Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
First of all, may I commend the committee's decision to examine issues related to the governance and management of political party leaders' debates during election campaigns. I thank you sincerely for giving me this opportunity to contribute to your study.
My name is Graham Fox. I am the President of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, an independent, non-partisan research organization located in Montreal, whose research perspective is pan-Canadian.
There is no question that leaders' debates have become an important element of how we conduct federal elections and how citizens come to an electoral choice. I'm speaking here not so much of the clichéd knockout punch or pivotal moment in the campaign, but more of the less newsworthy, less dramatic opportunity for citizens to hear from their leaders, understand their policies, and come to a judgment on their character.
This morning I won't go on at length about the history of leaders' debates since 1968. I suspect that you know it very well. I will, rather, highlight the 2015 experience and its consequences as they appear to me.
Several of the points I'm going to raise are taken from a report the Institute for Research on Public Policy, or IRPP, published in March 2016, in co-operation with the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication and the Riddell Policy Management Program. This report summarizes the discussions held at a symposium we organized jointly a few weeks after the 2015 campaign, on the future of leaders' debates. Political party representatives, media consortium representatives, other journalists and university researchers were present at the symposium.
I note in passing that the report is available on the institute's website. It also contains a series of articles on the same issues published in Policy Options, the IRPP's digital magazine. I invite you to consult these articles and hope that they will be useful to you. I see that Mr. Scott Reid has a copy of the report on his desk.
Given that your study of leaders' debates is just getting under way, I will focus my remarks on issues that I think should frame the discussion on how to create the proposed independent commissioner and how we should think about its mission and its mandate.
I'll begin by going back to that symposium from December 2015, which was an instructive experience, to say the least. My first observation is that I was surprised at how strongly those involved in organizing the debates held their views. The event had been billed as a bit of a brainstorming session to imagine new ways of organizing debates, but not unlike the debates themselves, the discussion quickly took on the features of a zero-sum negotiation about who would have control over debates in future.
Despite these tensions, a consensus emerged that while the experience of 2015 was not entirely satisfying and that further changes were needed, it would be even less desirable to go back to the old ways. There were those who argued in favour of returning to the broadcast consortium model, and they certainly felt strongly about their position, but they were unquestionably in the minority.
So where do we go from here?
It seems to me that before examining the mechanisms of reform and the duties of the independent commissioner, it would be useful to reflect on three questions. Who should decide the format of debates, and what authority should be given to him? What should the nature of the exercise be, and what should be the format of the debates? How can we facilitate access to these debates for the greatest number of electors?
Who gets to decide, what is being decided, and how do we ensure wide and unfettered access to these debates?
As for who decides, until recently, it was relatively easy to come to an agreement on who should take part in the debates and who should make them available to citizens. The leaders of our three national parties seemed the logical choice, as they were the ones likely to become prime minister, and television seemed to be the logical means by which to make that debate accessible. Putting those two groups in a room together to hash out the details seemed reasonable; it made sense.
Today, however, the fragmentation of the party system and the technology-driven changes in the media and audience landscapes make those decisions much less obvious. Media organizations look to debates to hold party leaders to account. Political parties seek tactical advantage and an unmediated line of communication with voters. These are eminently reasonable positions, but what is missing in the equation is the interest of citizens.
More than broadcasters and political leaders, it seems clear to me that voters should own the debates, but to date, voters are the only ones not in the room when decisions are made. Whatever the model, we have to ensure that we put citizens' interests back at the centre of decision-making on the number and format of leaders' debates.
A commissioner could be mandated to be the defender of the interest of citizens, but that would necessarily have implications for determining whom the commissioner reports to and how the commissioner is to be held to account. Political parties and broadcasters have to be part of the conversation, but in my view, they should not lead it. Moreover, to add to the further transparency of the process, perhaps the independent commissioner should find ways to take those discussions out from behind closed doors to design debates in the public square.
What is being decided? In terms of the format and number of debates, there were general points of agreement coming out of the colloquium. Giving voters more rather than fewer opportunities to see their leaders in debate is a good thing. Providing at least one opportunity in each official language for all citizens to see the major party leaders debate the issues, and making that debate available across all platforms, is something that was missing in 2015, and it should be reintegrated into the debate schedule.
Just as importantly, the diversity in formats and approach that various media organizations took in 2015 may increase the interest of some voters and reach different audiences, and that should be encouraged even further. We should also explore other debates, not necessarily by party leaders, to focus on specific issues, regions, or demographic groups.
As a final point, the logistical issues related to who organizes debates, who pays for them, who hosts them are not small issues and cannot be divorced from the design issues you are considering when it comes to the independent commission or commissioner. They should therefore be incorporated into that larger debate and not be forgotten.
As for the accessibility of debates, several participants at the symposium noted that it was an important issue for many electors in 2015. Mr. Adams referred to this in his presentation. Without a large meeting and without a big lead-up and production, there were fewer electors who watched any of the five debates, as compared to those in previous elections, and that situation needs to be addressed.
The participants at the symposium did not have the opportunity to discuss this in detail, but some of them suggested appointing a host broadcaster, as is done for the Olympic Games, in order to ensure wide distribution. Others suggested that broadcasting the debates be made a condition to obtain a broadcasting licence. Others mentioned that social media could play a larger role by making a more structured contribution.
We certainly need to think about the incentives that could be created to encourage participation by all potential broadcasters, and about the power that could be given to the commissioner to formally impose a certain behaviour.
In closing, I'd like to make two observations. First, no participant, in the manner in which we organize debates today, is satisfied with the process. Even those who argue in favour of the consortium model have not been happy with their experience, and I think this supports your decision as a committee and the government's decision to examine not whether to reform the system, but how to do it.
Second, at the core we have to decide whether debates are an exercise in journalism or an exercise in democracy. That fundamental choice will shape every decision that comes next. Even at the expense of entertainment value, shifts in party fortunes, and exciting journalism, I would argue strongly in favour of viewing the debates as instruments of democracy. That is the lens that should guide you in your deliberations.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.