Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2022

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, the answer would be yes. Democracy is everyone's business. Private institutions, private networks and interest groups that organize debates, in our view, don't have the public confidence and independence that a commission has, led by somebody with the national and international reputation of the Right Honourable David Johnston.

That's why we think that it's absolutely an appropriate role for an independent Leaders' Debates Commission.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you for that, Minister, but as our fellow committee members have just said, this was, with those moderators, probably one of the most biased leadership debates that we've seen in our country.

If he's talking about independence and democracy, how could it be that this debate, which was put on with taxpayers' dollars, was one of the most biased debates Canadians have seen in the history of our country?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, it won't surprise you that I don't share the pessimism or the alarmist nature of our colleague. We think that any debate is, by necessity, a vigorous exchange of ideas and a thoughtful presentation by women and men who seek to serve the country in national leadership capacities in a general election. We do not view that as a negative. We view that as a constructive and thoughtful process.

If colleagues had specific questions around moderator X, producer Y or journalist Z, obviously, I think.... I don't want to turn around, because it would be rude, Madam Chair, but I believe behind me, anxiously waiting to perhaps answer those questions, would be Mr. Johnston himself, or people with as stellar a reputation as Michel Cormier, a fellow Acadian.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I want to make sure that the minister thinks and believes that $5.2 million was worth it to put on a leadership debate when there were other interest groups, other people, who were going to put on this debate. He thinks right now, at a time when taxpayer dollars are stretched to the limit, that this $5.2 million was worth it and that Canadians would share that view with this minister right now.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The short answer is yes. Canadians in the two general elections when this debate commission existed re-elected Liberal governments. We view that as a reasonably comfortable endorsement of this thoughtful and independent process. People should reflect before they ascribe anything other than the highest merit to a commission led by such an outstanding Canadian as the Right Honourable David Johnston.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Turnbull, you have five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, through you, to the minister and his team for being here. It's great to have you and to see you, as always. We really appreciate your time today.

Something that we've talked about quite a bit in this committee that has come up multiple times, and certainly I've brought it up, is the general feeling that there's quite a lot of vitriol and a rise in hatred. Disinformation can certainly be stoked sometimes by this feigned outrage that we hear coming from the opposition at times.

In general, I have concerns about the erosion of our public debate and discourse, especially during elections. What's interesting is that when I hear the minister speak, I hear words like “public confidence”, “credibility”, “independence” and “integrity”. The other word that comes to my mind is “trust”.

In the turbulent times that we're in, and seeing the public debate out there, “turbulent” is a good word to describe it. The leaders' debate actually stands in contrast to that. It takes on an even higher significance and perhaps an important role in preserving and modelling the type of discourse that we want. The minister used words like “informed” and “thoughtful”.

That really stands in contrast to some of the other things we're seeing. We heard from Mr. Perrault about the increased incidence of violence and threats that MPs and even Elections Canada staff and volunteers, who participated in helping with our democratic process, were experiencing. It sort of breaks my heart. How can we ensure that the leaders' debate really preserves that level of public trust and promotes it in our discourse? I think that's becoming more and more important.

In particular, I would welcome any remarks on the general format, which we did hear some concerns about in connection with the last English debate.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

I think our colleague Mr. Turnbull answered much more eloquently than I did the previous question from our Conservative colleague around the importance of having this independent, publicly funded organization to provide exactly—as I think Mr. Turnbull described in a very eloquent way, Madam Chair—that opportunity for Canadians.

I don't disagree at all with some of the challenges. I think Mr. Turnbull used the word “turbulent” to describe challenges in our democracy, as in other democracies around the world. Like many people around the world, we're obviously concerned about some of the turbulence we saw in a presidential election in the context of our southern neighbour, the United States. Around the world, Madam Chair, these circumstances are increasing.

I too had a conversation with Monsieur Perrault, and again I share Mr. Turnbull's analysis around the increase of disinformation and threats and the intimidation of electoral people who work, very modestly remunerated—many of them volunteers—to help organize the elections. Those are ongoing challenges. I know that this committee will have some thoughtful reflections on how we can work together to strengthen those institutions, but the Leaders' Debates Commission, in our view, as I think Mr. Turnbull enunciated, is a critical part of that democratic infrastructure to ensure fair, accessible, open and transparent access.

That doesn't mean it's not without its own turbulence as well. Again, we've taken note of public and political comments around specific individuals who participated in some of those debates. Perhaps Mr. Johnston or his colleagues will have specific reflections on those individuals or how those persons were selected and what improvements might be made in the process in order to ensure that perhaps that doesn't happen, but I don't think we'll ever have a nationally televised broadcast leaders' debate in a vigorous election campaign in a country like Canada that doesn't generate controversy.

Some leaders will think they should have done better or wish they had done better. Some will think they did very well. The next day, the commentary will perhaps disagree with their own self-analysis. All of that is a normal part of this discourse, and that's why it's important to have it in the hands of independent, thoughtful people, which removes the idea that interest groups or private sector organizations are perhaps setting up these conversations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Therrien, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Everyone agrees that a serious mistake was made. Even the other party leaders reacted when it happened. My leader reacted immediately and the others reacted afterward.

But I'm not persuaded by the recommendations made.

The independence you have from the Commission is a good thing, in my opinion, and I have told you that. However, you saw that a serious mistake was made. The turbulence observed in our debates wasn't caused by politicians, as was the case in other countries; it was caused by the moderator. It has to be done. It doesn't just happen.

If the recommendations aren't enough, as I believe, and this kind of situation happens again, what will the Minister's reaction be then? What will he be able to do?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I agree with what Mr. Therrien has said. All the party leaders, including his, expressed major concerns about the question asked by the moderator and the way she conducted the English leaders' debate.

As an elected member of the House of Commons—obviously I'm not speaking for the Commission—I would have preferred there not to have been this kind of controversy. The situation was not particularly constructive and it left a bad impression. On that, I think I share the feelings expressed by Mr. Therrien's leader at the time.

However, that may be a role your committee should play, Madam Chair. You're going to be hearing Mr. Johnston and you will be able to read his report. The government is eager to see what the committee's recommendations and suggestions will be. If it decides to propose an adapted and improved structure in response to your recommendations, they will obviously be taken into consideration.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I'm pleased to have been invited to work on this question, because there is work to be done, in my opinion. It isn't over.

However, the recommendations I've read in no way convince me that we are safe from another equally catastrophic situation, and I use the word "catastrophic" intentionally.

An entire people was actually accused of using its laws to discriminate against a segment of the population, and that is totally unacceptable. I would remind you that the National Assembly unanimously denounced that notorious question.

Personally, I hope it will not happen again. Quebeckers deserve better than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Idlout, you have two and half minutes.

[Lori Idlout]

Qujannamiik, iksivautaq.

From my understanding, there were a lot of huge issues with the format and with the moderator in that it seemed to have become a platform for journalists. It seemed that in fact Canadians did not get a good sense of what the leaders' platforms were.

If there is going to be that sense of independence that is needed, how can there be assurance about those kinds of feedback about the moderator and that this is not a platform for journalists but is actually a leaders' debate that allows Canadians to learn who the leaders actually are?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

It won't surprise you that I obviously agree with the way Madame Idlout described the importance of Canadians being able to take note of the leaders' platforms and of the differences in views on issues that are important to them.

In the context of a general election, it is precisely that interaction between the leaders—the differences in views and of policies—that should be the most important result of one of these leaders' debates. It should not be a platform for anything other than facilitating, to the greatest extent possible, Canadians' understanding of leaders' platforms and of the values of their parties.

It's a contact sport. A national leaders televised debate is necessarily a critical moment in a national election campaign. As I said, our confidence in Mr. Johnston and his colleagues is very high. Done properly, it should offer Canadians that exact opportunity. We're confident that this is a work in progress and that we can all collectively find the best way forward.

[Lori Idlout]

Qujannamiik, iksivautaq.

I have just one very quick question. What is the appetite to ensure that moderators of debates are indigenous?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Obviously, Madam Chair, our government—and I think all Parliamentarians—have sought ways for Canadians to understand the contribution of indigenous peoples in every part of our society. I am obviously very proud of the Governor General that we chose to represent Canadians.

In the commission's judgment, as they reflect with their group of expert advisers and their independent advisory board, Mr. Johnston and his colleagues can speak to the appropriate structure, Madam Chair, but if this committee offers it to future commissions, that's exactly the kind of suggestion that I hope and believe would have an opportunity to be taken into consideration as they independently make these decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, committee members.

A special thank you goes to our minister, Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Stinson for joining us today.

With that, you are excused to proceed with the rest of your day. I'm sure there will be plenty of questions and plenty of opportunities for us to continue the conversation. Please keep well and safe.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madame Chair, thank you, and thank you to our colleagues.

I look forward to perhaps having an opportunity to appear again with your committee on legislation or other issues that the Prime Minister has confided to me. I was a member of this committee and enjoyed the many hours I spent on the issues that you study.

I thank you for inviting me this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

We will suspend while we switch panels. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will resume the meeting.

For the second part of our meeting, we have the Right Honourable David Johnston, the commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission, and his officials.

I will just declare that Mr. Johnston was my University of Waterloo president. His signature is on my paper. I want to put that out in the public forum: There is a bias towards Waterloo people.

Right Honourable David Johnston and officials, welcome to the PROC committee. The floor is yours.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston, Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. What a delight it is to be here with you.

I'm joined by my colleague Michel Cormier, executive director of the commission.

With me also is Chantal Ouimet, the Commission's Director of Communications and Public Relations. We are very lucky to have the team here, with [inaudible] behind, who is a star.

Thank you so much for inviting the Leaders' Debates Commission to review our main estimates. The commission is seeking a total of $454,000 in funding for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

You’ve asked us here today to discuss how the Commission is meeting its mandate and performing its role within its current funding arrangements, and to discuss the future plans and activities of the Commission.

After the 2021 experience, which drew significant stakeholder criticism, we carefully assessed positive and negative lessons learned and whether the LDC's continued existence is necessary. I will spend the next few minutes summarizing our 2021 report. We very much look forward to your advice. This is an iterative process. We learn as we go. We have much to gain from your assessment of the significance of debates in our society.

We have broken our mandate down into four questions.

First, were the debates accessible and widely distributed? More than 14 million Canadians watched the debates. The debates were available live on 36 TV stations, four radio networks and 115 digital streams with the emergence of digital. The debates were provided in 16 languages, plus accessible formats.

Second, were debate invitations issued on the basis of clear, open, and transparent participation criteria?

In 2021, the Commission set participation criteria and made them public in advance of the election. We also made public the rationale for how it would apply the criteria, as well as its decision on which party leaders met the criteria to be invited.

Third, were the debates effective, informative and compelling? There was widespread agreement that the 2021 debates did not deliver as well as they should have. The two major weaknesses identified were format and moderation. Stakeholders criticized the format as cluttered, restrictive and not allowing leaders enough time to engage in meaningful exchanges.

Fourth, were the debates organized to serve the public interest? We believe changes need to be made in the future to better serve the public interest.

Our 2021 report outlines our recommendations in detail, and here are some very brief highlights: The commission should have final approval over the format and should work with stakeholders between elections to develop a simplified format that best serves Canadians. The commission should select the debate moderator based on expert consultation; maintain sufficient permanent capacity between elections to ensure it can organize debates at short notice and, more generally, to cultivate relationships between elections to foster discussion both in Canada and other countries; and be headed by a debates commissioner whose appointment process involves consultation with the registered political parties represented in the House of Commons.

The commission should ultimately be established through legislation or similar mechanisms, in our view, with a periodic review process, such as every five years, in order to prioritize greater continuity, transparency and access to resources. Its institutional makeup should prioritize real and perceived operational independence, cost-effectiveness and administrative agility.

Over the next 12 months, we will be working to ensure the debates best serve the public interest. We intend to: consult with debate organizers internationally and in Canada on best practices related to format and moderation; write and issue a request for proposal to select the debate producer, and enable the Commission and the producer to start work between elections; and research and test debate formats.

If given the mandate to select the moderator, we will consult widely with experts to develop a transparent selection process; a detailed set of qualifications for the moderator, including capability, experience and political neutrality; and a due diligence process to ensure that the attributes in qualities being looked for by the commission are verified. We intend to work quite collaboratively with the debates producer.

Let me return to the $454,000 in funding that is being sought. Cost-effectiveness is fundamental. I have a Scottish heritage.

In our first mandate in 2019, we received $5.5 million and spent approximately $3.9 million. In our second mandate, 2021-22, we spent approximately $3.5 million.

We are a small secretariat, with only one full-time staff member and three part-time staff. We believe debates are important, but we also believe that they can be produced and organized with full regard for administrative efficiency and value for money. If it is decided that the Commission should become a more permanent structure, we will continue to operate with that as one of our core principles.

I am now prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for your comments.

We will start with a six-minute round.

The first person to have the floor will be Ms. Gladu, who will be followed by Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Therrien and Ms. Idlout.

Ms. Gladu, the floor is yours.

[Marilyn Gladu, Sarnia—Lambton, CPC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

My first question has to do with one of the parts of the estimate. We've heard that, with the NDP committing to support the Liberals through to 2025, we don't expect to have an election before then.

When we look at the professional and special services of $203,652 in every year that there's not an election, what is that money being spent to do?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

That would include some of the research capacity we bring on and the consultation we do. It would include the continuation of our information technology set-up and using our website, in particular, to broadly develop what it is we're working on and what the best practices are for debates, etc. It would include some degree of professional advice. I'm a lawyer, and lawyers, alas, are expensive, particularly when you get into litigious matters.

Michel, why don't you comment in more particularity on that expenditure category?