Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2018

[Noel daCosta]

Yes. One of the metrics is whether it influenced your voting decision, either positively or negatively.

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

Quickly, what other metrics would be part of that determination as to whether it was successful?

[Trevor Fearon]

We would ask them for their thoughts about the formats we used. Was it a format that they thought should be improved? Did it work? What would they have preferred?

Part of it is also qualitative in order to get constant feedback, because of this constant process of improvement that we are engaged in. There are the standard formats versus, for instance, a town hall format. We try to relate that to the age of the respondents and whether people would have liked questions coming in from social media, because that's pretty new for us. Those types of assessments help us understand the impacts and how to improve the next time.

[Noel daCosta]

As a result of these poll findings, we have changed our format somewhat. For example, in the last set of debates we had a facility where the public could ask questions of the debaters via social media. They responded in real time while the debate was on.

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

That's great. Thank you very much for your input today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before we go to Mr. Simms, who I know is itching to go, I have one question. You had the two people who you were expecting to show up, and at the last minute one of the parties cancelled. Did you give any thought to allowing the person who was willing to show up to have some free airtime and just talk to the public in the meeting?

[Trevor Fearon]

Whether we would have done that and then chair a debate, no.

[Noel daCosta]

We thought about it and decided against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Mr. Simms, you're on.

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

First of all, thanks for all the information. I think I'm getting the general gist of how you perform, of how you do it.

The shaming aspect of it for someone who doesn't show up is very interesting, and I agree with Mr. Christopherson. I think that's a fantastic way by which you could police this and also make sure that it's effective by letting them know how the public feels about their absence.

What are some of the changes you're planning to make for the next debate, given what you have been through thus far?

[Noel daCosta]

I think we'll try to find a way to include more questions rather than limiting questions to the selected journalists. We're looking to find a way to include more questions from the general public, but we want to do it in such a way that we could filter out the partisan party supporters who send specific types of questions and also filter it in such a way that it doesn't come across as sterile or boring in the end.

The objective would be to get more participation from the public, because in the final analysis the debates are for them. We want to represent that as best as we can through debate on issues that the public finds interesting.

[Trevor Fearon]

If I could just add to that, we would also want some greater engagement with young people, because what we're finding here is that the size of the voter turnout has been declining. It's particularly noticeable among young voters, newer voters, or people who are newly joining the electorate. One of the things we have been considering is what some of our counterparts do. Should we be having debates in educational institutions, framing and locating them in various educational institutions, or in some way bringing the young people more into the process?

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

Do you have the ability to sanction these types of debates in those institutions?

[Trevor Fearon]

Given the time we have to prepare—it'll be in the middle of a school year, so to find a facility that we can set up—it's tricky.

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

...but it would be sanctioned by you. Okay.

The rest of my time I give to Mr. Fillmore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You'll probably be the last intervenor, unless anyone else is anxious to go.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, both, for your time and sharing your experiences today.

I'll start by saying there are many of us—and I expect it might be true of you as well—who feel that debates play a fundamental role in providing voters with the information they need to make an informed decision come voting time at the ballot box. We want to provide voters with the information they need, and this is why we're so focused on creating a credible and durable debates commission.

I'm wondering whether your debates commission has, as part of its mandate, any kind of public education role beyond just the production and broadcasting dissemination of a debate. Is there anything else you're doing to encourage viewership, for example, or to otherwise engage voters and citizens outside of the actual debate in election period?

[Noel daCosta]

Yes, we do. Well, not outside of the election period, no. We are set up primarily to stage debates. During the debates themselves, we have set up what we call debate watches in various communities, as I mentioned earlier. We encourage the community to look at the debates as a community, not individually in their homes but in a communal setting. We usually have a facilitator there who moderates discussion—because the community is made up of supporters of both parties—around what they saw in the debate. It's not about what happened 20 years in the past, but what they learned from the debate and how it would help them to come to a decision about their voting choices.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That's fascinating. We had some ideas from participants in some round tables that we held, who suggested coffee houses or community events surrounding the debate. These would facilitate discussion and perhaps, in some cases, even join it with a performance of this kind or that kind, making it a community event that draws people together so the conversation is shared.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you both for being with us. We really appreciate it. It sheds a whole other dimension on our study. We wish we were down there in the warmth with you, but thanks for giving us your time.

[Noel daCosta]

Thank you very much. We're glad to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Committee members, on Thursday we'll be looking at the draft report. You've received it already; I read it last night. Any additions from today will be added. Remember, it's in confidence; we do committee reports in confidence.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Being the new year, I'm just getting caught up on everything. It's my understanding that the parliamentary secretary held—and there was just a reference to it now—some public sessions of some kind on this whole thing. Can I just get a clarification? Is that correct?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes, the minister and I held a series of five round tables across the country, from east to west: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. Each was about two hours in length, and we invited members of civil society organizations, academia, traditional and new media, and other interested folks. The idea is to create a third method of gaining information from Canadians, the first being this study, the second being the open portal for all Canadians to share their ideas, and the third being the round tables where perhaps more candid conversations could occur.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not going to make a mountain out of this, but it still troubles me. The way that the government has viewed this, in my opinion, has been somewhat different from my concept of what it meant to let committees be more independent and respect the work of committees.

This is the first time I've heard that there are three streams of influence on this report. The only one I know about is this committee. I understand the portal may have been there and whatever. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do. The government has every right to do that, and I'm glad they're talking to Canadians.

What I'm having some trouble with is, we were asked.... I mean, the whole thing has been kind of weird. When I sat down with the minister, she was the one who asked if we were interested in doing this. I said yes for the reasons I've already outlined with our guests. It makes me nuts that one of the leaders said no and got away with it. They should be there, and they should have to debate.

Then when the letter came here, it was, “Oh, I'm so glad the committee has decided to undertake this”. I'm thinking, all right. I let it go, it's no big deal. Then, at another point, you came forward as a parliamentary secretary with a whole list of recommendations that you had. I can't go into it in detail because it was in camera, but you did have a list of things that you wanted from the minister. Now there's this other stream with the minister. I just have some trouble understanding.

Let me have my rant, and then I'll let it go, Chair.

My understanding was that we were tasked with this issue, especially this committee. It's arguably, along with public accounts, the most non-partisan committee that we have. In fact, it only works when we get past our partisanship. It made all the sense in the world to me that we were tasked with this, we agreed to do it, we set out, and we've been doing it.

Then there are these other activities by the minister, and it's almost as if this committee was sort of just one of the pawns in their overall political strategy of how they're going to get themselves out of the hole that they've dug for themselves on the issue of democratic reform.

I just want to leave it with you that this government consistently, notwithstanding the individuals, in fact, the opposite of the members of the committee that I'm looking at.... The government itself consistently does not, in my mind, live up to its promise about the way it was going to view and utilize committees.

This is just one more example. It's not a big, egregious one. It's not like this is all I'm going to do about it, and there are no cameras here, so nobody's even going to know I did this except you. I just want to say that it's still not consistent with the kind of respect that I expected from this government based on the promises they made about how committees will operate.

I've been doing committees for an awfully long time here, and in the provincial legislature, and my idea of an independent committee doing work is different from the way the government has handled this file. I've just been kind of disappointed.

It seems to be more cross-purposes or silly decisions rather than a real deliberative effort to thwart our work. It just leaves a bad taste that it didn't go exactly the way it could have, the way of a fully independent committee, and it certainly doesn't match the promise.

However, having said that, it gets it off my chest, Chair, and I'm good. Thanks.