason I like it goes back to a few years ago in Great Britain when I was watching a debate. It was two elections ago. They had the Labour Party, the UKIP, and the Lib Dems, and I thought to myself that the Conservatives refused to be there. It turns out they weren't even invited. It was a debate between opposition parties only, in which there was government bashing ad nauseam. I thought it was unfair. However, the reason they chose this format was that they wanted to bring in more viewers. This was their consortium.

This is where I think that if it's left to a consortium, left to people who are looking strictly for eyeballs, we could find ourselves spiralling a little bit out of control. You're going to get everything from.... I don't know. It simply becomes very prescriptive. I hope that we don't go that way either, but in this case I hope that we have someone, a commissioner, who is familiar with the format and is able to provide a neutral body on all platforms.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

That's the objective, to have neutrality and impartiality, but also to ensure that the public interest is at the centre of how debates are structured and broadcast, because ultimately I really do believe it is a public good.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you for coming.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for having me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. The last person is Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, thank you, Minister.

In your opening comments you said there was a suggestion made in a report that perhaps CPAC could be the entity designated to potentially host, but in your response to Mr. Richards' questions, you noted that there was no nationally televised debate in 2015. I find that kind of troubling, because CPAC did, in fact, televise the English-language debates.

Are you implying that CPAC—you know, the collection of our cable broadcasters, the great educational tool—isn't good enough, isn't a national broadcasting entity?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

No, I'm absolutely not implying that in any way whatsoever. What I was stating is that in 2015 it wasn't nationally broadcast across various national broadcasters, which had been the tradition prior to that.

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

So because it wasn't on CBC, it doesn't count, yet it was on CPAC, which is really—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

You're really trying to put words in my mouth right now, Mr. Nater.

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

No, I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that it wasn't nationally broadcast, but the fact is that it was broadcast on CPAC on their various platforms, including online.