Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2017

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, you aired it on the news network.

[Jennifer McGuire]

That's right, and our election coverage is not only limited to covering the debates. I think if you did a content analysis of CBC's coverage of the election, you'd find Canadians were very well served with a lot of content about the campaign.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay.

I'll move on to CTV. In your opening comments, Ms. Freeman, you said, “We believe that it is in the best interest of democracy to expose as many Canadians as possible to our potential leaders as they debate the issues affecting our nation”.

Yet CTV saw fit to run a rerun of The Big Bang Theory, The Goldbergs, Saving Hope, and Gotham. I know that perhaps the finance minister took that to heart, and that's his Bruce Wayne complex, but again, how is airing these American television episodes doing anything when we had five debates being offered to Canadians and your network refused to air all of them? How is that serving Canadians' best interests?

[Wendy Freeman]

We were holding out in the hopes that we were going to have an English debate, which we would have aired on the main network. That never happened. We always hoped it would. We did run the French debate on our news channel, and we did stream it live.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Again, that was on your news channel. Why not the main network?

[Wendy Freeman]

It was because we were not putting on those debates. We were holding out that we were going to do that.

Again, as my colleague said earlier, there were production and journalistic values in putting things on. We wanted to put on our debate and, as I said earlier, we ran the French debate on our news channel. We live-streamed it, and we were hoping that we would have an English debate that would be far-reaching and put on our main networks.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The consortium is saying it's like the kid in the schoolyard. If you don't get your way, you're not playing.

[Troy Reeb]

I'll jump in on this one.

First, I'm assuming that you're not advocating that another company's product should be pushed onto a private broadcaster's airwaves.

Leaving that aside, the fact of the matter is that, as part of the consortium, there was a negotiation not just with the parties but between the networks as well. We are accountable for what runs on our airwaves, not only for the broadcast standards that are required but for meeting the standards of our journalistic principles and practices. I know that when we are organizing the debate with the other members of the consortium, those journalistic principles and practices are going to be met. We're part of producing that debate. We're not just willy-nilly going to take a product that is offered and comes down a pipe and put it onto airwaves that we're accountable for, and certainly not when it involves splashing a billboard for Maclean's magazine all over the set.

Beyond the other issues, I can speak very specifically on behalf of Corus, and on behalf of the private broadcaster, that the idea of having a product forced upon us simply isn't on.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm hoping that you're not now implying that someone like Paul Wells has journalistic standards that are willy-nilly.

[Jennifer McGuire]

No, but we....

[Troy Reeb]

I'm not trying to imply that at all, but I have no idea what kind of deal Rogers Communications may have done to create that debate. They were the producers of the debate behind the scenes. We knew for a fact as members of the consortium that one party in particular was seeking very friendly terms to try to participate in debates.

[Jennifer McGuire]

That was my other point. The negotiations for the debate are not only about when it happens and where it happens, but the terms of how the format happens, the kind of content. These are all part of those conversations. We as journalistic organizations had no visibility into that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

One of the suggestions that was made was that CPAC be given the authority to produce and broadcast the debates and then a mandatory carry for the major broadcast. Would you support that, if CPAC were to produce and distribute the debates and you simply pick up the feed for a manageable fee?

[Jennifer McGuire]

We're open to looking at any scenarios moving forward. To give you some context on what a robust production of a debate costs, in 2011 it was about $250,000 to put on that debate. That's before you count displaced ad revenue on all of the networks who replaced other programming, that is commercial programming, to air it.

Again, my point is that we're open to considering anything moving forward. We're here to be part of the process, but at the end of the day there are two issues. One, how do you make them happen? Two, how do you get Canadians to engage in them?

Both in our view are important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Before we go to Mr. Christopherson, just so both panels that are in the room know, we're extending this five minutes so Elizabeth May can participate. Then our second panel will be about 10 minutes later than our normal time frame.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, all, for being here. My first observation is that it's nice to see gender balance. It's very good.

Having said that, I have to tell you, given that you're all journalists and news agencies, I'm left at the end of your presentations with “what's the news?” You, Ms. Freeman, said you're open to working with an independent commission or commissioners. I've heard the collective message that the idea of a consortium method is good. You thought that's healthy.

We've heard in detail about how it all fell apart last time. I have to say that's what's really motivating me this time. It was, when the idea first came up, from having watched what happened last time and thinking that this is nuts. I don't know how much my party was culpable, too. I'm just saying a pox on all their houses. Canadians were let down. We have to fix this.

Having come all the way around, what would you recommend? I think maybe what you're saying is to keep the consortium idea. That would be part of the main debate. I'm really not clear on what it is you're urging us to do.

What is your perspective? You said you're willing to work if we go with an independent commission. Do you like that idea? Is that what you think we should do? Are you recommending that we stay out and let you continue to do it the way you have done it in the past and you're going to try to do a better job? What exactly are you recommending that we do?

[Jennifer McGuire]

We like the idea of a guaranteed debate and that it not be part of the negotiation process, open to the terms of when and where being defined. We think that having the big broadcasters involved in defining the production of it is advantageous in terms of having it reach a bigger audiences.

With respect to CPAC, I think the impact that you would have by having the production approach that has happened through the consortium would be far beneficial and have greater impact. It's guaranteeing that it happens but letting the production and journalistic frame happen through the journalistic organizations.

[Wendy Freeman]

That's not to say other debates couldn't happen either, around this. It would be for there to be one big English-language debate that all Canadians can watch with lots of others happening.

[Troy Reeb]

I'll reiterate what I said in my presentation, the more debates the better. Perhaps the consortium process would not have been necessary in the past had the campaigns been longer and parties been more willing to participate in more high-profile debates. It would be fantastic if each one of the networks up here and lots of other media organizations got to stage their own debates, but there is a limited appetite amongst those in the backrooms of your parties to do multiple debates. Therefore, there was an effort to come together to try to get one to stand out from the rest. That's the resulting consortium process.

We would be thrilled, I will only speak for us, to stage our own debate. But we don't want to start getting into battles with the other networks about who's going to get it this year, who's going to get it next year. That starts the process of going back and forth and trying to curry favour with the parties, which no one wants to get into.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The main question for us is whether or not there should be an independent entity of some sort and if so, what it would look like and things like that. I am still having some problems understanding your recommendations vis-à-vis that. I am not sure you've even spoken to that directly. I am trying to understand your message. The main thing you are trying to say is to preserve the consortium idea that there are the two big debates in both languages.

You don't really have as much comment on whether we would do that within a commission or with the Chief Electoral Officer—and that would be fine, too. I am just trying to understand exactly what your message is. As of yet, you haven't talked to us directly about whether there should be an independent entity. If so, do you have a preference in terms of what that would look like?

[Troy Reeb]

Again, I will speak for my organization, because I can't for my colleagues. Our preference is that there be as light a touch as possible. The independence of our news organization is sacrosanct to us, and we don't believe that there should be heavy regulation to try to mandate something when it comes to a debate.

To compel participation would be helpful. That's something that we have—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm the other way around. I have to tell you, my gut reaction is the other way around. If you are stupid enough not to go to a high-profile debate, hopefully you'll pay a price. In terms of regulating—

[Troy Reeb]

Some would say that happens but....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—if we don't step in and do something, there is a good chance we are going to end up in the mess we got into last time. You and I have known each other for a while, Troy. I have to say that, on this one, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. History will tell.

Is there anybody else?

[Michel Cormier]

I think the basic problem we have is that we don't have time to actually negotiate the terms of debate. We are just negotiating to see if there is a debate. If the best way to have a commitment from all parties, before the election is called, to participate in a national debate is through some kind of legal framework—