Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 1091
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me. Good afternoon. It's the afternoon in Fredericton, New Brunswick, where I am today.
Good afternoon, colleagues. I'm pleased to appear before your committee, before PROC. I was a member of PROC for a number of years, so I am familiar with the good work your committee does. It's a privilege for me to be here to discuss Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID-19 response.
Bill C‑19is our government's response to one of the priorities that the Prime Minister entrusted to me, namely to work with all Parliamentarians to ensure the passage of any amendments necessary to strengthen Elections Canada's ability to conduct an election during the pandemic and to allow Canadians to vote safely. Obviously, the time during which we work with you and hear your views on this issue is important to our government.
As the chair indicated, I am joined by two senior officials of the Privy Council Office, Al Sutherland and Manon Paquet. They will be available to answer technical questions or to offer a perspective that perhaps I'm not able to contribute.
We are fortunate to have a robust legislative regime in the Canada Elections Act and a world-class electoral management body in Elections Canada, which celebrated its 100th anniversary just last year.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been among the most challenging issues in generations, leading to far too many deaths and severely affecting vulnerable people around the world. Governments have, in turn, been forced to take unprecedented steps to stem the virus's spread.
While Canadians have demonstrated incredible resolve, they need to know that in spite of the pandemic, an election can be administered in a way that is safe, secure and accessible to all. Indeed, this topic has seized the attention of all elected officials and election bodies, as evidenced by the Chief Electoral Officer's call for temporary changes to the act and by your timely study, which put forward several recommendations in support of a safe election in these challenging times. We followed them closely and reflected them in many ways in Bill C-19.
Bill C-19 proposes changes that protect the health and safety of Canadians while allowing them to exercise their democratic rights. A three-day polling period will spread electors out and support physical distancing and other public health measures at polling stations. The three-day polling period specifically recognizes Monday as a voting day. We believe this to be important. Maintaining the Monday voting day recognizes that in some circumstances people might not be able to vote because of a religious obligation over the weekend and that public transit, together with child care options, may be more limited over the weekend. Thus, we thought keeping Monday as a voting day was important. Simply put, we're providing electors with as many opportunities as possible to vote should there be an election during the pandemic.
Bill C-19 would also support a safe vote in long-term care facilities and in facilities for persons living with disabilities. Sadly, as one of the most at-risk populations, the residents of these facilities have been gravely impacted by the pandemic. I think all of us were touched by some of the very difficult stories of COVID-19 in the context of long-term care homes. Bill C-19 would provide enhanced flexibility to election workers through a 13-day period during which they can work with long-term care facility staff to determine the most opportune dates and times to deliver the vote in those facilities.
To be clear, this does not mean that voting in long-term care facilities would take place over 13 days; it merely means that facilities would be able to determine for themselves the appropriate window for their residents to safely cast their ballots. This will support a vote that is safe for the residents, the election workers and the staff in these homes.
Holding a general election at any time requires an organizational tour de force. Canada is a large and diverse country, with 338 electoral districts of varying sizes and composition. In times of pandemic, the task is all the more daunting.
Public health circumstances across the country continue to evolve, pointing to a clear need for increased legislative authority for Elections Canada to react to any specific circumstance that may arise across the country in a particular electoral district. Accordingly, Bill C-19 would provide the Chief Electoral Officer with enhanced adaptation powers to adapt provisions of the act in support of the health and safety of electors and those working or volunteering at the polls themselves.
We have seen that jurisdictions across the country and around the globe have had elections during the pandemic and have seen a steep increase in mail-in voting. Research conducted by Elections Canada indicates that potentially up to five million electors may choose to vote by mail if there were an election during a pandemic.
At the federal level, Elections Canada has delivered this system safely and securely for decades, and there are important safeguards designed to maintain the secrecy and the integrity of the vote. Nothing in Bill C-19 would change that. In fact, we're proposing targeted mail-in voting measures to strengthen a system that we expect will see a surge in usage. Among its proposals, Bill C-19 will allow electors to apply online for a mail-in ballot and will establish secure mail receipt boxes across all polling stations for voters to drop off their ballots. To maintain the integrity of the vote, Bill C-19 includes strict prohibitions on installing or tampering with secure mail reception boxes.
Lastly, I would like to stress that the mail-in ballots cast within electoral districts will continue to be counted locally. As honourable members know, there was a drafting discrepancy between the English and French versions of a provision in Bill C-19 that made its meaning unclear. As a result, we will bring forward an amendment correcting this unfortunate error during the committee's clause-by-clause study of this bill. As you are aware, the Speaker ruled that this error can be corrected by the committee in studying the legislation.
Madam Chair, in conclusion, I would light to highlight three points.
First, these measures would be temporary, only applying in the event of an election held during an ongoing pandemic. These measures would cease to be in effect six months, or at an earlier date determined by the Chief Electoral Officer, after a notice that the Chief Electoral Officer publishes in the Canada Gazette that indicates the measures are no longer necessary in the context of COVID-19. This notice would obviously only be issued following consultations with the chief public health officer.
Second, the long-term care measures and adaptation powers would come into force immediately upon royal assent. The remaining measures, including the three-day polling period, would come into force 90 days following royal assent, or earlier, should the Chief Electoral Officer be satisfied that all the necessary preparations are in place.
Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate that our government is committed to working with all of you on the committee and with all members of the House of Commons to ensure that this legislation can be amended if it can be improved, but to ensure its passage as quickly as possible.
Madam Chair, thank you. I hope I haven't run over the time. I'm really looking forward to seeing some old friends who serve on your committee and to answering questions.
Thank you very much.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
We have obviously taken note of and read carefully the court's decision. We accept the court's decision. You will note that we did not seek to appeal the court's decision, because we accept those findings.
I don't disagree with your characterization that it may have been an unfortunate circumstance. I've been a minister for five years. We receive advice from different government departments, including the Department of Justice, obviously, on highly technical legal matters. We're accountable for those decisions; it's not the public servants who offer the advice or whom we encourage to appear before committees to speak freely about their work and answer technical questions from colleague parliamentarians. We expect that to be a healthy, normal and good part of the parliamentary process, but we certainly accept responsibility for that legislative change, as you said, in Bill C-76. We thought Bill C-76 had a lot of positive improvements in terms of the Canada Elections Act, but we're happy to work with other parties to add the word “knowingly” into that particular section, which the court struck down. We accept the court's decision and we would welcome advice from colleagues as to the best way to remedy that in a legislative process.
We don't think that dragging it before the courts is the best way, but I'm not insensitive to your comment, Mr. Nater. Obviously I don't disagree with the substance of your conclusion. I regret that this was the way that this particular clause was treated by the courts, but I fully accept the decision of the justice.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm just glad you didn't say “omnibus”, sir.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Nater, we do recognize, as you said, that the circumstance of the Chief Justice of Canada—Chief Justice Wagner—serving as the administrator is not an ideal circumstance in the long term. At the time Madame Payette resigned, I think that I, in my enthusiasm, got ahead of myself in hoping that the process that I was a part of—the advisory committee that the Prime Minister established to look at recommending a short list of outstanding Canadians to replace Madame Payette—would have concluded earlier.
The good news, from our perspective, is that we have finished our work. The Prime Minister will have our recommendations in the next few days, and I'm hoping, like you, that all Canadians can see who Her Majesty will summon to the office of Governor General in the next few weeks. We're at the end of a process.
I found it a fascinating process. Our group had, I think, 12 meetings. We had four volunteers. The Clerk of the Privy Council and I co-chaired the group, but we had four very busy volunteers who gave us their time to consider dozens and [Technical difficulty—Editor] It was interesting and it was very valuable, and I think we've arrived at an interesting list. The Prime Minister has not made a decision yet, but I think that should be coming in the not too distant future.
I do share your concern that having the Chief Justice.... I can't imagine that we would ever put the Chief Justice or even the Governor General.... I think you talked about political games, Mr. Nater. I can't imagine that any of us would be responsible for something so shocking as political games. However, I do recognize that it's an unusual moment to have the Chief Justice serving as the administrator, so hopefully his volunteer effort to help the country in that capacity will come to a conclusion soon.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, I thank my friend and colleague Mr. Lauzon for his question.
I fully share his sentiment. As parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to propose temporary improvements to the Canada Elections Act at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. It was his report to Parliament last fall that prompted the government to prepare a draft of the bill that is before you today.
I know that, as a Quebecker, he has certain concerns. In the CHSLDs, just like everywhere else in the country, we have seen some extremely difficult times in the context of the pandemic. My mother was in a nursing home in Ottawa and she died there a year and a half ago, before the pandemic. That home was one of the ones that suffered extremely painful consequences.
Like everyone else, I think, we're all concerned and we're trying to find a way for these people, who have built our country and contributed to its prosperity, to participate in the election. They should not be prevented or discouraged from voting and exercising their democratic right. They must be able to participate in the election safely.
My riding is a rural Acadian area of New Brunswick. On election day, there was a tradition. Mobile polling stations would go to a number of nursing homes—in your area they would be called CHSLDs or private homes. This allowed these folk to vote on election day. The polling station was there for an hour or two in a common room, where people went to vote. It was an enjoyable time for everyone.
In the context of COVID‑19, you don't want to move around to different long-term care homes because of the risk of infection and transmission. You can't put residents and staff in a situation that is not up to the desired health standards. The idea was to have 13 possible voting days. The chief electoral officer in each riding will contact the administrators of the CHSLDs to see how the vote can be conducted safely and with all the necessary precautions.
There's an idea I thought was great. Let's say there's an outbreak on one floor. You could have it so that only residents on that floor can vote at one polling station, and residents on other floors can vote at another. This gives a lot of flexibility. This will be done with the advice of health professionals. So we can organize the vote and not put people's lives at risk.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for your question.
Mr. Lauzon, I agree wholeheartedly that allowing greater access to voting—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
It was a fascinating answer.
What's going to happen? Mr. Nater wanted to hear my detailed explanation of mail-in voting. Perhaps I'll have the chance, Madam Chair, with another colleague who will want to hear that answer.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for your question, Mr. Therrien. It's a pleasure to see you again, even if it is virtually.
Quite the contrary, we were very much aware. Privy Council staff, people in my office and I, myself, followed the committee's proceedings. We spoke with our fellow members on the committee, so we were very much abreast of what was going on. We paid close attention to what the witnesses you mentioned had to say.
We decided to bring forward a draft bill just a few days before Christmas. I say “draft” because, as we all know, in a minority Parliament, the final product is the result of consensus among members. In order to start the conversation, we thought it was appropriate to introduce a draft bill that largely took into account the recommendations that followed and the input of the witnesses, which we took note of throughout the process.
We know that the members of the committee and other members will likely propose amendments and changes. As a government, we are more than willing to listen to suggestions aimed at making the bill better or perhaps addressing certain aspects that are not sufficiently dealt with in Bill C‑19.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Therrien for his question.
I hope it was not seen as a sign of disrespect. On the contrary, as a cabinet, we made a decision to bring forward a bill.
You're right that it was introduced a few days before the Christmas break. We were hoping it would spark discussion with members of the various parties. We were expecting that, come the new year, members would have discussed the legislation we had brought forward.
As I said, we followed the committee's work closely, including the comments of the witnesses who came before the committee. For instance, we did not agree with the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation to do away with Monday as a polling day and to limit the polling period to the weekend. We thought it was important to keep Monday. That said, we are quite open to changes that may be proposed and we are obviously eager to see how the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can improve the bill.
We are not purporting that this is the perfect bill, akin to some invisible web that cannot be changed or improved. We will obviously abide by the will of the committee and the members of the House of Commons. That is for sure.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for your question, Mr. Therrien.
Like you, I saw the evening news yesterday, and the number of cases in Quebec is way down; the situation around the country is really looking up.
Clearly, we all hope that the number of cases continues to drop, but that can change unexpectedly. Consider our friends in Manitoba, for instance. We hope that doesn't happen, of course.
We will let Elections Canada decide. We realize that the summer is fast approaching, but we hope that we can move this bill forward and that the Senate passes it before Parliament rises.
It will give the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada the discretionary authority to implement the necessary measures, together with local and provincial public health authorities. We will trust Election Canada's judgment as far as implementing the measures is concerned.
We, of course, hope that the bill will pass.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Blaikie, it's a privilege to see you in Winnipeg. You're two hours ahead of me. It is the afternoon here in Fredericton, but good morning to you, sir, in Winnipeg.
The Prime Minister has said clearly that we're not seeking an election and we're not looking for an election. We're focused, as all parliamentarians are—and as I know you, Mr. Blaikie, and your NDP caucus are—on what we can collectively do to protect Canadians during the course of the pandemic.
We think it's prudent—and I think you and I may have this in common, among [Technical difficulty—Editor]—not to be voting no confidence recklessly and often every time a confidence motion comes up. At least you have the virtue of being consistent in saying that you don't want a pandemic election and you want to focus on Canadians. That's what we've been saying. We have some colleagues who consistently and regularly vote no confidence. I've said that it's sort of like playing chicken, hoping the other person swerves.
We think it's responsible to have this legislation in place. However, as I said, we'll continue to focus on the economic recovery and the public health measures necessary for Canadians.
We have some colleagues in the House of Commons, although not in your party, Mr. Blaikie, and not in mine, who seem to want an election, who have publicly called for elections, early elections, and who regularly vote in a way that would trigger an immediate election. It's in that context that I think it's prudent to have this in place. That would be my—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie, for the question.
Our view, I hope, is a common sense one. The idea here is to put in place the right mix of temporary measures to allow Canadians to safely vote in the context of a potential pandemic election, and obviously to provide safety for the 250,000 people who would work at the polls across the country in an election and those who volunteer.
We've taken note of public comments you've made around the campus voting program. I believe, and the government believes, that Elections Canada should reinstate a campus voting program on campuses. It will reduce pressure in other polling stations and obviously encourage younger people to vote.
I love the idea from a conversation that you and I had. In my rural riding in New Brunswick, there is a Canada Post office in every small community, some of which aren't even incorporated municipalities. I think the postmaster or the postmistress who runs that post office is in a perfect position to be able to help people—often senior citizens, as you said—without Internet access, without photocopiers or scanners at home, to properly have pieces of ID. The idea is that Elections Canada might train these people to assist people applying for special ballots, and the same thing theoretically could be true at Service Canada locations in different communities.
I am hoping that the committee in its wisdom will take a broad view. We certainly will not object to something being beyond the scope of the legislation if it's designed to further our collective best efforts to come up with right mix of measures.
I have taken note of comments you made publicly and in your speech in the House of Commons, and you have identified a number of areas where I think we should quickly work collaboratively to improve the legislation and to adopt amendments. We will continue to work with you and all colleagues on the committee to look at those very issues that you raised, particularly to see how we can make mail-in ballots accessible. I have great faith in Canadians. I don't believe there are widespread examples of electoral fraud or of people trying to cheat on mail-in ballots. I think the opposite is the case. I think they are very secure.
I would really lean on the side of accessibility, including, as you say, in filling out the name of the candidate on a ballot. I voted for myself in a hospital in Montreal in the last election. I knew how to spell my own name, but I'm not sure that some people who wanted to vote for me might have got it exactly right. I think we have to think of flexible common sense ways to ensure that we can do that properly.
Thanks. I just wanted to get that corny line in, Madam Chair.
Did you feel sorry for me because I was—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
My wife voted in the hospital room with me, so I knew I had two votes.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I have seen a number of elections, as I am sure many colleagues have. You're right that if it's the Thanksgiving Monday.... I think we voted on a Tuesday in an election when I was a candidate precisely because Thanksgiving Day was a holiday on a Monday. However, we didn't have the circumstances you described. Our legislation prescribes a three-day polling period finishing on a Monday, but I would think it would be far from ideal, as you say, to run over a statutory holiday in that three-day period. We don't have that many long weekends in a year.
However, I'd be happy to get a technical answer from Al Sutherland, if you want, who is listening now—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Otherwise, not to cost you your time, we can get back to you in writing with a specific answer to that technical question, if it's helpful for the committee.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm going to ask Al Sutherland, assistant secretary to the cabinet, who is joining us, to confirm this. He can correct me.
It is the Prime Minister, I think, who has, within the legislation.... When he asks the Governor General for the writ, the Prime Minister I think has the discretion to suggest the length of the writ within the parameters of the legislation. I remember that in 2015 Mr. Harper called a 79-day election—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Sure. Of course.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Al, can you clarify that to make sure I haven't screwed it up?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, Ms. Vecchio, thank you for the question.
I certainly share your concern in terms of what we can all do, both as elected parliamentarians and as citizens in general, to increase public confidence in the electoral process. The Premier of Newfound and Labrador has been a long-time friend of mine. During that unprecedented circumstance, as you noted, 11 hours before the voting was to begin, the chief electoral officer in that province, because of a sharp increase in COVID cases driven by variants, kept pushing out the election day, and it went to literally all mail-in ballots. The turnout was historically low, I think, in that election, which is not something that any of us would want to see.
That's why we believe this piece of legislation is part of the answer. It's by no means the only answer or perfect answer, but things like making mail-in ballots more accessible, things like allowing nursing homes to vote—
Ms Karen Vecchio: Mr. LeBlanc—
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: —we think are part of the answer.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I don't want to pretend that I can table a conversation I had—
Ms. Karen Vecchio: That's okay—
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: —on a text or on the telephone with the premier, but—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
—what we can do....
Much of it may just have been foolish exchanges, because he's been a long-time buddy of mine, but what I'll be happy to do is ask Al Sutherland and Manon to ensure that any of the documents that we prepared in the context of working on this legislation, background documents or stuff that we may have received from Elections Canada, or anything that's appropriate, will be sent to the committee .
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, I heard the question clearly. In the interest of time, if you're okay, I'm prepared to answer.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you. It was nice to see Ms. May on the screen for a minute.
Mr. Turnbull, thank you for the question.
You're right. I think there has been some confusion—that might be the generous word for it—around the intention or the legal reality of these measures being temporary one-off measures for a potential election during a pandemic.
The Chief Electoral Officer was very clear. The suggestions he made in his report to Parliament last fall spoke of temporary changes that would sunset after the next election, should there be one in the context of a pandemic, or at a time where he concludes, based on the advice of the chief public health officer for Canada, that these measures are no longer required.
It is a technical question. I want Mr. Sutherland to ensure he can give the committee the very technical answer on why these provisions are not permanent. Mr. Turnbull, you raised an issue that's of legitimate concern.
Al, can you perhaps help Mr. Turnbull?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Turnbull, thank you for that question.
I said this in my opening remarks, and I think Mr. Therrien alluded to it as well. We saw in British Columbia a sharp increase in the number of mail-in ballots in that provincial general election. British Columbia is a big province with large urban centres and disparate rural communities. There was a sharp increase in mail-in ballots. The same thing, of course, was true in the United States in the presidential elections held last fall.
We thought that one of the challenges—and I noticed it when I was doing my own mail-in ballot in 2019—was that I had to literally photocopy pieces of a driver's licence and a medicare card to show residency, and then follow the rules and mail it to the chief returning officer in my constituency. At that point he returned the voting kit to me by mail. I completed it and put the different sealed envelopes together. I properly voted for myself and then I returned the ballot to him.
It struck me that if you were a senior citizen.... I was lucky that I had people who could help me get the paperwork done. I think we can collectively think of ways to make it more accessible while still keeping it secure.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
That's a very good technical question.
What we are proposing is broadening the discretionary authority of the Chief Electoral Officer so he can amend or adapt the provisions of the existing act to protect the health and safety of voters and polling staff. As I understand it, if the Chief Electoral Officer determines that a measure is not needed in a given region or for a particular reason, we will trust his judgment. I can follow up with a more detailed answer, if you like.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I don't want to mislead you. I see that Mr. Sutherland is taking notes right now. As far as I know, the answer is yes. I am not sure whether it is on an à-la-carte basis, so to speak, but for voting by mail, we expect that Elections Canada will put certain measures in place. I will follow up shortly with a more detailed answer.
Thank you for your question.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
No. I hope I didn't give that impression. That said, I can see how some voters might have religious obligations on the weekend, but not on Monday.
In my riding, voters who come to mind are those whose employers allow them to take a certain amount of time off in order to vote on election day. By law, employers have to give employees time off so they can vote. In addition, day care centres are open on Monday and not on the weekend. Monday was included as one of the three polling days for other reasons as well. In some regions, public transit runs more often on Monday with reduced service on the weekend.
That is why we are keeping Monday as one of the three polling days.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie, for the question.
I have had in my other responsibilities ongoing conversations with the government representative in the Senate, Senator Gold. At the end of a session there are typically a number of important pieces of government legislation. These include the budget implementation act and the net-zero accountability act, which is obviously important, I know, to your party and certainly to our government. We very much want the Senate to be in a position to study and adopt those bills. We want to see those bills, just as an example, get royal assent.
We feel the same way about this piece of legislation. I've expressed that to Senator Gold. I would hope that our colleagues in the Senate, who provide a very useful and in many cases a thorough study of legislation, may understand that these are time-limited measures designed specifically to protect Canadians in the context of a potential pandemic election and will find a way to do their work on an expedited basis and adopt this bill. We won't know, obviously, until that happens.
However, the minute this clears the House of Commons, Mr. Blaikie, I will be doing what I can with colleagues in the Senate, including experienced senators who have offered to sponsor this bill in the Senate. I would hope they'd recognize that this is an unusual circumstance and that the bill speaks to the electoral system, which is obviously of great interest to parliamentarians in the House of Commons, and that they could accommodate us, particularly if we arrive at a broad consensus in our House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, thank you.
Thank you to colleagues for this opportunity, and thank you to Al and Manon for joining us. I hope to see you again soon.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I've actually prepared 55 minutes of opening remarks, so I know colleagues will be quite excited to hear those, particularly my friend Todd Doherty I see there with Tom Lukiwski in the room.
Gentlemen, you have missed me so much that you're looking forward to this hour-long presentation, because I know you really want an hour-long discussion on the financial details of the Leaders' Debates Commission. I can't imagine why you would have invited me here to discuss anything else.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Todd, I was hoping you'd bring that up, or maybe Irving airplane transports to medical appointments would be another one we could talk about.
Colleagues and Madam Chair, I am very happy to be here. All joking aside. I am happy to see my colleagues. I've had a chance to see a number of you in Ottawa when I've been in and out over the last number of weeks, but it is a privilege to appear before your committee, PROC, Madam Chair.
I used to be a member of PROC in past Parliaments. I understand the important role of the PROC committee and the work you do, particularly around the Elections Act and democratic institutions, which are a core responsibility of your committee. It's in that context that I am obviously happy to be here today, and in particular to talk about, as I said, the financial estimates for the Leaders' Debates Commission.
As you noted, Madam Chair, I am joined by colleagues from the Privy Council Office, the assistant secretary, Allen Sutherland; and Madame Manon Paquet, who is a director in the democratic institutions group at Privy Council.
Colleagues, we have many reasons, as Canadians, to be proud of our democracy, but I think we don't need to look very far around the world to know that democracy is, in many contexts, very fragile. Protecting our values, institutions and practices is a challenge faced by all democracies and it requires constant vigilance. That's why I thank you, Madam Chair, and your colleagues on the committee for the ongoing work you do in this regard.
The Leaders' Debates Commission, and leaders' debates themselves, play an essential role in federal elections and are a cornerstone, in our view, of a healthy, vibrant and diverse democracy. Since its creation in 2018 the independent Leaders' Debates Commission has engaged Canadians in our federal elections and provided a platform for citizens to compare and learn more about prospective prime ministers and their ideas for our country.
While the commission receives administrative support from the Privy Council Office, it conducts its mandate with complete independence from government and does so, obviously, in the public interest. That's why, on November 6 of this year, I announced that the Leaders' Debates Commission, originally established to organize debates for the 2019 general election, would remain in place for the next general election as well.
I also announced the reappointment of the Right Honourable David Johnston to the position of commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission. I obviously thank the Right Honourable David Johnston for agreeing to continue this important work.
As you know, colleagues, the commission was established in 2018 with a mandate to organize political debates for, as I said, the 2019 general election. The commission delivered two leaders' debates, one in each official language, during that election, but also made available the debates in a number of additional languages, including indigenous languages. But we believe, and the commissioner believes, that we can continue to do more work in that regard as well.
In the following months the commission conducted a lessons learned exercise based on its initial experience with the 2019 election. This resulted in a recommendation report, which I tabled as you know in the House of Commons on June 1, 2020. This report included 10 precise recommendations that seek to inform future debates in Canada, but I think this was another example of the outstanding work that the Right Honourable David Johnston did for Canadians.
As President of the Privy Council I have been mandated by the Prime Minister to consider the report of Canada's leaders' debates commissioner on how to further improve leaders' debates and ensure they continue to be a central part of federal general elections.
The renewal of the commission's mandate will ensure that there will be debates for the next general election, regardless obviously of the timing, which is clearly more uncertain in a minority Parliament.
The supplementary estimates (B) include an amount of $4.6 million for the commission, which reflects the amount allocated in the 2018 federal budget. These funds are set into a frozen allotment and will only be available to the commission once the 44th general election is called.
The supplementary estimates (B) also include an amount of $800,000, which seeks to ensure that the commission can lead the necessary preparatory work ahead of the next general election.
This amount represents funds that were not spent by the commission during its initial mandate and have been moved, therefore, into the current fiscal year.
Madam Chair, before concluding, I would like to thank this committee for its ongoing study regarding the conduct of a federal election during a pandemic.
As the Chief Electoral Officer notes in his special report to Parliament, it is paramount that we protect the health and safety of electors, election workers, candidates and other persons involved in the conduct of an election while continuing to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.
I look forward to reviewing the upcoming committee report. I look forward to seeing your findings and recommendations, and learning how we in government can work with your committee to determine next steps. We understand the urgency of being ready, as requested by the Chief Electoral Officer. That's why the work your committee is doing right now is so important.
In conclusion, thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, through you, we obviously believe that it's important for the Leaders' Debates Commission to be prepared. We know that a general election in a minority Parliament can happen at any time. We think it behooves our democracy to have that structure in place to be prepared to organize independent debates when the next general election is ultimately called.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, it probably won't surprise you that I don't agree with that assertion.
I think the Right Honourable David Johnston is an example of an outstanding Canadian whose integrity and independence should be well known—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I wasn't a member of the debates commission, Madam Chair, so I wasn't at those meetings. The commission didn't report to me on the nature of those discussions they had as a debates commission. So no, obviously I'm not able to provide answers.
What I was going to say, Madam Chair, is that it is important to have a commission in place, led by somebody as credible as the Right Honourable David Johnston, with an advisory panel that obviously will be reconstituted now that the commission is going to be in place for the next general election. We will happily work with all parties in making suggestions for an advisory group.
Ultimately, Mr. Johnston is the appropriate person to decide who should be on this advisory group, and we trust his judgment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I hadn't thought about that, but again, Madam Chair, if the commission is to do its work independently, I'd want to reflect on the appropriateness of having active partisan persons involved, in an advisory capacity, with Commissioner Johnston. We could certainly raise this with Commissioner Johnston.
In the end, he benefits from a broad range of advice from non-partisan people. There is a process, for example, where political parties interact with Elections Canada in a well-established committee or structure that Elections Canada has for hearing from representatives of political parties.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm not sure that it behooves us to have political parties directly involved in the debates commission. I trust David Johnston. I think Canadians would as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
If I can, I'll go back to the beginning of your question, Todd. You said to table an oral update? What does that mean?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Sure, I can take a crack at that.
Todd, I will ask the assistant secretary to the cabinet, Allen Sutherland, about this. He probably has some of the detailed information you're looking for now. Obviously, if it's not adequate, we'd be happy to ensure that we provide to the committee, in writing, detailed information around that spending. Obviously we can do that, but Mr. Sutherland, I think, can offer some precision.
Mr. Sutherland will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason there was a placeholder of one dollar was simply that cabinet had not, by order in council, reconstituted the commission, as cabinet did some weeks ago. Therefore, the commission, now having been formally stood up again, is in a position to have a spending authority appropriate to what was done last time. But before the government had decided to recreate the commission.... I point out that the recreated commission would reflect the suggestions Commissioner Johnston made in his report of the 2019 election. We wanted to ensure that the recreated commission would track as much as possible the thoughtful suggestions that Commissioner Johnston had made to improve it.
Perhaps Assistant Secretary Sutherland can provide some of the detailed financial answers that Mr. Doherty is looking for.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I, too, share your view that Commissioner Johnston is exactly the appropriate person to lead this exercise. It won't surprise you or any colleagues, but I think he's probably the second-best governor general our country has had since Confederation—obviously, with my father ranking just slightly higher than him. He inspired Canadians in his work as governor general; he's an example of exactly the kind of worthy Canadian who can do a great service to Canada in that office. We see his continuing effort to voluntarily do this work. He's obviously doing this work in volunteering his time to lead this commission.
I think in previous general elections we recognized the inability that used to be referred to as a consortium debate, where different networks would get together and form a consortium, would have.... We can all remember some of the great moments: when Mr. Mulroney became prime minister, Pierre Trudeau's debates with Mr. Clark. I remember watching those as a kid. They were seminal moments in a general election campaign.
The media landscape has changed. The way Canadians consume news, the real risk of disinformation in an election context.... We thought that if we had a credible structure, like many other democracies have.... We saw in the United States that the presidential debates commission—in spite of the turbulence that that recent election saw—continued to function and to offer Americans debates with the two contenders to be president.
We think that having a structure that is independent and credible, that works obviously with party leaders—because they are the key participants in these exercises—and that can offer at least an English and French official language debate with access in a number of other languages simply helps to inform Canadians on the choices they have in a general election. It's something that Canadian voters can rely on to be fair and independent and, most importantly, accessible. If you were to do one on a specific television network that wasn't accessible in some parts of the country or in a language that wasn't accessible in other parts of the country, different private networks.... That was a challenge in previous elections. We think this is a good base to give everyone access to independent and well-structured debates.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for the question because it tracks very much, we believe, the suggestions that Commissioner Johnston made in his report to Parliament, which, as you know, I tabled at the beginning of June. His lessons learned thought that there should be a greater role for the Leaders' Debates Commission in the production, in the format, of the debates. I think those of us who watched the 2019 debates.... There were some concerns around the format, particularly in the English debate. I think Commissioner Johnston in his report acknowledged that.
Giving the professionals at the Leaders' Debates Commission a greater say in the production issues of the debate I think may provide a higher level of rigour, obviously respecting journalistic independence. We're talking about the structure of those debates.
Another thing would be ensuring that they're available in as many languages as possible, including indigenous languages. I think there were 10 languages in the previous debates that were accessible. I think that's the number—Allen Sutherland could correct me if I'm wrong—but, again, we can do more. We can do more to ensure that indigenous or other communities in the country are able to benefit from those debates in a language that is accessible to them.
Those are just two practical things that we hope and believe the Leaders' Debates Commission will focus on for the next general election.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
There are probably two areas off the top of my head.
Obviously, there is the timing. The commission was able to know that the last general election would be in October 2019. If we could get a quick consensus at the committee, perhaps, to have a report to Parliament saying that the next general election should be as planned in October 2023, that might be helpful for the commissioner's planning. In a minority Parliament, that's not a luxury that the commission will have. The timing of the election remains uncertain. I'm sure that the need to be prepared and to plan will be that much more important, as it is for Elections Canada generally.
The other unknown is what the context of the global coronavirus pandemic will be. We saw some of the discussions in the United States around having a debate where there would be plexiglass dividers between the podiums. They had two podiums in that debate. There will likely be more than two on the stage during our debates. Public health regulations and public health advice.... Assuming that election takes place where the context of COVID-19 is still a serious concern, it would behoove the commission to be very on top of public health advice to ensure that that can successfully be prosecuted as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Yes, Madam Chair. According to the figures I have, that's the amount the commission needed in 2019, and that's the same amount we're proposing now.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
As I understand it, the remaining $800,000 of the 2019 allocation has been transferred to this fiscal year for the commission's preparatory work. I want to give you specific answers, and Mr. Sutherland can correct me if I'm wrong.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Yes, assuming that for the fiscal year of the next election, the commission will require $4.6 million. The full amount may not have been required, as almost $1 million remained.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
That's it. As I said in response to a question from Ms. Petitpas, the context for the preparation of the debates will be a little different from the last time since the election date is unknown. I think that's a matter for Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Therrien, you probably know Michel Cormier, who was director general of the commission. He had a career as a journalist. He's an Acadian from New Brunswick, which warms my heart. He ended his journalism career as news director at Radio-Canada in Montreal. He worked with Commissioner Johnston, and I hope he will continue to help him in his work.
We will be able to provide you with very specific answers in writing, if that's better for you, and Mr. Sutherland will also be able to comment.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I fully agree with you about expenses directly related to the pandemic. I guess the amounts would be quite low.
I have never produced a national television event, and Mr. Cormier or the commissioner could provide a better explanation. Mr. Johnston's recommendation to give the commission a greater role in the production of the debates was accepted. In fact, it was recognized that the commission, which is independent, could play a greater role in the production of future debates. I guess part of the increase in costs is related to the greater role it will play in the production of the debates.
I received a lot of criticism about the production elements, especially for the English debate. I think it would be a way to promote consistency, like in the French debate, which I assessed as an observer. This reflects Mr. Johnston's desire in this regard.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Therrien, I'd be pleased to provide you with all these details in writing. Perhaps Mr. Sutherland can provide specifics. I've seen these details, but I don't have them in front of me.
Mr. Sutherland, can you help Mr. Therrien to understand this element?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
You'll recall, Mr. Therrien, that a lawsuit has been filed against the commission. This resulted in legal costs, as Mr. Sutherland said. I'm committed to providing you with an explanation.
I would be pleased to send you and all members of the committee, through the chair, details of these expenses.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Of course, Madam Chair.
Thank you for the opportunity and thank you, Mr. Blaikie, for raising obviously a critical issue: the idea of consulting Canadians on ways to improve our democracy and ways to improve the participation of Canadians. It's something we should be constantly focused on.
I can imagine the context of COVID presents, in and of itself, something that we need to be very aware of.
I don't propose, Madam Chair, to have a view on the agenda of your committee and how you choose to organize your meetings. Your committee properly has the mandate to look at issues around elections, the Canada Elections Act and voting, and I would certainly see that as a very appropriate forum to begin this conversation should your committee take up Mr. Blaikie's motion.
Obviously, as the minister responsible for Elections Canada, but with the help of Privy Council officials, I would be happy to provide any information we might have that would be useful should your committee decide to take up that issue. In terms of what might be in future spending estimates, we'll let the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board work on those.
I want to conclude, Madam Chair, by saluting Mr. Blaikie's service in Parliament. Daniel, I was a fan of your father's service as a long-standing member of Parliament. There is a small group of us: you would be in the group, and I might be. The Prime Minister himself is. Geoff Regan is. We are lucky enough to serve in an institution where our parents served. I remember fondly your father's service, and it is particularly a pleasure for me to see you at the committee this morning. I haven't had a chance to see you in the House of Commons, because we don't tend to cross over the aisle and talk to colleagues in a cheerful way as we might do if we sat near one another at a desk, but it is a privilege for me to see you here this morning and also to see you serving in the House of Commons.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, I would just point out that I neglected to mention that the Acadian people in New Brunswick have a number of institutions that have grown over the decades going back hundreds of years that all properly started with citizens' assemblies. That's how we adopted the Acadian flag. That's how the Société Nationale de l'Acadie was born. There are great examples where the Acadian populations from Atlantic provinces and Quebec have used citizens' assemblies to push forward not only our rights, but issues important to Acadians. I'm particularly sensitive to that forum.
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I believe they would because I believe that Canadians know that there's a—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
As I was saying, my belief is that Canadians know that there's a cost to having a free, open and fair democracy, and to have elections conducted with the highest level of integrity in the fairest and most accessible way possible.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I certainly liked the result of the 2015 election. I don't have to hide from you that I thought the result of that election was outstanding, but I did have a high level of discomfort as that election went on.
Mr. Harper originally called a 79-day election. I remember because it started in August and finished after Thanksgiving in October. Mr. Harper announced that he was not going to participate in what had been known as the consortium debate. Instead, Mr. Harper sort of cherry-picked a series of venues and debates that had limited access—whether it was a university campus or a network that perhaps was not accessible across the country or not accessible in both official languages—and there ended up being a hodgepodge of debates.
Clearly, I think the Prime Minister excelled in those debates. I was obviously proud of the way our leader did in those debates. The results speak for themselves, but there was a certain incoherence when the election began because Mr. Harper started by vandalizing what had been a long-standing tradition of these consortium-led debates.
The debates commission was our way to try to restore at least a basic platform that is fair and accessible across the country in both official languages in a reliable way. Leaders, of course, are free to pick and choose other debates they may wish to attend.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I think you should acknowledge that our government is spending a great deal on health preparedness in the—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Do you think we're spending too much on preparedness for the pandemic?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Make sure you leave me enough time to answer your questions, of course.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, I just want it to be very clear because a false connection was attempted to be made there. Whatever spending is appropriate to have a fair and independent credible debates commission in an election will in no way limit the government's very important responsibility to spend what is necessary for the health and safety of Canadians in a pandemic.
That is a false choice to pretend that, because we've decided to set up an independent, fair and robust debates commission, somehow it's going to take away from other investments necessary for the provinces and territories—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
[Technical difficulty—Editor]
Results: 1 - 60 of 1091 | Page: 1 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data