Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2022

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Let's say I'm a minister in a Liberal government and I want to set up a commission. With that said, I don't want to be accused of politicizing something that is part of voters' decision-making process in an election campaign.

That's what you did, and it's to your credit. You set up a commission that is independent of the government so the commission doesn't play politics. That's how I understand it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Absolutely.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

What happens when the Commission does play politics?

How do you feel when you observe that the Commission played politics in the English debate? That's what it did. How do you feel?

I'm telling you, the principle of this Commission is to your credit. You created this Commission so it couldn't play politics and so the debates would be as neutral as possible.

But in the English debate, as everyone saw in Quebec especially—in the rest of Canada, honestly, I don't know—is that during the debate, the Commission played politics. The question that was asked by a moderator, who is supposed to be neutral and objective, was so political that I wondered whether even an M.P. or a politician could have gone so far in a question in order to play politics.

Seriously, how do you feel about that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, obviously I'm aware of our colleague's comments.

It enjoyed imagining him as a Liberal minister. It warmed my heart.

More seriously, Madam Chair, I understand what he's saying. Obviously, we all saw what followed the English debate, in the public domain and in the context of the election campaign, and what it sparked in French Canada. The only point on which I disagree with my friend is that I don't think the Commission played politics. We have every confidence in Mr. Johnston, as in all the other people who took part in those discussions, such as Michel Cormier. Obviously, I didn't take part in those conversations.

It's an important question, that Mr. Johnson may be able to shed some light on. I think his report provides a reasonably frank and honest account. However, despite all the friendship I have for Mr. Therrien, I refuse to believe that the Commission played politics. That is the last thing I would accuse Mr. Johnston of in this context.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I think that raising points for discussion and arguing them, and passing judgment about situations in order to prove that one is right, is playing politics. That is what the moderator did.

Was the Commission playing politics through the moderator?

The Commission should have dissociated itself from what the moderator said, at the very least, and apologized. The moderator and the Commission didn't apologize. The people listening to us should go back and reread the question the moderator asked and ask themselves whether a politician might have talked like that to get votes, to change opinions, or to pass judgment. The answer is plainly yes.

Seeing that, we can't deny that there is an obvious problem. We have created an entity that is supposed to be apolitical and independent of the Minister's powers, which is to the Minister's credit. However, I look at the events that occurred and I think that an alarm has to be sounded. It makes absolutely no sense. We have to hope that the situation will be remedied.

I think you have a role to play in doing that. You can examine what the Commission did and discuss it. You can study the recommendations and make sure they mean that it will not happen again.

I have examined the recommendations carefully and I found nothing that guaranteed that a situation like that couldn't happen again.

Have you tried to sound the alarm and say that these recommendations contain nothing that would prevent this kind of situation happening all over again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Obviously, as I said, we all noted the post-debate comments and reactions Mr. Therrien is talking about. I have enormous confidence in Mr. Johnston and his team. They gave the matter thought after the 2021 debates as they did in 2019. To allow for better preparation, they intend to appoint a producer for the debates in advance.

In English, it was a producer.

I don't want to use the technical word in French, because it isn't accurate.

I think they thought about how to use the format to heighten the visibility of the debates. Personally, I think Canadians wanted to hear the leaders discuss public policy among themselves in the context of an election. At the outset, having that opportunity was a very big priority for me. So the members of the Commission can see whether they agree on that objective and assess whether it was achieved.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, Nunavut, NDP]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut ]

[English]

I will switch to English. I wanted to share in my language a thank you and a welcome to you on this important meeting.

I think ensuring that Canadians appreciate the position of the leaders is very important. The rest of the MPs who end up being elected follow the leadership very closely, and we want to work well with our leaders. I think these leadership debates are quite important, and I share my colleague's concerns about the last debate.

Before I get to specific questions, I also want to take the opportunity to thank you as the minister for infrastructure, because one of the decisions you made, which I think I had an influence on, was to fund the water crisis in Iqaluit. I'm very thankful for that.

I also want to quickly ask if you agree with recommendation number 7 from the commission. It states that the commission should ensure the debates are available in languages other than French and English, “paying special attention to Canada's Indigenous languages”.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

To Madame Idlout, I was also pleased that the government, with the city of Iqaluit and the territorial authorities, was able to address the very urgent crisis of safe, accessible drinking water in her territory's most important and most populous city.

When I met with the mayor, I was concerned about the amount of time that the work would take. It reminded me, and it should remind all Canadians, of the challenges of infrastructure projects in the territory and having access to the supplies, the materials and the workforce. We tend to think in southern Canada that the construction season may extend for many months, but that's not the case in Nunavut.

I'm glad that problem is on its way to being fixed. We have more work to do in that territory on infrastructure projects, and I would look happily on an opportunity to collaborate with the member of Parliament from Nunavut.

On recommendation 7, the government is very pleased that the commission recognized the importance of making these debates—for the reasons that our colleague very properly and I think compellingly described—as accessible and as available to as many Canadians as possible. Obviously, our collective efforts to ensure that indigenous languages are considered in this conversation are critical.

The commission has taken note of the work that this committee has done around the issue of indigenous languages in the context of the electoral process. Anything that the commission can do, in its judgment, to make them as accessible and as available as possible to the greatest number of Canadians is certainly something we would support.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Lori Idlout]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut]

[English]

There were two statements you made that drew my attention.

You mentioned the importance of the societal values and you also also talked about the highest degree of accessibility. Those two seem to be quite important, which we need to make sure are monitored and measured. In terms of these debates, it didn't sound like the journalists and the moderator shared these same values. How would you ensure, if there is to be another commission—or even without one—that the journalists and the moderators are sharing societal values and not excluding certain perspectives, such as ensuring indigenous languages during debates?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, again through you, thank you for the question.

When I spoke of societal values, I thought that those would be.... Certainly, for those of us around this table who are lucky enough to be the elected representatives of our communities, those societal values include things like an open, accessible, fair and free democracy. That is something that I know everybody who is honoured enough to sit in Canada's House of Commons aspires to.

Our democracy, like all democracies around the world, is not without challenges. However, as I think our colleague has correctly said, the ability of as many Canadians as possible to participate constructively in an informed and thoughtful way in the policy debates that should—and, in our view, do—form the basis of a national election campaign requires that they be available in as many languages as possible. One of the great strengths of our country is the many languages spoken on this land. In many cases, the longest-standing voices heard on our land are those of Inuit people and other indigenous peoples.

For me, it's absolutely important that the commission continues to examine that. We have every confidence that Commissioner Johnston and his staff will ensure the independence of the moderator and the producers and ensure that these factors are also part of that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that great exchange.

We will now move on to five minutes for Mr. Steinley, followed by five minutes for Mr. Turnbull.

I will give Mr. Therrien the floor next, and then Ms. Idlout. They will each have two and a half minutes.

You have the floor, Mr. Steinley.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have a couple of questions around the cost and the reasoning for the debates commission.

First of all, I want to make sure I have my numbers right, Minister LeBlanc. You said half a million dollars for this year, and then $700,000 and $700,000, and if there is an election year in 2024-25, $3.6 million.

Is that right on for the numbers that you gave us?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Yes. My information, Madam Chair, would be that budget 2021 made those allocations. However, as Mr. Sutherland explained, there is some flexibility in the context.

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

Excellent.

Mr. Sutherland made the comment that during a minority Parliament, you always have to be ready, so money had to be allocated. However, right now, after your backroom deal, there isn't much of a minority parliament; there's an NDP-Liberal majority government.

Does that money still have to be on the table? You made the deal that there won't be an election until 2024-25. What would that money be used for now?

You said that in a minority, you have to be ready, but now there shouldn't be an election until 2024-25, so what would that approximately $5.2 million be needed for, heading into the election in 2024-25?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, it won't surprise you that I disagree with our colleague's characterization of a Liberal-NDP majority government. I left the television on until the broadcast finished on election night and was very disappointed that it wasn't a Liberal majority government. Characterizing something as a “backroom deal” that's posted on the Internet and announced by two national political leaders in front of a large media contingent doesn't strike me as a secret backroom deal. It strikes me as—

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

Madam Chair, there is a deal. If there isn't going to be an election until 2024-25—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay. I'm going to—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the standing rules are that the witness has a relatively equal amount of time to answer the question without interruption, so I'd ask that Mr. Steinley control his emotions and allow the minister to finish answering his question.

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

I can move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to suspend for a quick second.

We on this committee do a very good job. We always have done and we will continue to. That is the goal. I know that the people who are members of this committee are here for the right reasons. I know we can continue to do this work and we are going to continue to do that work.

Can we put the train back on the tracks and remember why we're here? Let's get it done.

I paused the clock. Are we all good?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will resume the meeting.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Steinley, and then I will make sure Mr. LeBlanc has adequate time.

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

Madam Chair, I ask the question to Minister LeBlanc through you: Does he believe that $5.2 million is the best use of taxpayers' money when, prior to this, in the elections of 2011 and 2015, there were other groups willing to put on leadership debates that didn't cost the taxpayers a dime?