Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. Welcome back to the 80th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For members' information, we are now in public.

Today we are continuing our study on the creation of an independent commissioner responsible for leaders' debates.

We're pleased to have with us Paul Adams, associate professor, school of journalism and communication, Carleton University; Graham Fox, president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Research on Public Policy; and Jane Hilderman, executive director of Samara.

Thanks to all of you for being here and for coming on short notice. We know that you didn't have much time, but we really appreciate your expertise and we look forward to your input on this totally new project we've undertaken. You're our first witnesses, so it will be very exciting.

Who would like to start? Maybe we'll just go from left to right alphabetically.

Mr. Adams.

[Paul Adams, Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

For most Canadians, leaders' debates are as much a part of the election routine as lawn signs and paper ballots. Few likely give a thought to how precarious this important political tradition is.

Canadians have watched debates among party leaders in every federal election since 1968. These debates have provided voters with what might be called a third window on the election campaigns. The first window consists of party advertising mainly on television, although also increasingly now on social media. These ads are generally short, partial, and often negative. As I'm sure you will agree, at least with regard to your opponents' ads, some are even a little misleading. The second window is through the media. The media are changing, of course, but the so-called mainstream media continue to dominate. Their ability to connect voters to the political discourse is vital, as is their commentary and analysis.

As a former political reporter with both the CBC and the Globe up here on the Hill, and since 2005 a professor of journalism at Carleton, I can tell you that news coverage in elections, like any other news, is driven by what we call news values. These are not values in the moral sense. They are rules of thumb we use to determine what is newsworthy and what isn't. Two core news values are conflict and novelty. If there is conflict, if there is something new, then that makes the news. If there is not, it's harder to grab the media's attention and harder to get the public's attention. I think you'll agree with me, though, that neither conflict nor novelty are necessarily values that voters need in the course of an election campaign.

For much of my career, my view through this third window of the leadership debates was from the media room outside the hall where the debate was taking place. As I wrote my stories, I was guided by the search for conflict and novelty. Though I did strive to do better than that—I hope I sometimes succeeded—the fact is that news is news. When I left the news business and started watching the debates from the couch, with my wife by my side, I noticed something interesting. Often just when I got fidgety because I had heard it all before, my wife started getting interested. She was getting unmediated access to the leaders. She was getting context. She was hearing them describe their views at length in a way she wasn't getting from news clips. Usually it was the first time in the course of the campaign she got any of that.

There was something else I noticed. Often the zingers, the so-called knockout punches that caught my ears, had the opposite effect on her. She wasn't interested in the fist fight that reporters record and partisans cheer on. She was interested in the information as well as the glimpses into the characters of the candidates. It was helping her make up her mind.

For millions of Canadians, these debates are the central event of the campaign, the only time they sit down for two or three hours straight and concentrate on it. Then, at the coffee shop the next day, or on social media, or at Sunday dinner, they talk it through, based on their shared experiences with colleagues, friends, and families. Once again, Canadians have no idea how precarious this important tradition of leadership debates is.

For most of their history, the debates have been organized by a consortium of Canada's major broadcasters negotiating directly with the political parties. Naturally, and perfectly reasonably, during these negotiations the parties sought their partisan advantage in terms of the number of debates, their format, the subjects they would cover, and who would participate. Everybody understands that. Less well understood is that the broadcasters brought all kinds of self-interest of their own to the table. They didn't want the debates to pre-empt hockey games or revenue-producing American comedies and cop shows. They wanted to showcase their network stars. And because these debates would be on their networks, they wanted them to be good TV shows, meaning that conflict and novelty were values that to some degree they were interested in encouraging. They said they represented the public interest, but that was never completely true.

In the last election, Stephen Harper, for perhaps understandable reasons, tried to free himself from the shackles of the consortium. Instead, we ended up with a series of debates following different, uncoordinated formats at more or less arbitrary times.

There was something to be said for allowing 100 flowers to bloom, but we know for a fact that the voters were not as well served. The most watched debate was organized by Maclean'sbefore the writ was even dropped, and it had fewer than 40% of the number of viewers attracted to the 2011 English-language debate organized by the consortium.

Voters were denied the shared experience of a debate on the major networks in the late weeks of the campaign when many of them were finally making up their minds. It's time to institutionalize these debates that are so important to so many voters, just as we have made rules for spending, fundraising, advertising, and many other aspects of our campaigns. The debates should be organized by a body independent of the interests of either the parties or the networks. They should be organized in the public interest, in other words. That body could be Elections Canada or some stand-alone commission.

The aim of the debates should be to elicit information from the candidates while also providing significant interactions among them, with the understanding that there is no perfect format, and none will ever be entirely free from criticism.

The networks that enjoy the privilege—the very lucrative privilege—of access to our airwaves should be required to run the debates as the commission directs as a condition of licence. Party leaders, when they are invited, should be expected to show up. I would suggest some penalty if they do not, a substantial but not debilitating penalty, perhaps a period of several days during which that leader's party could not broadcast advertising.

Voters have come to expect and depend on their third window in the election, and we should make sure they have it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Fox.

[Graham Fox, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Research on Public Policy]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Fox.

Ms. Hilderman now has the floor.

[Jane Hilderman, Executive Director, Samara]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee.

My name is Jane Hilderman. I am Samara Canada's executive director. Samara is an independent, non-partisan charity dedicated to strengthening Canadian democracy through innovative research and original programming for our active citizens and leaders.

Thank you also to the committee for undertaking this study. Samara broadly supports the concept of stronger governance and clearer rules for the conduct of debates during elections. It sounds like I am in violent agreement with my fellow panellists. Debates matter. That said, research literature is a little divided on exactly how much debates can change the course of elections, but most would agree that leaders' debates are pinnacle events in elections and unique opportunities for voters to directly compare and evaluate the ideas and performance of party leaders.

Debates provide information to voters. In other words, they furnish a central democratic need. As such, the governance of debates should more closely reflect the approach to the governance of other aspects of elections. Currently, as we've heard, debates are largely ungoverned, their terms decided in an ad hoc and opaque way, and not always in the service of public interest.

We at Samara would welcome a move toward greater consistency, transparency, and impartiality in the governance of election debates. At the same time, in order to serve their intended function, debates must also attract and engage a changing public amidst new technologies that share information. An unduly bureaucratized or top-heavy system for organizing debates could also come at a cost, beyond just the material cost.

In short, we feel the committee should consider how to balance regulation with finding ways to permit the fluidity and dynamism that are needed for debates to stay relevant and reach a wide audience.

We believe it is useful to reflect on what should be accomplished in creating an officer or office to regulate federal debates. From a democratic standpoint, these are the two most important objectives in our view: first, to set some clear criteria concerning who should participate; and second, to institute a system of impartial decision-making, which should ensure that the public interest carries weight. As many have observed, the negotiations are otherwise dominated by the competing interests of some parties and some broadcasters. These basic principles are also reflected in how we regulate other aspects of elections, such as broadcast airtime, party spending, and the creation of electoral boundaries.

We look forward to hearing from parties and broadcasters at your future committee meetings. Given the opacity of the process up to this point, we think there is much learning to be done, for us at Samara as well as the public, to understand all the issues at play.

In our early thinking about this issue, we see a range of possible responses that the committee can consider, responses that strike different balances between regulation and flexibility.

The status quo exists at one extreme end of the spectrum, with little or no effective public oversight. There is little certainty over what the debates may look like in the next election. This is especially true given the breakdown of the consortium model in 2015.

A more modest response would be to consider the formation of something like a debates facilitator, who would help create a set of standards to be upheld during election debates. Broadcasters and parties would continue to negotiate the terms of the debate among themselves, as they have in the past, but would be expected to meet standards updated by the facilitator, which would include, for example, who is participating and the types of accessibility required for the debate to be broadcast. This facilitator could also act as an ombudsperson, issuing public, likely non-binding decisions about whether the debates meet the prescribed standards. This approach could be accomplished relatively simply. It would simply add a layer of public transparency to where we are at now. It would also be very limited in its leverage, as said, and leave decision-making to the traditional actors.

A more mid-range response could include entrenching in the Canada Elections Act the role of a debates arbitrator. There is already a broadcasting arbitrator in existence, which may offer a model worth examining in this context. According to the Canada Elections Act, section 332, the broadcasting arbitrator is appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer but “chosen by a unanimous decision of representatives of registered parties” in the House of Commons. Notably, the selection happens well in advance of an election. By law, it must happen within 90 days of the last general election polling day.

This broadcasting arbitrator's purpose is to make decisions about the allocation of broadcast airtime among parties, which is guaranteed under the Broadcasting Act. Notably too, this happens well in advance of the writ being dropped.

During the election, the arbitrator is referred conflicts between broadcasters and parties, and makes prompt decisions that are final and binding. It is conceivable that a debates arbitrator could help make final decisions about the structure, form, and content of debates in areas where the parties and broadcasters are not managing to come to an agreement or where external parties have made complaints.

Finally, the more maximal response would be to create that stand-alone, independent commission with a broad mandate for determining the content and distribution of debates. Under this model, responsibility would be shifted from the parties and broadcasters to a public body. As a consequence, it may be necessary to contemplate stronger legislative powers, including to compel participation or disincentivize absence from a debate, of both leaders and broadcasters, to ensure that those debates reach a wide audience.

Our initial reflection suggests that maybe this mid-range approach might be most appropriate at this time, given that we are embarking on a somewhat new area of regulation. We don't want to create a structure that may interfere with the ability of debate organizers to stay nimble and fast moving in the information and communications landscape.

The appeal of the arbitrator model is, first, impartiality, provided through the appointment process. The arbitrator would have a mandate from registered parties but upon appointment would assume that decision-making authority.

Second is transparency in decision-making. The broadcasting arbitrator currently uses a formula to allocate broadcasting time. Similarly, a debates arbitrator could establish a formula for determining thresholds for participation, perhaps with input on those criteria from a committee. That formula should be available publicly in advance of elections, with a rationale, and over time decisions made by that decision-making authority would create precedents. This also offers greater transparency as opposed to the backroom process involving multiple actors.

Third, the benefit of this model is that there's still fluidity. It does not require the creation of a full office parallel to something like the Chief Electoral Officer. It would not eliminate the relevant input of parties or broadcasters who, I do think, have insight into delivering an engaging debate to a wide audience.

I would emphasize that our thinking in this area is early, but I hope that these comments can help frame a discussion.

While I have your attention, I would like to make one final point that returns to an earlier point in this presentation, that voters need information to help make their decision on how to vote.

In the modern campaign, digital advertising and campaigning is eclipsing the influence of more traditional avenues, like TV and radio, and for that matter, leaders' debates. Digital advertising happens every day in a campaign. It's delivered by political parties, by third parties, and even by citizens, and it can be highly targeted to the recipient, yet there is minimal oversight as to how these tools are being used, and with what transparency and to what standard.

Writing in Policy Options today, researchers Fenwick McKelvey and Elizabeth Dubois note that artificial intelligence is changing campaigns, and we are not ready for it.

From a regulatory design perspective, this is a highly challenging area that will require some serious study to design an effective regime that can remain current with technologies as they evolve. As we are less than 700 days away from the next election, which will be more digital than ever before, this seems like a rather urgent area.

I make this point to put into perspective the conversation about leadership debates. They are important, but they may not be the most important policy issue when it comes to the information environment for voters today.

We look forward to the committee examining all the available options. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

That's a wonderful introduction to our study. There is lots for us to chew on.

Before we go to questions, I forgot to let the committee know that next Wednesday, November 29, at 4 p.m., we have an informal meeting with the Ghana delegation.

We're going to seven-minute rounds. The seven minutes include the questions and the answers.

We'll start with Mr. Simms.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests. This turned out to be a lot more enlightening than I'd imagined. I wasn't undervaluing your abilities; don't get me wrong.

Mr. Adams, you started out by talking about modern communications and advertising as short, partial, and negative; ergo, you have me to begin with as well. I'm not as negative, but the other two, I subscribe to.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I really liked your story that as a journalist you're guided by conflict and novelty, but it was your wife who was guided by the unfiltered access. This is probably the nub of the issue that we want to get to. I'm glad you brought that story up, but some of the things you mentioned seem, some might say, overly prescriptive.

To institutionalize the debates, a condition of licence for the broadcasters.... If a political party does not take part, on one side they will be disallowed any advertising for three or four days, or you could just say that come eight o'clock eastern time—8:30 in Newfoundland—you will find an empty podium on that stage: you're in it or you're not.

I guess this is a question for all three. In the United States, it's a not-for-profit organization. What we're talking about here is a commission, and some people in the last meeting alluded to the fact that some are appointed by government. I'm just trying, on the surface, to get how involved a commission should be. In other words, how arm's length from the government should it be, to start with?

[Paul Adams]

Let me address the role of the networks and the notion of it being a condition of licence. The experience we have from the last two elections is that it makes a big difference in terms of audience whether the major broadcast networks are involved or not. I can't repeat everything I've ever heard internally when I was working in broadcasting, but I know that the networks' participation is very much hinged on considerations that have nothing to do with the public interest or the voters' interest.

It's clear to me that when the major networks are all involved, it creates a critical mass of voters and a larger audience. A few hours once every four years is not a particularly onerous requirement. For sure, there will be losses. At the meeting organized by the IRPP, we heard some of those concerns from the networks, but those really don't concern me that much.

In terms of the leaders showing up, we have seen in other jurisdictions where leaders have skipped these that it's a question of expecting the leaders to show up for work. The voters have a right to access. As I said, I'm not trying to suggest that there's something wrong with advertising or wrong with journalism, but they provide a certain access for voters that's limited. The leaders' debates provide a different kind of access that's valuable to the voters.

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

In essence, you get these small clips of leaders constantly trying to talk over each other, neither one relinquishing the floor for obvious reasons.

Mr. Fox, it's good to see you again. I like your quote about exercising democracy. Exercising democracy today, however, requires a hell of a lot more platforms than there used to be. Mr. Adams talked about the networks, but we're branching out in all different directions when it comes to the Internet.

As the same sort of question, how do you see this commission? How closely do you see it involved in things like who's involved, what's involved, and what platforms you use?

[Graham Fox]

It's hard to imagine the commissioner not being involved in those kinds of things. There's been an evolution in language here that I may have made up in my own mind, but it seemed that in earlier iterations, they were talking about an independent commission for debates. I've noticed the expression “commissioner” now creep into more recent documents. My sense is that nuance is probably advised and useful to avoid building the massive bureaucracies that Jane was alluding to. It may allow for more flexibility.

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

If I may, very quickly, you would agree with what Ms. Hilderman was talking about, this...not arbitrator, but facilitator, as such?

[Graham Fox]

I think so. It has to be a

hub,

if you will, to bring in the multiple platforms.

I think there's a difference between compelling even traditional platforms—broadcasters and others—to carry the signal and bring it to citizens. My sense is that making a leader's participation a requirement may be more difficult to police, and you might leave it to paying a political price at the ballot box for not showing up. But I think at least in the early days you want to provide some flexibility because we don't yet know what this thing will be.

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

Exactly.

Ms. Hilderman, do you want to comment on that? I don't have a lot of time, but go ahead.

[Jane Hilderman]

I think, yes, there seems to be a balance here. If you want true independence, that independence often comes as you move farther away from both the partisan and the broadcaster's interests, which then means you need the ability of greater authority somehow. You need either a stick to wield or strong incentives to structure that versus leaving some room for that negotiation to happen among players in an election period.

Our point is that there's probably a role for a floor or some guidelines or aspirations for what we think we want to see and then allow for that flexibility to happen within a framework in elections.

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

Do you mean guidelines provided in coming legislation? I'm trying to nail down how prescriptive legislation needs to be when it comes to this model that you're talking about. I think you're on somewhat the same page, all three of you, maybe.

[Jane Hilderman]

That's a good question. I think it needs to lay out what the commission should accomplish. I'm not sure if we're as well served by legislation that prescribes precisely the criteria or precisely how things should be or how the decisions should be made; otherwise, there's no decision-making authority or flexibility.

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

Would Mr. Fox or Mr. Adams like to go ahead?

[Graham Fox]

I'd agree with that. Whatever this new entity will be, I think you'll want to give them some flexibility to adapt to the new environment. We're not sure how social media will play in future debate arrangements. I'm not sure you need to apply the same rules to every type of debate, particularly if we're looking for diversity. I think you want to empower and allow some flexibility.

To your point about whether the commissioner is appointed by government, you're going to want someone who has the trust of all political parties. Therefore, I think it is wise to spend some time thinking about whether it's a parliamentary process, but to make sure there is some buy-in from the get-go that this individual or these individuals have the confidence of those involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Adams, go ahead.

[Paul Adams]

Very quickly, I would just say that in each election campaign in this period, we're going to see the broadcast networks becoming less important. There shouldn't be a mistake made that they are not still the central, most important vehicle through which Canadians will access these debates. Another time may come, but we're not there yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, you have the floor.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you to all of our panel participants. I found all of your presentations very interesting.

I want to start by making an assertion that I'm pretty sure is correct. Professor Adams, you proposed a penalty for the party leaders who don't participate. You made a specific suggestion relating to the ability to run advertisements. I think by definition you'd agree with me it would require a statute. There's no non-statutory way of getting from where we are presently to your suggestion. Is that correct?