Evidence of meeting #79 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Allen Sutherland  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Order.

Good afternoon.

This is the 79th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we're public.

Today we're beginning the study of the creation of an independent commissioner responsible for leaders' debates

We're pleased to have with us the Hon. Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions. She's accompanied by Allen Sutherland, assistant secretary to cabinet, machinery of government.

Thank you for being here.

Please go ahead, Ms. Gould.

12:05 p.m.

Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Karina Gould LiberalMinister of Democratic Institutions

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for having me. I'm glad to be back at PROC.

I want to thank the committee for taking up a study of what a commission, or a commissioner, to organize a future federal political debate in Canada may look like. I've spoken to many of you already about this topic and I look forward to reading your report on this matter.

Before I get into the meat of it, why is this an important topic? For Canadians, leaders' debates are an opportunity to witness first-hand the personalities and the approaches of the people seeking to be their prime minister. Before we discuss the future of debates and how we ensure their important role in Canadian political life, it may be helpful to quickly cover the history of federal leaders' debates in Canada.

The first televised leadership debate in Canada was not conducted at the federal level. It took place during the 1962 Quebec provincial election—between Daniel Johnson and Jean Lesage. It would be another six years before Canada's first televised federal leaders' debate. It featured Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, Robert Stanfield, and Réal Caouette.

The 1968 election featured a single leaders' debate that was carried on all networks. It was bilingual and involved the leaders of every party with a seat in the House. For two election cycles after that, televised leaders' debates did not take place, and the next televised debate occurred during the 1979 election period. The 1979 debates attracted nearly 7.5 million viewers, which at that time was nearly 50% of Canadians who were eligible to vote.

There were no national televised leaders' debates during the 1980 election; however, debates did occur in 1984, and by 1988 they had become part of Canada's election tradition. Since 1984, televised debates have occurred in every successive federal election up to and including 2015. Unlike previous elections, the 2015 election did not feature debates that were broadcast by our national broadcasters.

For the last half-century, leaders' debates in Canada have usually been organized through discussions ahead of each election, led by a consortium of major broadcasters—CBC, Radio-Canada, Global, CTV, and TVA. This involved negotiations with political parties regarding dates, participation, and format.

It is worth noting the important contribution of the broadcast consortium. In order to better serve the Canadian public, the consortium partners agreed to put aside competitive differences and ensure that Canadians were able to witness their political leaders' debate in their own home.

That said, there is no set format. Televised debates in every election are a little different, either in number, format, or the list of parties that participate.

In the most recent federal election, media organizations outside of the established consortium organized four out of five debates under new formats and themes.

The experience of the 2015 election was a departure from the traditional practice of organizing debates. While in 2015 there were more debates than in previous elections, the total viewership for both the English and French debates was significantly lower. While the 2006, 2008, and 2011 debates had average audiences of over three million, the viewership of each of the 2015 debates was much lower. The Maclean's debate drew one and a half million viewers. The French TVA debate drew just under one million viewers. The Globe and Mail and Google Canada debate drew 780,000. The Munk debates drew 490,000, and the French consortium debate drew about 290,000.

Coverage of the 2015 election debates signalled a genuine public interest in how debates are organized, how debates' participation criteria are determined, how formats and themes are chosen, and how greater accessibility could be achieved through new means of transmission and outreach by Canada's traditional media groups and new media players.

The Prime Minister has given me, as the Minister of Democratic Institutions, a mandate to bring forward options to create an independent commissioner to organize political party leaders' debates during future federal election campaigns with a mandate to improve Canadians' knowledge of the parties, their leaders, and their policy positions.

Given that debates are an important exercise in our democracy, establishing an independent commissioner to organize political party leaders' debates would help ensure that the interests of Canadians are central to how leaders' debates are organized and broadcast.

A commission or commissioner would be responsible for considering the future of leaders' debates in an ever-changing digital environment and how debates should be distributed to ensure that they could be experienced by a broad cross-section of Canadians.

This new debates mechanism must strike a balance between the interests of all stakeholders, in other words, the Canadian public, political parties, broadcasters, new media organizations, and civil society. Most importantly, I am committed to ensuring that Canadians are at the heart of the new process.

There are various approaches that can be taken for organizing leaders' debates, and I will be curious to receive feedback and recommendations from this committee.

In one example, the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing recommended improving the consortium model by appointing a neutral chairperson to preside over the negotiations between media groups and political parties. Under this approach, the chairperson could be tasked with expanding the membership of the consortium to include new media, public interest groups, academia, and other relevant groups.

In another example, the authors of a 2016 colloquium report entitled “The Future of Leaders’ Debates in Canadian Federal Elections” recommended that a different approach be considered, whereby a single host broadcaster or organization would be mandated to organize leaders' debates. In particular, the authors suggested that the Cable Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC, could be well placed to design a debate to advance the democratic exercise.

International models include the creation of a new organization or advisory committee made up of diverse stakeholders, such as public interest, academic, and media groups. Whether as a parliamentary structure, a not-for-profit organization, or an independent government body, the committee would provide guidance and organize leadership debates. The U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates could serve as a model.

Overall, these suggested options are included to stimulate thinking and discussion about how a commissioner can be imagined.

Of course, there is much work to be done engaging with parliamentarians, broadcasters, political parties, experts, and Canadians.

Your committee's study and eventual report will provide valuable insight into the government's decision on this issue.

Debates are an important exercise in democracy. Beyond your study, I will be engaging stakeholders, academics, and Canadians directly.

We are currently in the process of finalizing our plans, and I will be making our broader engagement plan public in the coming weeks.

Going forward, we must uphold the notion that election debates are much more than just media events—they are a fundamental exercise in democracy.

Leaders' debates are a public good. As such, they must be organized in an open and transparent manner through a process that includes the independent representation of the public interest.

What follow are the five objectives that will guide me in my work.

The first is independence and impartiality. The entity must be guided by the public interest and must organize leaders' debates in a manner that is open, fair, and transparent.

The second objective is credibility. The entity must be trusted and supported by Canadians and stakeholders.

The third is democratic citizenship. The entity must institutionalize leaders' debates as a fundamental democratic institution and seek to ensure that leaders' debates are organized at every election.

The fourth objective is civic education. The entity must engage Canadians as broadly as possible and improve Canadians' knowledge of the parties, their leaders, and their policy positions so they are well prepared to exercise their right to vote in a modern democratic society.

Fifth is inclusion. The entity must include broad representation in its membership and advisory bodies to be reflective of Canadian society, and it must ensure that the inclusion of women, youth, indigenous peoples, and people with disabilities underpins its activities.

With these objectives in mind, I am looking for input from this committee on the following questions.

Who should organize the debates?

What role should the government play in organizing elections debates?

How can we accommodate legislative and non-legislative proposals?

How can we reach the largest number of Canadians?

How do we ensure that debates are accessible to all Canadians?

Should the commissioner establish a minimum number of debates in both official languages?

What should be the criteria for inclusion and participation? Where and how should the debates be broadcast?

How should production costs be covered by relevant stakeholders?

How should the education mandate of the independent commissioner be structured?

Again, I want to thank you for taking up this study and for inviting me today.

As I said, debates are an important exercise in our democracy. All of us here at the table have participated in debates at the local level, so we know just how important it is for voters to see politicians defend their policies and values.

Broadcasting leaders' debates nationally allows Canadians to watch their leaders in debate and to compare and contrast them, which means they can make better-informed decisions about who is to lead their country.

With that, I look forward to your questions and your comments.

Thank you.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much, Minister.

It is now over to Ms. Tassi.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you, Minister Gould, for your presentation this morning and for being here.

What are you anticipating in terms of a timeline? In order to make the decision about the establishment of a commission or commissioner, do you have a timeline in mind that can help determine the number of witnesses, etc., that we are going to have?

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

Yes. Certainly it's important to have something in time for the next election. Depending on what the structure is and whether or not it requires legislation, it would have to go through in the coming months or so. I'm hopeful about receiving the advice from your study.

As I mentioned, I have plans to do engagement as well. However, I'm going to be following the work of the committee quite closely and will use some of the information drawn out of the witnesses to also conduct further engagement in the new year and then bring forward some options and pursue an option based on all of those engagements, hopefully in the spring.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay. Are you going to wait for the report from this committee before you start that engagement, or is that going to be commenced at the same time this committee is doing its study?

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

My understanding is that the study is engaging in seeing witnesses for the next couple of weeks.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Yes.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

I'm going to follow what you're doing in the meantime. I probably won't begin my own engagement until early in the new year. However, I'm not sure that a report could be concluded within this timeline.

That said, the report that this committee produces will also inform my thinking in tandem with the work that I'm doing.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay.

In your opening remarks you discussed the background, but can you speak a little further about why you feel this is needed and what you are seeking to improve?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

We've had a fairly rich history of leaders' debates in Canada. Starting in 1984, we have had them consistently through all of our federal elections. I think that for Canadians they have become an important moment in an election campaign by allowing us to interact with the political leaders who are ultimately asking for our trust to become our prime minister and to lead us for three to five years, depending on the makeup of the government.

It's really about ensuring that they are institutionalized as a part of our democratic process and ensuring that Canadians have as much accessibility to those debates as possible. I know, as I'm sure many of you have experienced in talking with constituents, that it's often a pivotal moment for people making a decision to be able to interact and engage with political leaders, to understand where they are coming from on issues that are of importance and to see how they interact in different settings, whether domestically or internationally. It gives people a real window into the different personalities and leadership styles of those who are seeking to become their prime minister.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you.

One area that's really important to me is civic engagement and ensuring that we're reaching as many people as possible and trying to ensure that everyone is taking an interest. Can you speak about how you see the commissioner or the commission playing a role in the education of the public with respect to political parties, their leaders, and the positions that each of them takes? What do you think the impact of this position will be in that regard?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

That's a good question.

I don't really see the role of the commissioner as educating the public about political parties or their positions so much as ensuring that people know that leaders' debates are taking place, know who is participating, and know that they can be part of that process.

Obviously, political parties have their own means of communicating their platforms, their objectives, and their ideals to the public. That's not the role of the commission or the commissioner. Rather, it's to ensure that Canadians know when debates are taking place, where they can see them, and how they can engage with them. I think it's very important.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

How much more time do I have?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You have two and a half minutes.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

With respect to the role of the commissioner in improving accessibility for Canadians with disabilities, do you have any ideas in that regard? Are you looking for input on that aspect, so that Canadians with disabilities will have more access to debates and be able to be a part of them and experience them?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

Certainly.

One of the interesting things about leaders' debates is the history of them. They really came from the first debate—was it 1960?—that was held during the American elections with John F. Kennedy. That was the first time that a leaders' debate had been publicized and broadcast on TV. Then Canada, like other countries around the world, took up this model and started to portray it.

What the U.S. has ensured is that during all of their leaders' debates, they have sign language translation that is broadcast alongside. While there were some instances in the 2015 election of closed captioning or sign language, it wasn't consistent among all of the debates. I think the accessibility requirements and criteria are something to consider when imagining what a commission or commissioner would look like for leaders' debates.

I think all of us can agree that the more people have access and are able to understand with dignity and participate with dignity in the process, the better it is for the democratic process in general. I would definitely encourage the committee to think broadly about what accessibility means in this context.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Very good. Great.

What are your thoughts on who should be included in the leaders' debates? Is there a threshold in order to meet a participation requirement? Do you have any ideas or input that you would like to offer on that aspect?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

I'm hoping the committee will push and pursue what they think is reasonable and necessary for the robust political landscape that we have here in Canada. I think one of the things that's important and is a departure from the way things have been done previously is to have a process that's open and transparent, so that Canadians can know how these decisions were made and who was invited to participate.

What we saw in 2015 was that because leaders' debates had been so much a part of the national democratic experience in each federal election, people hadn't really thought much about how these debates were organized, who was invited, and when they occurred, because it all happened in secret behind closed doors.

The idea with this as well is to ensure that it is a public conversation and that a commissioner or a commission is leading these conversations about those criteria. I guess someone else could ask me to pursue it, but really quickly, it's that.... I lost my train of thought.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Reid is next.

November 21st, 2017 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Minister, first of all, I'm glad to have you here. In the event that the answer you were going to give pops up partway through my question or your answer to the things I'm going to ask you, just share it with us. We'll deal with it that way.

You said you might look at a statute or might not. I know how you would set something up via a statute, but in the absence of a statute, how do you set up a commission or a commissioner in any meaningful sense, with the power to accomplish anything from making sure sign language is provided to making sure that the Green Party gets to participate to making sure that there's an equal number of French-language and English-language debates? I don't see how you do that in the absence of a statute, other than through an informal process that would look like what we have right now.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

I think that's an excellent question.

One of the things I have been considering is whether we want to set something up informally in the interim to kind of test to see how it works before moving into a legislated option that might lock something in.

That said, one of the pieces I'm interested to hear about from the committee and witnesses is this. It has generally been considered very difficult to compel or force a party leader to participate in a debate through legislation. However, we could consider setting up an NGO or an arm's-length entity that would not be required through legislation and could be done through a G and C process. We could establish that first experience to see how it goes. Then, following the election, we could decide whether we're going to implement that in law.

However, I completely take your point that if it's not in statute or law, you run the risk of it not becoming something permanent. That's where I'm looking at the—

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

I'm just not sure how it amounts to anything if it's not a statute, because presumably debates could be organized outside of it. I just don't see how you do it. It seems to me that you either have a rule—and we make rules around here via statutes—or you don't have a rule.

I just don't see it how you do it in a non-statutory fashion at all.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

Well, if that's the recommendation from the committee, that would be something I'd appreciate.

I think there are ways you could do it. For example, you could set up, as I mentioned, an arm's-length entity that is established with criteria through a G and C. The idea is that because you've created it so publicly and you've had a public conversation about it, if it were not to go through or if it were not to be successful, there would be a public questioning as to why that was the case. Political leaders or other stakeholders would have to explain why they're not participating in it. There's a certain amount of public momentum that could follow from that, and that's one option that is possible.

The other question is with regard to legislation and enabling enough flexibility to adapt to changing times. One of the things I'm thinking about is with regard to the parameters of this entity, whereby you say the commission or the commissioner must establish an English-language and French-language debate, but there could also be more debates. We don't want to be in a situation of limiting the number of debates or the number of chances for people to participate, but what are those parameters? Is there a basic level of criteria that we can all agree to, and then enable some kind of flexibility for a commissioner to be able to manage the debates themselves?

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

I promised Mr. Nater that I'd give him the rest of my time, so let me know.

I'll honour my word and will turn things over to him.